Sitting of 15 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Derbyshire, etc.) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a second time upon Monday next.
Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Port-Glasgow Gas and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], (by Order),
Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Massy's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Massy's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Massy's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[The Lord Advocate.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,—That they have agreed to,—
Maintenance of Live Stock Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions)." [Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations for Technical Schools, Schools of Art, and other Forms of Provision of further Education in England and Wales (in force from 1st August, 1915) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th July; Mr. Montagu]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 294.]
AIRCRAFT INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Report of the Aircraft Insurance Committee on the Government War Risks Insurance Scheme [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP).
Copy presented of Twenty-fourth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 283 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 295.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5446 and 544S [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (INDUSTRIAL DISEASES).
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 7th July, 1915, extending the provisions of Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. to other Diseases [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MUNITIONS.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Minister of Munitions under the Munitions of War Act 1915, with respect to the general ordering of the work in a controlled establishment [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Provisional Rules constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals made under the Munitions of War Act, 1915, by a Secretary of State as far as relates to offences and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

CALEDONIAN CANAL.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of One hundred and Tenth Report of the Commissioners of the Caledonian Canal [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 296.]
MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
GROUSE (CLOSE TIME) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    KIAO-CHAU.

      RETURN OF SIR EDWARD GREY.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any undertaking or agreement, subsequent to the outbreak of the War, has been made between the British and Japanese Governments relative to the present or future occupation of Kiao-Chau; and, if so, whether the rature of such arrangement can be given?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey)(who was received with general cheers on his return after illness): I must express my grateful thanks to the House for their very kind and sympathetic welcome.
      In answer to the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Hanley on 16th March. It was in the negative.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's representatives in China have received complaints or representations regarding the present difficulties or future status of British trading at Kiao-Chau; and, if so, what action has been taken?
      Sir E. GREY: The only outstanding question affecting British trade at Kiao-Chau is that of the levying of Customs duties, in regard to which representations have been received. This matter will be disposed of when the normal Customs administration is restored, which, I hope, will shortly take place.
      Mr. KING: May me assume that there is no express anxiety on the part of British traders as to the future of British trade there?
      Sir E. GREY: No, Sir; I will not say that there is no anxiety as to the future. There is always anxiety, of course, so far as the matter is not actually disposed of, and it cannot be disposed of until the normal Customs administration is restored.
      Mr. G. THORNEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has received any

      977
      information regarding the recrudescence at Kiao-Chau of the trade in and consumption of opium?
      Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having regard to the comparative absence of crime in Ireland, culminating in the blank or trivial calendars disclosed at the Assizes just held there, and to the fact that policemen, thus left without duties, are still seven times as numerous in Ireland as in this country in proportion to population, if he will say on what grounds he keeps that armed and drilled force idle in Ireland while offering inducements to peasants engaged in food production to abandon that occupation and enlist; and whether, on the grounds of economy and utility, he will first offer equal inducements to the Royal Irish Constabulary to the extent of half that force, and subsequently to the extent of the other half if required for the War?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The circumstances in Ireland, incorrectly appreciated in the hon. Member's question, are not such as to justify the reduction in the Royal Irish Constabulary suggested by him. A considerable number of the Royal Irish Constabulary have enlisted in the Army.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman offer facilities to encourage them to enlist, instead of tempting young peasants who are producing food?
    Mr. BIRRELL: We give every assistance for the enlistment of these gallant men, who display every desire to go, and, if more have not gone, I am afraid that it is not they but I who must bear the burden of it.

    CARDIFF LABOUR EXCHANGE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the First Commissioner of Works whether His Majesty's Government intend to proceed with the construction of a Labour Exchange at Cardiff, at a cost of £70,000, during the War?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): It is hoped to postpone the erection of the building referred to, and negotiations to this end are now being entered into.

    COTTON EXPORTS.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade the e amount of raw cotton and manufactured cotton, respectively, exported from the country to neutral countries during the last two months?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): During the months of May and June, 1915, the quantity of raw cotton re-exported from the United Kingdom to neutral countries amounted to 59,426,000 lbs., valued at £1,677,215. In the same period the value of all kinds of manufactured cotton goods exported and re-exported from the United Kingdom to neutral countries amounted to £5,335,955.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: For two months?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: For the months of May and June, 1915.

    CLYDE STEAMERS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the service of steamers on the Firth of Clyde has been considerably restricted by the requirements of the Admiralty; and whether he proposes to take any extra precautions to prevent dangerous overcrowding on those steamers now plying on the Firth?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The steamer service on the Clyde is limited to the minimum necessary, pleasure and excursion sailing being restricted as at all other ports. No reports have been received of overcrowding on the steamers, but the Board of Trade are being communicated with in case any special precautions are necessary.

    HOUSE RENT (GLASGOW).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the town council of Glasgow has brought to his notice the increases in the rents of working-class houses in Glasgow since the outbreak of war; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the French Government has introduced a Bill for the pur-

    979
    pose of regulating and reducing rents; and whether he proposes to take any action; and (2) whether he is aware that there has been an increase in the rent of working-class houses in Glasgow since the outbreak of the War, and that there are instances in which tenants have twice had their rents raised since August last; and whether he proposes to set up Fair-rent Courts in munitions areas?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There has been some, increase in working-class rents in certain districts of Glasgow, but no general upward movement throughout the country, such increases as have occurred being mainly owing, I am informed, to the rise in local rates. I am not aware of any French Bill on the subject, but a decree was promulgated in January last dealing with extension of time for payment of rent in certain cases—a point which in this country is sufficiently covered by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. As at present advised I doubt the need for fresh legislation setting up Fair-rent Courts, but should such necessity arise the Government will not fail to seek fresh powers.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases in which the rents have been raised twice since the War commenced?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have had a good many individual cases brought to my notice, but I had none in which they have been raised twice. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know what they are I will certainly inquire.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any expression of opinion that the increase of rental is not due to increase in rates but is sometimes due to the increased allowance to the dependants of soldiers, so that they could pay more?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I have heard that opinion expressed, but in the cases in which I have inquired the reason given in each case has been the increase in local rates.

    KHAKI WEAVING (WOMEN'S WAGES).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the information concerning piece rates of wages paid
    980
    to women for weaving khaki which was recently obtained by the War Office has been supplied to him; and if the information referred to includes the piece rates of wages paid to women who were then weaving khaki for sub-contractors as well as the piece rates of wages paid by persons and firms holding their contracts direct from the Government?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information obtained by the War Office as to the piece rates of wages paid to women for weaving khaki has been submitted by the War Office to the Board of Trade for examination. The information relates solely to weavers employed by firms holding their contracts direct from the Government.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Education whether costly requirements as to size of classes and class-rooms, cubic contents of air, new buildings and equipments, and the like conditions, are being relaxed during the War in order to effect the necessary economies in expenditure?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I may refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Newbury yesterday, and to the Board's Circular 903 of the 8th April last, a copy of which I am sending to him. On general grounds I am disposed to think that it is better that the erection of buildings should be postponed than that the standard of convenience, comfort, and suitability should be lowered during the War.
    Colonel PRYCE-JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether it is intended to open the new county school at Berriew, in view of the fact that there is no lack of school accommodation in the district and that the opening of the school would involve a large increase in the cost of education?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The necessity of a council school at Berriew was determined by the Board on the 18th July, 1913, after a public inquiry into all the circumstances of the case. The school has since been erected, and the arrangements in regard to the opening are a matter within the jurisdiction of the local education authority, and not of the Board of Education.
    Colonel PRYCE-JONESasked the President of the Board of Education if there is any intention to close the Church school at Cemmaes and, if so, on what grounds; and if, having regard to the feeling of the parents of children attending this school, he will refuse to sanction any proposal to close it?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The case of this little school is at present under the consideration of the Board.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great costliness of small schools, where often the individual cost per head is £6, £7, or £8, against £3 in large schools?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The Board is aware of that, and those are the things we have to take into consideration.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to close the small schools so as to save money?
    Mr. HENDERSON: We are going to take each case on its merits.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these schools are often situated in sparsely populated districts?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That is one of the factors we could not lose sight of.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the reasonable demands of the religious beliefs of the parents of the children attending those schools?

    APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that at the last meeting of the Port Talbot group of school managers a resolution was passed providing that no male teachers should be appointed during the War; whether this was done at the suggestion of the Glamorgan education authority; and whether such a policy has the sanction or approval of the Board of Education?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The Board of Education have no information with reference to the matters referred to in the hen Member's question, but I am making inquiries of the local education authority.

    REGISTERED LETTERS (FRANCE).
    Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that Mrs. Weedon, of 68, Bermondsey Street, S.E., was at a loss of £5 sent to her in a letter registered by her husband in France, who is serving there -with the Colours, and which loss the postal authorities in England refuse to make good, if he will cause notices to be posted in the post offices in the British Isles and, where possible, in France stating that any money or notes posted in France for relations in England will be sent at the owner's risk, even though registered and will not be made good if stolen or lost?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): My right hon. Friend is asking the authorities abroad whether they can arrange to give greater publicity to the fact that compensation is not payable in respect of losses of registered letters due to causes beyond control, and to suggest to the troops that remittances should be made by means of the money order system.

    SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (ORDINANCES).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary for Scotland if resolutions have been received from the university courts of the Scottish universities desiring that powers should be given to modify the application of particular ordinances to the case of students engaged in military or other war service; and if he is prepared to further that object?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. To give effect to the wishes of the universities legislation is necessary, and a Bill is being prepared which, I hope, will be introduced very shortly. I think it is very likely to be introduced in another place this afternoon.

    MUNITIONS.

      ROYAL GUN FACTORY.
      Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to whether the factory at Woolwich is working short time or is not fully occupied with work; whether he is aware of the uneasiness caused

      983
      amongst munition workers in the North who are being pressed to work and who, in many cases, are working long hours overtime; and whether, if there is such shortage of munition work at Woolwich, he can arrange for some of the workers there to come to the North and assist munition workers in the areas where the pressure of munition work is very great?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My attention has been drawn to a number of statements to the effect that men and machinery in the Royal Gun Factory at Woolwich are not fully employed, and I have already made inquiries into the matter. I propose to circulate with the Votes a statement in the form of brief notes dealing seriatim with the allegations which have been made, but I may here say, generally, that these allegations are untrue and misleading. Far from being short of work the Gun Factory could readily employ, if they could be secured, greater numbers of highly skilled men than have hitherto been obtainable. Any such uneasiness among munitions workers in the north as is referred to in the question is entirely devoid of any proper foundation.—[See Written Answers this date.]

      WAR BADGES.
      Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the subject of the issue of war badges to men engaged on War Office or Admiralty Work?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): Rules have been prepared under Section 8 (1) of the Munitions of War Act for regulating the issue and use of badges to persons engaged upon war work, and it is hoped that the consideration of them will be completed within a few days.
      Mr. TERRELL: Do I understand now that the hon. Member is not in a position to make any statement at all?
      Dr. ADDISON: I say that the rules are being prepared and are now under examination.

      ARTILLERY.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he can now bring up to date the figures showing the
      984
      monthly increase in the ratio of production of Artillery munitions from September to March?
      Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend does not think it is in the public interest that these figures should be given at present.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it was in the public interest to give the figures on 21st April and it is not now?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am not aware they were stated on 21st April.
      Mr. PRINGLE: They were.

      WOOLWICH ARSENAL (PHOTOGRAPHS).
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the Woolwich authorities on 5th July refused permission to a request made on 28th June by a news agency seeking permission to take a series of photographs to illustrate the busy scenes outside the Arsenal gates when the men arrive at work and leave for their dinner; and will he say what are the military reasons which prevent the public having this information?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Woolwich has been considered to be an area where photography is generally undesirable. My hon. Friend will, I think, on reflection recognise the difficulty of making exceptions and of securing that a special concession, if granted, is properly used. The duties of the police and of the military authorities are sufficiently onerous already, and it is undesirable to add to them that of supervising photographers.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Does my right hon. Friend know that on this particular occasion the War Office actually gave its permission, which was subsequently refused by the authorities at Woolwich?
      Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that, but I can quite understand it.

    SCOTTISH SOLDIERS (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked if Private John J. Anderson, 1,126, of the Cameron Highlanders, is still in the county hospital, Bedford; whether he has been there six months; whether he is convalescent and fit to travel; and, if so,

    985
    when will he be sent to his home to recuperate or to a convalescent hospital at or near his home at Nairn?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that Private Anderson was admitted to the county hospital at Bedford on 11th January and that he is still there. He is fit to travel, and instructions were issued several days ago for his transfer to the Scottish General Hospital, Aberdeen.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, as the relatives of many Highland soldiers cannot afford the journey to the South, he will endeavour to arrange that convalescent soldiers belonging to the North of Scotland shall, as far as practicable, be sent to convalescent hospitals in the North in the place of convalescent Belgians, whose relatives would prefer them to be in the South?
    Mr. TENNANT: Endeavours are being made to find a suitable place in the North for the establishment of a convalescent hospital.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are three hospitals in Morayshire chiefly occupied by Belgian soldiers? Is it not more suitable to send Scottish soldiers there?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that probably it would be if the accommodation were sufficient. It ought to be a fairly large establishment to be taken over by the Government.
    Mr. COWAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman take into account that these Scottish soldiers did not do well in the South?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am aware of the peculiarities of my countrymen, but I was not aware that that was one.

    ARMY AND NAVY REMITTANCES (INSURANCE).
    Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Prime Minister if arrangements can be made by which free insurance can be allowed to all men serving either in the Army or Navy for any sums remitted by them to relations in Great Britain, in order to prevent a recurrence of cases similar to that of Mrs. Weedon, of 68, Bermondsey Street, S.E., whose husband sent her £5 in a registered letter which was lost, and which the British postal authorities refuse to make good?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I regret that I could not recommend a system of free insurance, which might impose in certain circumstances a very considerable liability on the State. Money can be remitted from the Front without any such risk by the money orders obtainable at French post offices.

    INDEPENDENT LABOUR PARTY AND UNION OF DEMOCRATIC CONTROL.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, what steps can and will be taken to suppress the organs of the Independent Labour Party and the Union of Democratic Control?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The action of these and other organs is being carefully watched, and the question of increasing the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Regulations is being considered.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was not a member of the council of the Union of Democratic Control appointed a member of the Coalition Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: A Cabinet Minister.

    CHANCELLOR OF DUCHY OF LANCASTER (INTERVIEW).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lncaster recently gave an interview to a correspondent of a Dutch newspaper; and if he will say if the views expressed in that interview, and published in Holland, may be taken as expressing the views of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that my right hon. Friend gave an interview to a correspondent of a Dutch newspaper. The interview was unofficial, but nothing that my right hon. Friend is reported to have said appears to be inconsistent with the policy of His Majesty's Government.

    AMERICAN COTTON.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether, under existing arrangements, any of the American cotton crop

    987
    due for shipment in September can be shipped to Germany; and will he say when cotton will be made absolute contraband of war?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to what was said by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs this week.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Mr. M. BARLOWasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent statements by the President of the Board of Agriculture as to the possibility of the risk of food shortage, he will con-eider the appointment of a Minister of Food Supplies, who could co-ordinate all information and deal with the problem of our food supplies as a whole, whether produced in this country or abroad?
    The PRIME MINISTER: These matters are being carefully investigated by two Committees, and I am satisfied that the present arrangements are working satisfactorily.

    WELSH CHURCH (POSTPONEMENT) BILL.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer to the answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston, which was circulated with the Votes yesterday.
    Mr. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Suspensory Act only postpones the Welsh Church Act until the 18th September next, unless an Order in Council is promulgated? Does he therefore contemplate advising the issue of an Order in Council?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question on the Paper is with regard to the Postponement Bill.
    Mr. CECIL: The question of the Suspensory Act was raised yesterday, and no answer was given.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to refer to the answer which I circulated, he
    988
    will see that the Government propose to put themselves into communication with all the parties interested.
    Mr. CECIL: Are they taking steps to call that conference now?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt they are.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that seven non-Welsh Members have given notice to move the rejection of this Bill, while only five Welsh Members have done so? Will he give due weight to the English and Irish Members who are strongly opposed to the Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not counted the names. I think it is a case in which the old maxim applies—ponderanda sunt testimonia, non numeranda.

    PEACE TERMS.
    Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of taking steps to find out the terms of peace which the enemy Governments will entertain; and whether such terms will include the evacuation of Belgium and North-Eastern France?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: May I ask whether questions of this nature are not detrimental to the public interest?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter of opinion, upon which every Member must form his own judgment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Has not the Prime Minister made a declaration that terms of peace will be given to the enemy when we get to Berlin?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not the fact that both the Belgian people and the Belgian Government desire to see the Germans negotiated out of their country— [HON. MEMBERS: "Driven out!"]—and their country not blown to pieces?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must really appeal to the House not to sanction in the form either of questions on the Paper or, still less, of supplementary questions, inquiries of this nature.

    GREAT YARMOUTH AIR RAID (DAMAGES).
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury when the damages will be paid which have been assessed and agreed by the Government surveyors as the result of the bombs dropped by Zeppelins in the air raid at Great Yarmouth, and which are not affected by the insurance scheme of the Government against such damage?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Before payment it is necessary to obtain from each claimant a declaration that he has not been repaid the damage under an insurance policy. Forms of declaration for this purpose have now been posted, and when the declarations are satisfactory payments will be made as they return.
    Mr. FELL: It will not in any case be longer than the thirty days, which is stated as the time within which it will be paid under the insurance?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I hope not.

    CONVEYANCE OF PILOTS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that until recently local boatmen at Deal found employment in conveying pilots afloat and ashore, and that they have now been deprived of such employment through the use of cutters to do this work; and whether, in view of the fact that Deal and other coast resorts are suffering severely through the dearth of visitors, he will restore to the boatmen the opportunity of earning a livelihood by the conveyance of pilots?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The circumstances were represented to the Admiralty last April, and Trinity House was communicated with. As a result of the consideration given to the matter, the boatmen were informed that it was regretted that the exigencies of the public service in the district under existing circumstances did not permit of the reversion to the practice followed in peace time. The Admiralty regret that they are unable to modify this decision.

    WAR WORK (VOLUNTEERS).
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are many per-
    990
    sons who have served the Empire in various capacities who are now anxious and willing to do something towards the effective prosecution of the War; and whether he will give directions that offices shall be opened somewhat on the lines of Labour Exchanges, where the names and capabilities of applicants can be taken in the various localities?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN:I understand that the Board of Trade have made special arrangements to deal with offers of the nature referred to in the question, and I do not think it is necessary to open new local offices throughout the country for the purpose indicated. The Board of Trade will be glad to give to the hon. Gentleman particulars of the arrangements which they have made.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say of how many of these people he is going to use the services?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not say without notice.

    WAR OFFICE (CONVICTION OF CLERK).
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case in which a clerk in the War Office, named Octave William Trend, was convicted at Bow Street with having received bribes in connected with the grant of commissions, and was sentenced to four months' imprisonment in the second division; and whether he will take steps with the view of effectually stopping in his Department a crime so dangerous to the public interest?
    Mr. TENNANT: As soon as this matter came to notice, some time before the prosecution at Bow Street, steps were taken to prevent the recurrence of the irregularities referred to.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to have such cases as this dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act, where drastic and adequate punishment could be administered?
    Mr. TENNANT: lam not aware that the ordinary law is inadequately provided with penalties.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this was sufficient punishment for a crime so heinous?

    BRITISH ARMY IN FRANCE.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether, on 20th May, a request was made to the Secretary of State for War asking for permission to take photographs limited to a prescribed area illustrating the domestic camp life and amusements of the Army in France, and taken behind the actual area of operations; will he say why this letter was not acknowledged; what are the reasons, if any, why information should be kept from the public; and (2) whether he is aware that regimental records of the gallant deeds of our men at the front that have been obtained since the War by desire of the commanding officers for historical purposes, to be published after the War, have been entirely stopped by recent regulations under which each commanding officer has had to send in a signed statement declaring that there are no cameras in his command; and whether, seeing the value attached to these regimental records, some modification of these regulations can be made to enable commanding officers to authorise such records being taken to be published after the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to give me the name of the writer of the letter he refers to, or procure me a copy, as applications to photograph at the front have been numerous, and without further information I cannot trace the particular one he quotes. The use of cameras within the zone of operations is strictly forbidden for essential military reasons which are well known to the general staffs of all armies. It is not proposed to interfere with the discretion given to every Commander-in-Chief in such matters.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does my right hon. Friend know that the Brigade of Guards have had these photographs, to illustrate the gallant deeds of the regiments, taken from the beginning of the War up to the present time, and it has never been stopped till quite recently?
    Mr. TENNANT: Again I have to say that I was not aware of the fact that the Brigade of Guarde had taken photographs. If they did so, it must have been unknown to the authorities.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give the names of the British war
    992
    correspondents who have been permitted to accompany the Army in France and of the newspapers which they represent?
    Mr. TENNANT: As I have already informed the hon. Member on the 6th instant, five correspondents are at present allowed to be with the Army in France. They represent various groups of newspapers comprising the whole of the London and provincial Press. The correspondents are changed from time to time as may be desired by the groups they represent.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of those who are at present authorised?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think to give the names would be rather an invidious thing; perhaps my hon. Friend will not press for them.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will my hon. Friend give me the names if I do press for them?
    Mr. TENNANT: That shall receive my careful consideration.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I will put the question down again next week.

    INOCULATION.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on 28th June the H battery, Royal Horse Artillery, mobile section, 2nd Cavalry Brigade, who have been serving at the front for eleven months, were paraded and addressed by Colonel Bud-worth, who called the men who had exercised their legal right to refuse inoculation cowards, said he would like to hand them over to the Germans, threatened refusal of leave, and in some cases sent them to the trenches as punishment; whether the War Office sanction the calling men cowards and refusing leave after eleven months' fighting without a complaint; and whether he will reprimand this officer and protect from such treatment soldiers who have acted on the faith, of his word?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no information about this case, but if my hon. Friend's information be correct I feel sure that the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, in whose hands the discipline of the Expeditionary Force rests, would have taken proper notice of the matter.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman himself take some steps to secure that soldiers who have been fighting for nearly twelve months are protected from an outrage of this kind?
    Mr. TENNANT: I had contemplated bringing the matter to the notice of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, but on reflection and the recollection of the fact that we had promised to bring as few cases as possible to his notice, in order, so far as possible, not to interfere with the operations in the field, I forbore to do so.

    TRADE UNION ORGANISATION.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will inquire into the reason for the presence of a major and lieutenant at a trade union organising meeting held in the Labour Club, Town Street, Batley, on Tuesday, 29th June, at 7.30 p.m.?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am having inquiry made.

    OFFICIAL DISPATCHES (PUBLICATION).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state for what reason the news of the re-capture by the Germans of Hill 60 on the 5th May was officially concealed for more than two months; whether permission to publish the news was refused to the Press by the Censor; if so, for what reason; and whether it is proposed to discontinue the system of deceiving the public with regard to events well known to the enemy, in view of the fact that such a system undermines public confidence and encourages the growth of disquieting suspicion and rumours?
    Mr. TENNANT: No notification of the final position reached at Hill 60 as the result of the continued fighting at the beginning of May was received earlier than that in Sir J. French's dispatch of 15th June. Doubtless, the Commander-in-Chief had reasons for not making it the subject of an earlier report and it is not proposed to interfere with his discretion in such a matter. I may add that the German wireless message of the 7th May, which claimed a failure on the part of the British to wrest the hill from them, was passed for publication in the usual
    994
    manner. The actual fact appears to be that since about the 5th of May the hill has not been held by either side. The House will thus see that the public has in nowise been misled by reports issued or not issued by the War Office, and I would ask the hon. Member to avoid the use of the word deception in all cases, and more particularly where there is, as in the present instance, no justification for it.
    Mr. McNEILL: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why permission was refused to the Press to publish this information?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have already said that the German Wireless message was given to the Press in the usual manner. The only messages which we have had have been published without any censoring at all.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Has not this Hill 60 practically disappeared owing to battering and undermining?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I think that is so; and it shows the character of the hill.

    DARDANELLES OPERATIONS (SIR IAN HAMILTON'S DISPATCH).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked whether Sir Ian Hamilton's dispatch on the Dardanelles operations was published in the original form in which it was received without any alterations or omissions?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; with the exception of a passage which Sir Ian Hamilton agreed was of a nature to give valuable information to the enemy and was made into a separate dispatch.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (AMALGAMATION OF SERVICE UNITS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the policy of amalgamation of service units of the Territorial Force having now been definitely abandoned, it is intended also to abandon it in regard to the composite battalions, now in course of formation throughout the country, to 'which the Home-service officers, non-commissioned officers, and men from different units have been and are being constantly transferred without their consent, in contravention of

    995
    the express provision of the Territorial Forces Act, 1907, Section 7, Sub-section (4) (b), and to the injury of the esprit de corps of the battalions from which they have been transferred against their will?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Middleton Division on the 21st June. He will see that there has been no contravention of the Section of the Act referred to.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right lion. Gentleman appreciate the fact that the formation of these composite battalions, which are not for foreign service, but for Home defence, completely destroys the Territorial idea on which the force is based?
    Mr. TENNANT: As I have already informed the House, these amalgamations of several units are purely temporary, and it has been made manifest to these Territorial soldiers that they will not thereby be merged for any indefinite period of time and so as to lose their identity.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it proposed to increase these composite battalions by recruiting?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course, it is proposed by recruiting to do away with the necessity of forming them.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The question I asked was: Is it proposed to increase those composite battalions, to add to them, by new recruiting?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know that I can quite follow what my hon. Friend means. If we had sufficient numbers of drafts it would not be necessary to group these battalions at all. Therefore if recruiting should improve, or go on in such a way as to render it possible, we shall certainly do away with the whole of these mergings or amalgamations.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (RE-TRANSFER).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give favourable consideration to requests for re-transfer back to the Royal Army Medical Corps, if made by men who enlisted before the passing of the Army Act Amendment (No. 3) Act, who have been
    996
    transferred against their will from, this non-combatant branch of the Service to a combatant branch of the Service, having regard to the fact that the men in question enlisted in the belief and on the distinct understanding that their services would be utilised for the purpose for which they volunteered?
    Mr. TENNANT: Under instructions already issued men may be re-transferred to the Royal Army Medical Corps provided it is clearly established that they have conscientious scruples as regards taking life.

    MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Prime Minister whether before or since the formation of the Coalition Ministry any arrangement was come to between the parties as to the nature or character of magisterial appointments in England; can he state upon what principle appointments will be made in Ireland during the political truce; is he aware that those who claim to have prevented the proposed change in the Irish Lord Chancellorship are actively trying to have magistrates created; and can he intervene to prevent the appointment of the president and secretary of the Hibernians, one of whom holds several spirit licences, to the magisterial bench in Mitchelstown, North-East Cork?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is, I am informed by the Prime Minister, in the negative. As the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in the difficult task of selecting persons for appointment to the commission of the peace, always does his best to have regard to the claims of all parties, there can be no occasion to alter this principle of selection. I do not know of any particular activity at this time to have magistrates created—the desire appears unceasing. So far as the commission for county Cork is concerned, it was settled by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with Lord Bandon, lieutenant of the county, so long ago as the 16th of May last, and the Lord Chancellor tells me he does not know whether the persons referred to in the last part of the question are amongst those who are included in the list. The rule as to the possession of a spirit licence being an objection to the licensee holding a seat on the bench is an excellent one and ought,

    997
    in my opinion, never to be overlooked, but sometimes it is impossible to apply the rule with absolute strictness.
    Mr. HEALY: How soon after that question and answer shall we know the facts?

    WORK IN WAR TIME (LONDON TEACHERS).
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary for War whether an offer has been received from the London Teachers' Association of the services of 1,000 teachers for work in any capacity during the forthcoming holidays; and whether any use can be made of this offer?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot trace the particular offer referred to, but the War Office has received many offers of service during the forthcoming school holidays from individual teachers and from bodies of teachers. The difficulty of making use of them in the War Office lies in the fact that the period of service would be so short that the requisite experience and knowledge to make the service useful could hardly be obtained before the end of the holidays arrived. The spirit which prompted those offers is, however, fully appreciated.

    SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (AMMUNITION).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of a corporal in the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry who, on being charged at West Ham Court with being drunk and discharging a service rifle, was proved to have brought back with him 155 rounds of ammunition during five days' leave from the front; whether it is a common thing for soldiers returning to Canning Town to bring quantities of ammunition with them; whether it is with the knowledge and consent of the War Office that such quantities of ammunition are brought home by individual soldiers; and whether he has considered the objections to this practice?
    Mr. TENNANT: No information as to this case has reached the War Office, but orders have already been issued by the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief that no ammunition is to be brought to this country by soldiers returning on leave or otherwise.

    MEDICAL OFFICERS (WAR SERVICES).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the medical officers of Rochester, Chatham, and Gillingham are performing any services for the War Office; and, if so, will he state the amount of remuneration being paid to them?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In the case of Chatham the remuneration is 24s. a day and in the others 15s.

    INDIAN PRISONERS (TREATMENT).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he now has any information he can communicate to the House regarding the treatment of Indian wounded and prisoners of war by the Germans upon the field of battle and subsequently in confinement in Germany?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I regret to say that I have no information beyond that contained in the two reports already laid before the House, except that I understand that Indian prisoners of war in Germany are given full opportunity to perform their religious duties. Efforts are being made through diplomatic channels to obtain a special report on the case of Indian prisoners of war interned in Germany.

    BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE (ASSISTANT CLERKS' ENLISTMENT).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether two assistant clerks who recently joined the Army have been informed that their positions in the Board of Inland Revenue will not be kept open for them until after the War; and, if so, what reason is assigned for such a course having been taken?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I understand my hon. Friend to refer to two gentlemen who, without the Board's permission, left their civil posts in order to enlist. Their action in so doing involved the resignation of their appointments and they were informed to that effect.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of providing that, in the case of Civil servants appointed to temporary commissions in the Army for the period of the War, the balance of civil pay should not be reduced below 2s. 6d a day in the case of a second lieutenant and 1s. 6d. in the case of a lieutenant or captain, having in view the fact that the pay of an officer promoted from the ranks to a permanent commission exceeds the ordinary pay of other officers by these amounts, thereby showing that it is recognised as necessary that an officer should possess outside income to that extent?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans on the 14th ultimo.

    WAR LOAN.

      ISSUES THROUGH POST OFFICE.
      Mr. HAY MORGANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to issue bonds to bearer of the War Loan in small denominations as well as inscribed stock through the Post Office; and whether the dividends on the stock and upon the bonds, if issued, will be paid without deduction of Income Tax?
      Mr. McKENNA: Both bonds to bearer and inscribed stock of the War Loan will be issued through the Post Office, but in general inscribed stock in small denominations will persumably be preferred as the dividends on small holdings of such inscribed stock will be paid without deduction of Income Tax, whereas dividends on all bonds to bearer are necessarily subject to such deduction.

      PARLIAMENTARY WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Leaflet No. 4, issued by the Parliamentary War Savings Committee, advising the people to eat less meat, to be careful with their bread, to use home products whenever possible, and to use them sparingly, and to grow their own vegetables, has been distributed among persons frequenting fashionable hotels and country houses, and to the in habitants of houses in Park Lane, London, and all other large houses and mansions,
      1000
      as well as to working people in mills, and workshops; and, if not, whether he wilt arrange for the distribution among rich people of a similar leaflet giving additional advice as to possible savings of very large sums of money hitherto expended on unnecessary articles and services not mentioned in Leaflet No. 4?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The leaflets of the Parliamentary War Savings Committee are not intended for any particular class, but for all classes of the community, and the appeals of the Committee will be addressed to rich and poor alike.
      Mr. JOWETT: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to make some special circulation of leaflets to the classes mentioned in this question, as has been actually done in the case of the other classes?
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Has not the particular class referred to by the hon. Member given its life blood for the country more than any other class?
      Mr. McKENNA: I can only remind my hon. Friend that the particular leaflet to which he refers states that the new War Loan gives the poor man exactly the same opportunity to help his country and put by money for himself as it does to the richest amongst us, and the leaflet is obviously addressed to all.

    ASPHYXIATING GAS (WAR OFFICE POLICY).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the communication issued by the War Office to the Press on 11th July, in which it was stated that the Allies had not resorted to the use of gas against the enemy, is to be regarded as an indication that there is any change of policy in this matter from that already previously announced by the Secretary of State for War; and further can he state why, up to the present time, gas has not been used by our Forces in any part of the War area?
    Mr. TENNANT: The communiqué issued on the 11th July referred to the operations in the Gallipoli Peninsula, and was a denial of statements made by the Turks that gases had been used by the British Forces. There is no change of the policy announced by the Secretary of State in the House of Lords. It is not desirable to answer the last part of the question.

    PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) BILL.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill is retrospective or not, as there is a good deal of misconception in trade circles on the point?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend means does it apply to existing contracts, it does not propose to tear up existing contracts.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then it ought to.

    AIRCRAFT AND BOMBARDMENT INSURANCE.

      GOVERNMENT SCHEME.
      Mr. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Is it to be a condition of the aircraft insurance scheme that any person desiring protection under it must effect the insurance through the company which already holds the fire insurance; if so, is this not interfering with the right of the individual insurer to select the channel through which his business shall be placed?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: Application may be made through any fire office, and not necessarily through the fire office that insures the building, or application may be made to the State Office direct.

      Layard Collection.
      Mr. M. BARLOWasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Layard collection of pictures recently left to the British nation have been handed over to the British Embassy in Rome; whether it is proposed to house them there temporarily or permanently; and, if so, what arrangements have been made for their housing and safe custody while at the British Embassy in Rome?
      Sir E. GREY: The pictures belonging to the Layard collection are now stored at His Majesty's Embassy at Rome. This arrangement is merely temporary. I have no detailed information as to the measures taken for their safe custody, but I am confident that Sir Rennell Rodd has adopted every necessary precaution.

      Shanghai (Prosecution of Mr. Sheldon Ridge).
      Mr. YEOasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the British Legation at Peking was consulted before the recent prosecution of Mr. Sheldon Ridge, the editor of the "National Review" at Shanghai, for having published in his paper an article criticising the Chinese policy of His Majesty's Government; whether it approved of such prosecution; and whether, seeing that the jury acquitted the defendant, steps will be taken to ensure such penal action in future only being taken with the approval and under the instructions of His Majesty's Minister at Peking?
      Sir E. GREY: As regards the first part of the question, no report has been received from His Majesty's Minister in regard to the prosecution referred to, and I am, therefore, unable to say whether it had his approval. I would point out, however, that it is no part of the duties of His Majesty's Minister to direct the institution of proceedings in the Consular Courts in China, the responsibility for which rests with the Crown Advocate. His Majesty's Government do not contemplate making any change in this arrangement.

      Cork Post Office and Military Barracks (Robberies).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the total amount of money and value stolen from the Cork post office and the value of the goods stolen from the Cork military barracks recently, while the police, in uniform and in plain clothes, were engaged in shadowing Irish Volunteers; why no prosecution has followed either of those thefts; and whether the Cork people will be compelled to pay for extra police for political espionage, while the proper duties of a police force are neglected?
      Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that the recent loss of certain moneys in the Cork post office amounted to £325. The matter was investigated by the Department, the offer of assistance from the police being declined, and the absence of any prosecution is due to the fact that the thief has not been found. Thefts of military stores have taken place from time to time from the Cork military barracks, but I have no information as to the value of the articles taken. Prosecutions have invariably followed in those cases where the

      1003
      police had sufficient evidence. No payment is being made from local rates at Cork in respect of extra police.
      Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question. Does he not recognise that there would be evidence in those two cases if the police had discharged the duties for which they were appointed?
      Mr. BIRRELL: With regard to the reason why the Department declined the services of the police, was that the room in which the theft took place was one to which the public had no means of access, and therefore it was assumed that the police were not connected with the matter. That, at all events, is the reason why the services of the police were not accepted.

      National School Teachers (Ireland).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will say at what date favourable consideration was first promised to the claim of Irish national teachers to be paid their salaries monthly; whether the alleged cost of making this change has been found to be greatly exaggerated; and whether he is now in a position to say when the change will be made?
      Mr. BIRRELL: On 2nd March, 1910, I stated that the question whether arrangements could be made for a change from quarterly to monthly payments was under consideration, and I have since then expressed the hope which I still entertain that the Treasury might be willing at some date to place upon the Estimates a sum sufficient to enable it to be made. Proposals have been made to me with a view to avoiding the great cost, which has not been exaggerated, of effecting this change, but even if these proposals were to meet with the general approval of the teachers themselves, the present time would be inopportune for their adoption in view of the important increase in administrative expenses which must inevitably be occasioned.

      Old Age Pensions.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the number of old age pensions payable in Ireland on the last Friday of March, 1914, and on the last Friday of March, 1915, respectively?
      Mr. BIRRELL: The number of old age pensions payable in Ireland on the last Friday in March, 1914, was 202,202, and on the last Friday of March, 1915, 198,938.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the increase of £379,000 in the Old Age Pensions Estimates for 1915–16 over the amount of the pensions for 1914–15 is based on an anticipated increase in the number of old age pensioners in Great Britain only; and whether the number of old age pensioners in Ireland is estimated to be less, and, if so, by how many, for the year ending 31st March, 1916, than in the year ending 31st March, 1915?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The increase of £379,000 in the Old Age Pensions Estimate for 1915–16 is to the extent of £200,000 due to the fact that fifty-three weeks' pension will become payable during the year. It is anticipated that the number of pensioners in Great Britain will increase, but that the number of pensioners in Ireland on 31st March, 1916, will be somewhat less than the number on 31st March, 1915, but no trustworthy estimate has been or can be formed.

      Singapore (Mutiny).
      Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Court of Inquiry into the recent mutiny at Singapore has delivered its finding; whether it exercised jurisdiction over both military and Colonial Office officials; and whether the evidence and the finding of the Court in regard to this episode will be laid as a Parliamentary Paper upon the Table of the House?
      Mr. TENNANT: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The report of the Court of Inquiry has not yet been received in the War Office. I can, of course, make no statement regarding its publication until it has been examined.

      Postal Service (County Kilkenny).
      Mr. KEATINGasked the Post-master-General whether he will take steps to improve the postal service between Carrick-on-Suir and the parish of Wind-gap, Kilkenny, seeing that the former is the principal market town in the Windgap area; that no letter posted in the former at any time on Friday will be delivered in the latter before Monday; and no letter posted any day will be delivered before the

      1005
      second day following, although the distance is barely over seven miles?
      Mr. PIKE PEASE: My right hon. Friend is having inquiry made on the subject and he will write to the hon. Member.

      Welsh Church Commission.
      Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, and to what amount, expenditure is being incurred in connection with the Welsh Church Commission, particularly in salaries to the chairman or any other Commissioners; and whether he will consider the possibility of deferring operations involving such expenditure to a more appropriate time?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The work of the Commission is strictly limited to its statutory duty, and the expenditure, which amounts to about £260 a month, cannot be further reduced.
      Sir H. CRAIK: Am I to understand that the expenditure on salaries is at the large rate originally contemplated, and the chairman's salary now amounts to £2,700?
      Sir J. SIMON: No, I do not hink that is correct, but in any case the figure I give is not limited to salaries but covers the whole of the expenses.
      Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the fact that the chairman, in addition to a salary of £1,360, is to draw £1,500 from the funds of the Welsh Church. Is that going on?
      Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.
      Sir H. CRAIK: I have asked in the question what is the amount of the salaries?
      Mr. KING: As this expenditure is to go on, would it not be better to give them full work to do?

      Poor Law Orders (Revision Committee).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether the Departmental Committee of the Local Government Board for the revision of Poor Law Orders contains any of the same members who were responsible for the draft Relief Regulation Order, 1910, and the draft Poor Law Destitution Order, 1913, both of which had to be
      1006
      greatly modified before sanction; if so, will he give the names of such members; will he consider adding to the present Departmental Committee direct representatives of the working people; and (2) whether the Departmental Committee is now engaged in revising the Poor Law Orders as to the duties of relieving officers and other matters; whether he will see that any such Order before being sanctioned is laid before Parliament and the House given an opportunity of considering it; and will he refuse sanction to any proposed Order which takes away or diminishes the responsibilities and liabilities of relieving officers for the relief of the poor, especially in regard to such as are in a condition of sudden or urgent necessity?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): The Departmental Committee on the Poor Law Orders contains four members—Sir S. B. Provis, Sir J. S. Davy, Mr. W. T. Jerred, and Mr. T. Smith—who were members of the Committee at the time when they presented the Reports to which the hon. Member refers. The Committee are now examining the regulations respecting the duties of relieving officers and other Poor Law officers, and when I receive their Report I will consider whether it should be presented to Parliament. The nature of the work upon which the Committee is engaged is such that I do not think there would be any advantage in enlarging its membership in the manner suggested.

      Royal Dockyards.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked when the recorders at Devonport Dockyard may expect a reply to their petition?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The question is still under consideration, and I hope that a decision may be arrived at shortly.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Civil Service Commissioners have recently imposed a more severe medical test on men employed in the dockyards who are candidates for the established list; whether he is aware that the severity of this test has resulted in the rejection of men with over twenty years' service, one case being that of a man with twenty-five years' service, during the whole of which time his absence through sickness did not exceed three weeks; whether the increased severity of the test has been sanctioned by

      1007
      the Admiralty; and whether the matter will be reconsidered and a medical test imposed which will not reject men who have by long and constant service proved their fitness?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that the actual medical examination has been made more severe, but my hon. Friend no doubt refers to the fact that details of the candidates' medical history have now to be given in accordance with the general practice in the case of candidates for admission to the permanent service of the Crown. Whilst I can give no undertaking in the matter, I will consider the points put forward by my hon. Friend, and if he cares to give me details of any particular case, I will have them investigated.

      Royal Commission on Public Records.
      Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Public Records is sending questions to the town clerks of boroughs asking for information as to the records contained among the borough muniments of former borough courts and analogous matters; and whether, in view of the amount of public work connected with the War thrown upon these officials, he will consider the advisability of suspending all Royal Commissions during the period of the War?
      Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that the work of this Commission is nearly completed, and that to postpone it would involve great expense. The Commissioners say that they have experienced no difficulty in obtaining the information they require, except in one instance.

      Sacred Bulls at Muttra.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the municipal authorities at Muttra have impressed, for the purpose of drawing scavengers' carts, sacred bulls, one of which died from the treatment it received; and, if so, whether such action was sanctioned by the local authorities and the local government concerned?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information on the subject, but the local government, if approached by persons interested in the matter, will doubtless take any action which is necessary.
      Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it worth while to inquire?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am quite certain that the local government will do what is necessary. I am not here to supersede the ordinary action of local governments.

      Travancore.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any report regarding recent disturbances in Neyyatankarei and Parasala, in Travancore; and can he now say whether any advice running counter to the immemorial customs and prejudices of the inhabitants of the State was tendered by the British Resident, with or without the approval of the local government with which the Maharaja's government has political relations?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received no report on the subject of the hon. Member's question.
      Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not propose to.

      Pension Officers (Ireland).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether under the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, a resolution of both Houses of the Irish Parliament providing for the transfer of the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government will also involve that, at the date of such transfer, the pension officers then employed in Ireland will automatically cease to be officers of the Government of the United Kingdom and pass under the control of, and be paid by, the Irish Government; whether the total amount of their salaries will be included in the transferred sum; and whether it is intended that such transferred pension officers shall also continue to be employed, each in his own pension district as at present, in the collection of taxes, as long as the collection of taxes remains a reserved service, by arrangements for the purpose between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Irish Government?
      Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative, and consequently the other questions do not arise.

      Town Tenants' league, Sligo.
      Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the meeting under the auspices of the Town Tenants' League, of Sligo, publicly called for the 11th of July, to protest against the raising of rents of artisans' houses and against the threatened eviction of several tenants in Sligo for a refusal to pay the increased rent demanded, was proclaimed by his authority; if not, by whose authority was the said meeting proclaimed and what are the grounds for this proclamation; and whether, in the present crisis, the Government of Ireland are lending their aid to landlords for the purpose of enabling them to extort increased rents from the artisan classes in Sligo and other urban communities?
      Mr. BIRRELL: It was considered inadvisable that the meeting referred to should be held at the place for which it was advertised, namely, outside of the house of the landlord to be denounced. The police were accordingly instructed to inform the promoters that it would not be permitted to take place there. The meeting was thereupon held in the Sligo Town Hall without interference. There is no foundation for the suggestion made in the last part of the question.
      Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask who instructed the police to prevent the meeting being held as advertised? Did the right hon. Gentleman instruct them?
      Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Will the Prime Minister say what the business will be for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Second Beading of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill, and the other Bills on the Paper;
  And on Tuesday, the Vote of Credit.
  As to Wednesday and Thursday, I will make a statement on Monday.
  Sir J. D. REES: When will the Government of India Bill be taken? It is on the Paper, but not circulated.
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does the Secretary to the. Treasury propose to-night to take the Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill, and will he state whether the very contentious Clause relating to the powers of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland has received the sanction of the Irish Office?
  Mr. MONTAGU: We hope to take the Second Reading to-night.
  Mr. HEALY: Can I have an answer regarding the Clause relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland? Has it the sanction of the Irish Office?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think so.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: When is it proposed to take the Third Reading of the Pensions Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill is one of the measures intended to be covered by the last sentence of this Motion? I would like to take this opportunity of giving notice to the Law Officers of the Crown that if the Bill is taken I shall ask my usual question, with regard to the position of the Isle of Man to this country, particularly in view of the establishment there of a concentration camp. I wish to ask whether it is intended that this Motion shall cover the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That, on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Supplementary Estimates for new Services may be considered in Committee of Supply; and that Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."

  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN (REMISSION OF DEBTS).
  Committee to consider of authorising the remission of certain Debts in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans (King's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]
  SUPPLY.— [16TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.— [Progress.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.—Class VI.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £446,215, 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, 1916, for Superannuation, Compensation, compassionate, and Additional Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, for Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees." [NOTE.—£380,000 has been voted on account.]
    MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class VI.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,584, 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, 1916, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain." [NOTE.—£8,570 has been voted on account.]

    HOSPITALS AND CHARITIES, IRELAND.—Class VI.
    Resolved, "That a, sum, not exceeding £853, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the

    1023
    Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Hospitals and Infirmaries, and certain Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances in Ireland, including sundry Grants-in-Aid. [NOTE.—£16,000 has been voted on account.]

    TEMPORARY COMMISSION'S.—Class VI.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £15,000, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries." [NOTE.—£20,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: There is a point on this Vote of some importance to Scotland. On page 41 there are certain salaries, travelling expenses, and so forth for the Housing (Scotland) Commission. That Commission was appointed a very considerable time ago, and it was created in such a way that few Scottish Members of this House were put on it owing to the fact that we were engaged in party controversies here. I understand that this Commission has covered the ground in Scotland, and has accumulated all the facts with regard to housing. In our large cities in Scotland this question in particular is a very acute one, and so far we have seen no evidence of the results of this Commission. Consequently, in Scotland we are beginning to wonder whether this is a permanent Commission, and whether it is ever going to submit a report or not. I see there is a sum of £918 down for salaries, £500 for travelling expenses, £75 for shorthand writing, and £50 for incidental expenses, making £1,543 in all, or as much as the salary of an Under-Secretary of State, and all this is being expended on a Housing Commission which in ordinary circumstances ought to have reported long ago. Before we agree to this Vote I should like the Secretary for Scotland to give us some explanation. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not giving him notice, but the reason is that, as he knows, the Vote was only put down yesterday and hon. Members have not had time to examine the Vote; otherwise I should have given him the usual notice. I know the right hon. Gentleman is acquainted with the facts, and he will not
    1024
    be annoyed at being called upon now to give his colleagues some information as to how this matter stands and when we may expect this report.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): This Royal Commission had nearly finished taking evidence when the War broke out. I cannot obtain any information as to when they expect to report. They explain to me that many members of the Committee had been engaged in recruiting and other work connected with the War, and that has interfered with the work of the Commission. With regard to the nature of the Commission, they are just the type of men who would be very much occupied with the War, and that is the reason they give for the delay.
    Mr. MORTON: Can the Secretary for Scotland say whether he can reply to this question before the present Session ends? The right hon. Gentleman very properly says that he has no opportunity of getting information as to when this Royal Commission may be expected to report. He has told us that they practically finished taking evidence a year before the War broke out, but can he say whether we shall get the report of this Commission before the end of this Session?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, I do not think we shall get the report before the end of the Session.
    Mr. HOGGE: Shall we get it this year?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I really cannot say.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Under the circumstances, this Commission is quite useless. We now have a completely changed situation, and it is very improbable that this Commission will do anything during the course of the War, and it is equally certain that at the end of the War all the conditions in relation to housing in Scotland will be changed, and all the doings of this Commission will be out of date. Consequently, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should suspend the Commission, because their report will be quite useless, except as an historical document. In those circumstances, why should we be spending money in these times on a useless Royal Commission? Surely it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to suspend the Commission altogether and, afterwards, if circumstances justify the reviving of the Commission at the end

    1025
    of the War, we could have another inquiry into the new conditions, so that a report might be produced which would be up to date and be of some use to the Executive as to what is necessary.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I presume that, at the present time, all Departments and all channels of expenditure have been scrutinised carefully and closely with a view to seeing what economies can be effected. Here is a case which my hon. Friend has already pointed out in which considerable expenditure is now being incurred upon a result which cannot be useful. I think much more useful results would be achieved if the investigations were conducted when the situation becomes normal again. Cannot we have a reply as to whether this point has been considered, either by the Minister who represents the Scottish Office or the Minister who represents the Treasury, and who is supposed to keep a vigilant eye on these matters?
    Mr. BOOTH: I am a little loth to intervene in a purely Scotch debate, but information has reached me lately about this matter which inclines me to support the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle). Owing to the transfer of labour to a town like Greenock, the housing conditions which were bad before are hopelessly irreconcilable now. It is a wonder the people are not all driven to drink as a means of forgetting the deplorable conditions in which they live. It is largely owing to the action of the Government in drafting hundreds and thousands of people into that town without the slightest consideration as to their housing. At the present time we are forming, under recent emergency legislation, controlled areas with regard to the drink supply, and that will probably obtain during the War. I am hoping that valuable information will be derived from that source, and that when the period of the War is over those who have been administering this particular matter may be able to give very valuable opinion and advice to this Commission. It does seem to me, therefore, that it would be more serviceable to the country to save the money now and to have all these facts brought before them at the end of the War.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is what the Royal Commission has done; it has suspended its operations for the time being, and of course the expenses which were estimated for are not being incurred.
    Mr. HOGGE: They appear on the Estimates.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: These Estimates were made some time ago, and my hon. Friend must not assume that because a certain sum appears on the Estimates it is being spent. If there is any expenditure going on which is unnecessary, I quite agree that we ought to look into it. My own understanding was that no expenditure was going on; certainly no expenditure of the kind I have mentioned. If there is any expenditure going on which can be stopped, it is a matter which I am sure my right hon. Friend will be very glad to consider, and I shall be very glad myself to inquire into it. I cannot agree that the results of the investigations of this Commission will be thrown away. Of course, the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is one that suggests that it would be a good thing if this Royal Commission were kept in being, adding to its previous investigations by inquiring into such cases, where the conditions, of course, have been greatly affected by the War. The state of housing in that particular town has given us some concern. I think it would be well if this Royal Commission remained in being, spending little, and concluded its labours after the War.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I think that it would be very undesirable if the Secretary for Scotland were to assume that the Scottish Members as a body desired to see this Royal Commission on the housing conditions suppressed. I am quite sure that the Scottish Members are very sensible of the gravity of the problem, and are aware that it is as urgent to-day as ever it was. It would certainly be a far better proposition if we had the Report, which has been already drafted, and if the Commission were kept in being with a view of making a Supplementary Report if it were thought desirable. I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend's that the War will not affect the main facts that the Commission has already collected. The War will not turn a one-roomed house into a house with a greater number of rooms. The War will not make insanitary dwellings sanitary dwellings. I am very sensible indeed of the fact that despite the War everything that can be done by administration should be done to rectify the more serious part of the housing problem in Scotland. I

    1027
    therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will urge the Royal Commission to present its Report, and will not speedily assent to the dissolution of the Commission in view of the expenditure on the War.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    REPAYMENTS TO THE LOCAL LOANS FUND.—Class VI.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,387, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for making good certain sums written off from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund."
    IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GKANT.—Class VI.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, 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, 1916, for the Ireland Development Grant (Grant in Aid)." [NOTE.—£180,000 has been voted on account.]

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,889,000, 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, 1916, for the payment of Old Age Pensions in the United Kingdom, and for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith." [NOTE.—£5,200,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. WING: I wish to call the attention of the Treasury to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, especially in the county of Durham. When the Act was introduced pensions were regarded, not as a sole source of maintenance, but as an assistance, and that fact has led to their being supplemented in many ways. In the county of Durham it has led to various benevolent courses, one of which has been the building of cottage homes for aged miners. It is very well known that a late respected Member of this House, Mr. John Wilson, was very much interested in this great movement, and only last year had the honour of taking Her Majesty the Queen round to see some of these homes. A difficulty has arisen, and instead of the old age pension being regarded as a
    1028
    supplementary aid, as it was intended it should be, it has become the means of reducing the value of philanthropic effort. Men out of their contributions, together with the contributions of philanthropically-minded people, have built houses, the colliery proprietors in most instances having very generously given the land. We have hundreds of these cottages building in Durham at the present moment. There is no movement comparable with it in the world for number and extent.
    4.0 P.M.
    It was thought, in the first instance, that it would be a nice thing for a couple having the old age pension to have a house rent free and their coal free from the colliery proprietor. It was thought that it would make the last days of these old people pleasant. When the pension officer, however, goes round—and my point is that the administration is not equal throughout the country, it all depending upon the attitude of mind of the pension officer—he says, "Well, now, there is the rent of the house." He examines the house. I may say that the miners have tried to introduce what may be called model houses in Durham and other mining counties, and the officer fixes the rent of these at from 5s. to 7s. per week. Then he ascertains what coal is given, and he puts that down at 2s. per week. The applicant may also have arranged—being thrifty-minded—to get a grant from the permanent relief fund of, it may be, 3s. or 5s. per week. Thus by the time the pension officer has completed his calculations the old folks find that they have lost the pension, and the miner also discovers that instead of having supplemented his pension by his thriftiness his savings have actually gone to the Treasury, which is relieved of the duty of paying him the 5s. pension or, at any rate, has reduced that pension to 1s. or 2s. At the same time the colliery proprietor finds that his generosity towards his own servant has also gone to the relief of the Treasury.
    I want the right hon. Gentleman to be-good enough to see that the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act is made more even and equitable, and that the pension officers have instructions to do all they can to encourage rather than discourage this great movement. I would also like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that a very great benevolent object has been very largely destroyed by the action of the pension officers, who have used the thrift of the miner, the generosity

    1029
    of his fellows, and the generosity of the coal owner to relieve eventually the Treasury. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give us some satisfactory assurance that this matter will have his attention, and that these calculations shall in future be made on as low a basis as possible, and as equally as possible, in order that the great benefits which this Act was intended to confer may be reaped by those in whose interest it was passed.
    Mr. GALBRAITH: I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member in this matter. This is a real grievance in the county of Durham. The miner in his youth tries, and the owner generously helps him, to build a suitable home. But when he comes to the pension age, entitling him to a free house, the pension officer, in many cases without uniformity, values a cottage at too high a rent, and thereby so increases the amount of the man's income that his pension is seriously reduced. It would be well for something to be done to secure a more humane line of action on the part of pension officers. In my own area the pensions committee, of which I am chairman, have found that many old men, worn out and broken down, have, owing to the application of too high a value to these cottages, had their pensions reduced from 5s. to 4s., 3s., and 2s., and in some cases the pensions have gone altogether. If something could be done to remove this grievance, I feel it would be a gracious act that would redound to the credit of all.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I wish to support what has been said by the last two speakers. This is a very real grievance in the county of Durham, and, no doubt, in other parts of the country. But in Durham particularly this system of aged miners' homes has been developed to an extent of which the whole county is proud, and to use it as a means for reducing the old age pensions of these people is contrary to public policy and inflicts a great hardship upon them. It amounts to this: It penalises altogether the attempt of the miners and their friends to help the aged, and the net result is that the money subscribed in order to assist these old people really goes in relief of the Treasury and the taxpayer. I hope that this will be taken into very serious consideration and a remedy found.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I have every sympathy with the speeches which have
    1030
    just been delivered by hon. Members from Durham, but I do not think the case is as simple as they have represented it to be. Parliament has enacted that, in the allocation of pensions, it is necessary to estimate the means of the recipient, and the rent of their houses has to be taken into account. If those means exceed a certain sum they are debarred by Statute from obtaining the full pension, and in certain cases they cannot have a pension at all. That may, in the mind of my hon. Friends and in the mind of many Members of this House, be a wrong method. But we, in administering this Act, cannot get away from it, and if the old age pensioner, either by his own act or as a result of the philanthropic efforts of somebody interested in him, has his means increased, according to the definition of means laid down in the Statute, and with the best intentions in the world, neither the Government nor the pension officer can interfere and give him a bigger pension. But there is a second point in my hon. Friends' case, and that is that these cottages are estimated by the pension officers at too high a rental value, and that there are inequalities in different counties. Under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act there is an appeal from the decision of the pension officer to the Local Government Board; and in regard to the suggestions of inequalities in administration which have been made in the course of this Debate, I will, with my hon. Friends' permission, convey their complaints to the Local Government Board, and endeavour, with the assistance of the President of that Board, to ascertain if complaints have been received from Durham, and if there is any ground for believing that there are inequalities in this matter which can be remedied.
    Mr. WING: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will undertake not to inquire whether complaints have been received, but to investigate into any complaints which may now be forwarded.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I shall be very glad if the hon. Gentleman will give me details of any such cases, and I will undertake to forward them to the Department concerned.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not think that this matter is disposed of by the speech and attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. There are many cases, not only in Durham but in other parts of the country, of considerable individual hardship, owing to

    1031
    the capricious action of pension officers. It is true that the applicant for a pension is entitled to appeal to the Local Government Board. But in how many cases could an old man or an old woman—seventy years of age—make such an appeal, and how often are they qualified to state their case as against that put forward by the pension officer? A great deal might be done by way of instruction to these officers that, instead of taking a narrow and ungenerous interpretation of the Old Age Pensions Act, they should interpret it generously and in a fair spirit towards those in the position described by my hon. Friends, Members for the various Divisions of Durham. It applies not only to the cases of those who hold houses, but also to cases where pensioners are receiving contributions from relatives, because the effect of receiving such contributions is that in many cases they are calculated in the income to the detriment of the aged person and result in reducing the pension.
    In both of these respects the pension officer should be instructed to give encouragement to aged persons who have been thrifty in their earlier days rather than to cast discouragement in their path. One effect of this harsh policy on the part of pension officers has been to create evasions of the law. I have heard of many cases in various parts of the country where parents who owned houses have, on nearing the pension age, transferred them to their children, whilst still remaining in occupation and paying no rent, because they know that if the house is not in their name, although they are really in beneficial occupation, they will get a pension, whereas others, who are perfectly honest and do not make the transfer, lose the pension. The administration of the Act in that way puts a premium upon dishonesty. It discourages thrift, and such administration consequently should not be permitted. As far as possible, in the terms of the Act, the pension officer should be instructed by the Treasury or by the Local Government Board to interpret and administer the Act favourably towards those who have been well conducted and thrifty members of society during their working days
    Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do nothing of the kind. Pensions already cost us £13,000,000 a year, money which it is very difficult to find, and it is quite wrong that an Act of Parliament should be interpreted in any dif-
    1032
    ferent sense to that in which it is couched. The Act says, rightly or wrongly, that certain things shall be taken into account in estimating a man's income. If it is wrong, then the proper course is to come here and get an amendment of the Act. It is not the proper course to give instructions to the pension officers not to interpret the Act in a proper way, but rather to interpret it in some way which may be favourable to certain people who are constituents or friends of the hon. Gentleman opposite. We were told only yesterday by the Prime Minister that Debates in Supply instead of leading to economy led to extravagance. Here at once we have an example of that in connection with one of the most wasteful Departments, which already spends £13,000,000 on pensions. I am happy to say I voted against the Old Age Pensions Act—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is not following his own rule. He is criticising an Act of Parliament.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was led into doing so by the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I will confine myself to criticising the speech of the hon. Member who said that certain people had committed a fraud in assigning their houses to their sons, so as to defraud the revenue by obtaining an old age pension to which otherwise they were not entitled. He said that because certain people had committed a fraud of that description—and I am sorry to say that it is a very common thing all over the country, and ought to be stopped—other people who did not commit the fraud should be paid something in excess of what they are legally entitled to under the Act. I hope, sincerely, the right hon. Gentleman will not assent to that, and I must say that if anything of the kind ever comes under my notice I shall bring it up in this House as a gross breach of the powers of the right hon. Gentleman, and an evasion of an Act of Parliament which ought not to be permitted.
    Mr. WATT: I want to know what evidence is demanded by the Department in cases where an applicant for a pension cannot produce his birth certificate. I know several instances of old men, and everyone who knows anything of them knows that they have reached the old age pension age, who are unable to procure their pensions. That occurs in some of the country parts of Scotland. The records of their birth are by no means clear, and it is very difficult to get the necessary

    1033
    evidence to bring before the right hon. Gentleman's Department. If he would press the people who administer the Act to assist these claimants to trace the date of their birth, and to be more lenient than they are at present towards these men, it would be an advantage to the community. I have not the slightest doubt that he will admit it is a great hardship that men and women who are over seventy years of age, and who cannot make clear to this Department that they are so old, should not be entitled to receive the pension. I hope he will elucidate the point as to what is the kind of evidence that is required.
    Mr. MONTAGU: As to the duty of watching the administration the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is perfectly right in saying that I, of all men, have least right to evade it. I would shrink from doing it if I had the right, and the threat the hon. Baronet has just delivered would keep me straight even if I thought of doing it. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Watt), I will point out to him that it is not a question for my Department; it is a question for the Local Government Board. My impression is that where an applicant has difficulty in proving the date of his birth by the ordinary methods, he is always given the benefit of the doubt. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO, no!"] That is my impression. Every effort is made to make the rules as elastic as possible, and the presumption is always taken in default of evidence. I will send a copy of the regulations in force in such cases to my hon. Friend.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS (SPECIAL GRANTS).—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £235,000, 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, 1916, for the Payment of Grants towards the Cost of the Extension of Sanatorium Benefit to the Dependants of Insured Persons under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and of the Treatment of Tuberculosis generally." [NOTE.—£150,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote can give me the information I desire. As he knows, this sum of £387,000 is for the purpose of distribution in respect of
    1034
    contributions which are made by the various localities themselves with regard to the provision of sanatoria for consumptive patients under the national insurance scheme. Can he give us any information as to the distribution of this money, so as to illustrate the effort that is being made by the local authorities in each part of the United Kingdom? Healthy competition between all these localities is a useful thing in speeding up the provision of these very necessary buildings. I should like to know, before we actually agree to the Estimate, what is actually being done.
    Sir J. D. REES: I sincerely hope that every possible economy will be made in the expenditure under this head. The Committee cannot forget that it was due to this legislation, which is the chief example of Socialistic finance—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that we are in Committee of Supply. He must not criticise legislation in this Committee, but must concern himself solely with administration.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg your pardon, Sir, I heard you give the same ruling to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and I did not intend to go further than to express the hope that as the expenditure under this head is so enormous and so much larger than was expected when the Act was passed, that every possible care will be taken in administration to keep down expenditure in this critical year.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I venture to suggest that this critical year, when we need all the physical force we can get for the support of the cause of our country, is of all years the one in which the health of the people ought to be carefully safeguarded. While we are in favour of economies wherever real economies can be effected, it is no real economy, least of all in a year such as this, to avoid spending money which is necessary for the maintenance of the health of the people.
    Mr. MONTAGU: It would be an act of discourtesy not to attempt some reply to my hon. Friends, but they had not given me any sort of notice that they were going to raise this particular question.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is not our fault.
    Mr. MONTAGU: Nor is it mine. I will do my best to give them the information

    1035
    they desire. It does not necessarily follow, as on another Vote my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland said this afternoon, that money voted will be spent. Every effort will be made to keep the expenditure upon these matters as low as is consistent with our statutory obligations, having regard to the general need for the most stringent economy during the time of war. If my hon. Friends will look at the Vote as published they will see there is a decrease this year, compared with last year, of £95,000. I am afraid I have not the information for which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh {Mr. Hogge) asks. There is a note published under the Estimate which it was hoped would give him the information he would require, so far as we were able to anticipate it. I will ask the Insurance Department and the Local Government Board if they can give him some sample estimates of the kind he desires.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend. It is only fair to himself to recognise that he cannot answer all the questions put to him, but could he not send the Junior Lord of the Treasury seated on that bench to those who represent these different Departments, and who know all about these things, to get them to come here and give the information to the Committee? The House of Commons have given the Government three days out of Supply, and the Government have put down every Vote to-day. Why should they leave the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to apologise for each of the Ministers one after the other. That is not treating the Committee fairly. Some of us desire to have information upon a number of points, and surely in this Coalition Government there are Under-Secretaries enough to spare to come and answer the questions of hon. Members on these points.
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Roberts): I understand that the hon. Member wanted some explanation in regard to the working of this scheme. I think I can give a full explanation on that point if he really desires it.
    Mr. HOGGE: I should not have asked it otherwise.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member spoke.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is not my fault.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not quite certain that I know the exact point he raised.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will raise it on Report, then the hon. Gentleman will have sufficient time.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think I know the facts about this Vote. In fact, I explained them rather fully in the speech I made in dealing with the Estimates. These Grants are being used at the present time for soldiers discharged suffering from tuberculosis. An arrangement has been made that soldiers so discharged should vacate the military hospitals and should immediately be transferred to sanatoria or other residential institutions. I believe all this money is being used subject to that scheme. It is a scheme which undoubtedly will have the sympathy of the House of Commons. We are using this money through the insurance committees, who, I think, are finding a sum of £10 per head for the benefit of these soldiers. A very good work is being done under this arrangement.
    Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that £95,000 less is being spent this year? In face of the scheme he has just adumbrated one would have anticipated that the expenses would have gone up.
    Mr. ROBERTS: We are applying this Grant with great economy. As a matter of fact, this scheme for the benefit of tuberculous soldiers is for the moment holding the field. The other Grants are being used with great economy, except in so far as they are being applied for the benefit of soldiers.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is a number of new-buildings being put up?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think not. The arrangement is that the existing sanatoria are taking over the soldiers suffering from consumption, and places are being found for these soldiers in the existing sanatoria and residential institutions.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: Do I understand that these Grants are being used entirely for soldiers? If so, what has become of the civil population previously in these institutions? Does the hon. Gentleman say that they are being used entirely for soldiers suffering from consumption?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir, I did not say so. Places are found in the existing

    1037
    sanatoria according as beds are available. They are not entirely devoted to them. The insurance committees make such arrangements as best they can.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, although this is a time of war, whatever is really necessary to fight this white scourge of consumption will be done, and that he will not be deterred from doing what is really necessary in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    PATHOLOGICAL LABORATORIES.—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Grants to assist in the provision of Laboratory Facilities, with a view to the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Disease."
    Mr. PRINGLE: Some explanation is due upon this Vote. Probably my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln will be able to answer the question about these laboratories. I notice from the Estimate that in 1914 an Estimate was taken for £50,000 for this particular purpose, but in 1914 no money at all was spent. Now I find that in the Estimates for the current year they have taken half that sum, namely, £25,000. If they were unable to spend any money at all in 1914, it is obvious that they will be in an even worse position to spend money in the current year. For example, we know to what extent the medical service in this country is depleted by the special demands of the War. We know that not only the staff of ordinary practitioners but also the staff of specialists has been largely depleted, and that many pathologists and men capable of dealing with these particular laboratories have been drafted into the ranks of the Royal Army Medical Corps. In consequence of that it seems almost a truism that there will be practically nobody left in this country to run these institutions. In these circumstances it is surely encouraging waste rather than anything else to put £25,000 on the Estimates for the purposes of pathological laboratories. Would it not be better to eliminate the sum altogether? I believe assistance has to be given to the local authorities in the matter. By eliminating the sum no tempta-
    1038
    tion will be held out to local authorities to act on these schemes, which cannot be usefully prosecuted at the present time. I suggest to the Treasury that this Vote might quite well be omitted.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think so. I hope to be able to convince my hon. Friend that it is not so. This is a new scheme which was started last year for the first time, and was one of the features of the first Budget statement of the Minister of Munitions. The money, it is true, was not spent last year, because we were not in a position after all to set going the valuable machinery which we hoped to obtain by the expenditure of this money. There is no doubt that local pathological investigation of disease would be of the utmost value in arresting the spread of disease and improving the well-being and the good health of our people, and it is very desirable that this should be started with the least possible delay. Therefore this year, when the Estimates were being prepared, we pointed out to the Local Government Boards for England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the National Insurance Commissioners, all of whom were interested, that it was no use pushing into the Estimates as large a sum as £50,000, which was the first agreed sum, because the possibility of such a sum being spent was very remote; but we were most anxious to make a start because we regarded it as highly desirable, and the desirability had been increased in consequence of diseases resulting from the War, and therefore it would be a great pity to start the negotiations over again which led to the starting of the scheme, and that we ought to take a small Vote in the hope that the medical and expert knowledge necessary for the carrying on of this scheme would be utilised. If we are once again disappointed the money will not be spent, just as it was not spent last year. For the first time in the history of the country, so far as I am aware, the Treasury and all the spending authorities are in harmony in their desire to prevent the expenditure of money for which we do not get a good return, and my hon. Friend need have no doubt that if suitable and satisfactory arrangements for the investigation of disease under this Vote cannot be obtained, once again the money will not be spent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member opposite

    1039
    that this is not a very good time to take this money. There are one or two questions I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. The Vote is for £25,000 for pathological laboratories, and in the footnote it is stated that the money will be allocated, in accordance with a scheme made by the Treasury, to the English, Scottish, and Irish Local Government Boards, for the purpose of distribution by those Departments with the approval of the Treasury. That is all in accordance with the Vote. Then, however, the footnote goes on to say that if the local authority is unwilling to arrange accordingly—and I think it is very possible that the local authority may be unwilling to arrange accordingly under the special circumstances of the year—a share of the Grant can be allocated to the National Insurance Joint Committee for distribution to the insurance committee of that area.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Baronet should read on.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I thought it was quite clear. I did not intend to convey that this was to be given to the insurance committee for any purpose except the same for which it would be given to the Local Government Board. It brings a new element into the matter, and it is a way of giving an increased Grant to insurance committees for this purpose. I do not know whether that is quite right. Under this scheme there is no possibility of the £25,000 being surrendered to the Exchequer. If the Local Government Boards do not take it, which is apparently contemplated by the footnote, it goes to the National Insurance Committee for the same object. I do not think that is quite right. I think it ought to be surrendered.
    Mr. MONTAGU: If, under this scheme, any money is handed to a local department it will not be surrendered to the Treasury, but it will be surrendered if it is not allocated to the local authority. The hon. Baronet is not quite accurate in saying that under no circumstances will this be surrendered. It is only when the money gets into the hands of the local authority for the carrying out of some scheme which has been approved that the money will not be surrendered, but carried on till next year.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I suppose that is because it says a share of the Grant may be allocated to national insurance. There
    1040
    is no obligation to allocate it, though I do not know that application will not be made by the National Insurance Committee. I understand it will be surrendered unless it is allocated either to the Local Government Board or to the National Insurance Committee. Then I want to know what happens to the £50,000 which was voted last year?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It was surrendered.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: My right hon. Friend has not told us whether there is any hope at all that any of this money is going to be spent, and I rather want to draw attention to the fact that they took £50,000 last year to spend for this purpose, and did not spend a single penny of it. This year, when they are pleading the need for economy, they take £25,000 for the same purpose. July has come. My right hon. Friend does not pretend to tell us that any progress has been made with negotiations or arrangements for schemes so that he has any hope of their being carried out, and I do not know of any worse way of swelling the Estimates than for the Treasury to sanction Grants for a purpose which may seem to them to be good unless they have some definite prospect that the schemes for which the money is taken are really going to be put in hand during the year. There are various other Estimates to which I could refer, but this seems to give an option of raising the general question. One of the ways in which the Estimates are swelled is by this process of taking money in some vague hope that something may be done during the year with it, and not a penny of it is spent, and sometimes that happens year after year. I should like an assurance that this scheme is really going forward, and that my right hon. Friend has some hope that he is going to spend the money which he takes, otherwise it would be much better to drop it out of the Estimates.
    Mr. WATT: I regret that I must strenuously oppose this Vote. The memorandum of the Civil Service Estimates contains these words:
    "The sum voted for Pathological laboratories in July, 1914, has not been spent, and a reduced provision of £25,000 has been included for 1915–16."
    Scotland has been deprived this year of her statutory right under the Small Holdings Act to £185,000. The reason assigned by the Treasury for that deprivation of Scotland is that we have not spent the money in the past and that we have accumulated funds. Again and again the

    1041
    Scottish Members have appealed to the Treasury and have had interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but without avail. Not a shilling will they give us because we have accumulated funds. The excuse given is that these are war times and economy is the order of the day, and if we cannot spend the money we got before we will get no more. And here, with £50,000 for pathological laboratories in hand, the right hon. Gentleman asks for £25,000.
    An HON. MEMBER: He gave it up.
    Mr. WATT: I admit that is a little better, but in face of the inability to spend it last year it is quite needless that we should give £25,000 this year. I hope the hon. Baronet, who is on the side of economy, will see what the Committee is doing and will take a course accordingly. I cannot vote for this in face of the fact that my country has been treated so badly in the way of Estimates.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am quite willing to tell with the hon. Member against the proposal.
    Mr. HOGGE: In considering this and other Estimates we are trying to fulfil the injunction given us by the Government to effect economies. We represent the greatest contribution that has been made to economy in any of the Estimates which have been brought before the House of Commons this year. We have suffered the deprivation of £185,000 because the Treasury says we cannot spend the money. I should be prepared to furnish my right hon. Friend with as much proof of our ability to spend that money on that purpose as he has furnished to us of his ability to spend £25,000 on this purpose. Further, if he wants any particular pathological research in connection with national insurance schemes, with which this was originally associated, there is under a previous Grant the opportunity for any amount of pathological research. In all tuberculosis sanatoria there is opportunity for research work in pathology, and it is one of the easiest things possible for pathological experts in these circumstances to conduct similar experiments without the establishment of separate sanatoria. There are in all our big cities universities with large pathological departments and pathological chairs, where they could easily do any particular work which was required. There is therefore no real reason why we should spend this £25,000. I hope we shall divide the House
    1042
    on this, or that, as an alternative, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the money will himself withdraw the amount and save the Committee the necessity of a Division.
    Mr. ROCH: It has been a complaint of the Treasury as long as I have been a Member of the House that while they always get encouragement to spend they never get encouragement to save, and I am a little disappointed that on the one occasion when I have seen a request for thrift and any assistance given to the Treasury my right hon. Friend has not consented to withdraw this Estimate; for, as far as I understand, it is not devoted to any practicable scheme at all. It is only flung at large to be spent if anyone is good enough to spend it. I am rather afraid, if that is the case, that an opportunity will be taken to spend it whether the scheme is good or not. I appeal to my right hon. Friend, on this unique occasion in the history of Parliament, when the Department is being appealed to for thrift for the first time almost in his own experience. There is a tide in the affairs of men, and even of my right hon. Friend's career, which, if taken at the flood, would lead him on to fortune. Do not let him neglect such an opportunity.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I regret that I must do my best to persuade the Committee to resist the moving and eloquent appeal just made by the hon. Member (Mr. Roche). When this scheme was started last year, and when it was explained to the House by my right hon. Friend, the present Minister of Munitions, it was welcomed as a scheme that would give quicker diagnosis and better treatment of disease in every part of the country. It was a great disappointment to us that it could not be started last year. We did not spend the £50,000 voted last year. We hope that the Committee will not include or ask us to include a corresponding sum in the Vote this year. It was after consultation between the Departments that it was decided to include a sum of £25,000 this year. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) will be gratified to know that we are asking the Committee to vote this sum to-day, because we hope and believe that it will be spent in this financial year. Nothing has been said in this Debate by the advocates of economy against the scheme itself. If, however, we are to accept the appeal of hon. Members, the only result would be that the money would not be voted now, and a Supplementary Estimate would have to be made. No more frequent cry is heard from the House of

    1043
    Commons in these days than that projects are not financed at the right time of the year, when the Estimates are under discussion, and that they have to be included in Supplementary Estimates. The preferable course would be to vote the money now, and on that ground I hope the Committee will vote the sum for which we ask.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why any balance of this money remaining unspent at the end of the year should not be surrendered to the Treasury?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It will be surrendered. The only money that is not surrendered to the Treasury is money actually given to the Insurance Committees, or to the local authorities under some scheme that has been approved. If the money has not been granted for some practical, applicable scheme, it will all be surrendered to the Treasury.
    Mr. MORTON: I think we have a right to complain when we compare what is being done under this Vote with the way in which the small-holding scheme has been treated in Scotland. There, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a sum of £185,000 has been withdrawn from us on the ground that it could not be spent. The facts were otherwise; we wanted more money and not less. We have been told that some Treasury clerk struck out our £185,000. If that is so, why did not the Treasury clerk strike out this Vote? We are told that they got £50,000 voted last year and did not spend it, and it was given up to the Treasury. That may be equally said about this £25,000 which they are trying to get on this Vote. A great part of this year has already gone, and there is no evidence at all that they are spending the money. All this sort of thing proves that the unfair and unjust way they treat Scotland is not the way they treat other parts of the United Kingdom. We are entitled to ask whether any of this £25,000 has been spent, and what is going to be done with it during the year. It is all very well to say that it may be spent. It is one of those Votes which, in my opinion, is not necessary. You can pick out hundreds of them, amounting to millions of money, that are not wanted as compared with what we want in Scotland in regard to small landowners. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will insist on this £25,000 being withdrawn as an improper use of the
    1044
    people's money, which it is quite unnecessary to spend at the present time, and because the spending of it is absolutely the reverse to carrying out the promise we have had in regard to economy.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I regret that I cannot accept the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. He speaks of a scheme having been started. What is the scheme? Where is the scheme? Who has devised the scheme? Which is the authority that is to carry out the scheme? He told us nothing about it. Here is a memorandum on the Civil Service Estimates, dated 10th March, and this is now the 15th July. I find in a footnote to this Estimate the following statement:—
    "The money will be allocated in accordance with a scheme made by the Treasury."
    Has any scheme been made? Three months out of the twelve have gone since that memorandum was penned, and no scheme has been made. I know that the Treasury has been very busy on more important work, and I would not divert them from that more important work to a scheme of this kind. Why should we ask the Treasury to go into this particular scheme when they have to finance a great War? The footnote goes on to say that the money will be allocated to the English, Scottish, and Irish Local Government Boards. That, to some extent, diminishes the point made by some of my hon. Friends that Scotland is being unfairly treated in regard to this matter. I am willing to admit that Scotland is going to get its share under this Vote. The footnote proceeds:
    "The money will be allocated, in accordance with a scheme made by the Treasury, to the English, Scottish and Irish Local Government Boards for the purpose of distribution by those Departments, with the approval of the Treasury, as grants to county councils or sanitary authorities who are willing to provide or arrange for the provision of laboratory facilities with a view to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease."
    These are to be merely Grants to local authorities; that is, to county councils and to town councils. In other words, a large proportion of the expenditure for this purpose will have to be provided by the county councils and the town councils. If this scheme is carried out we are going to provide not only for taking £25,000 out of the Imperial Exchequer, but we are going to impose a burden which will fall upon the local ratepayers.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We are going to encourage them to spend money.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, we are going to encourage them to spend money. We are

    1045
    preaching economy, but practising the other thing. We are encouraging them to practise the other thing, which is tenfold worse. The Memorandum goes on to say:
    "The scheme may provide that if in any area the local authority is unwilling to arrange accordingly, a share of the Grants can be allocated to the National Insurance Joint Committee for distribution to the insurance committee of that area towards the provision of such facilities and aids."
    Therefore we have an alternative scheme. If the main scheme for the provision of these laboratories is not to be carried out, partly at the expense of the local authorities and partly at the expense of the Exchequer, then this money is to be distributed in a vague and indefinite way, at the instance of the National Insurance Joint Committee, among the various insurance committees throughout the country. Apparently a new scheme. Apparently the first scheme in contemplation has not yet been considered. The Treasury has done nothing. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board is here, and he may be able to say, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not been able to say, whether anything has been done. Apparently, as he can say nothing, nothing has been done, and we are left to the risk of having this money spread about by the National Insurance Joint Committee. I think that, after a footnote like that, the Committee is bound to refuse this Vote. We were told only yesterday by the Prime Minister that the Cabinet was setting up a Committee for the purpose of considering retrenchments in the public service. Therefore I think this Committee of Supply may be performing a very useful function and setting a very good example to the Cabinet Committee which is now contemplated by refusing this particular Vote. As the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roche) said, we have had few opportunities of dealing with these Votes. The reproach is constantly cast at the House of Commons that there are many schemes for the expenditure of money and no protest against expenditure on the part of the Committee of Supply. Now that we have seen the error of our ways, now that instead of pleading for extravagance we are asking for economy, surely it is the least that the Treasury can do—the Treasury which is understood to be the watch-dog of the public purse—to encourage the House of Commons in this admirable spirit of economy. I admit that the Treasury has done something by reducing the Grant from £50,000 to £25,000, and for the very
    1046
    reasons which have induced the Treasury to insist upon that reduction, it is the duty of this Committee to refuse the Vote altogether, and I should be very glad to join with the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) in dividing the Committee.
    Mr. KING: If there is a Division I shall vote in favour of economy, especially as a protest against the accusation which was made by the Prime Minister yesterday, when I suggested that Supply was an occasion when Members of all parties would be willing to unite at this time in favour of economy. The Prime Minister put me down by saying that he had no such experience of Members of all parties uniting for economy, and he pointed with a sweeping gesture to the Treasury Bench as the only part of the House where economy was preached That bench is the only part of the House where economy is not preached and where economy is not practised. As a protest against this unfortunate mistake on the part of the Prime Minister, I shall vote in favour of economy if this matter goes to a Division. If the Prime Minister wants to know that he is capable of admitting a mistake—and he is not often—and if he wants to be proved as capable of mistakes, he ought to be sent for now, and he ought to hear the protests made on all sides against this Vote in the interests of economy and the feeble defence put forward from the Treasury Bench. If that were done I am sure that the Prime Minister would insist on the Vote being withdrawn.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I hope the committee, even after the hon. Member, is not going to reject this Vote for the purpose of scoring off the Prime Minister's remark yesterday. I cannot imagine any more false economy than to reject a Vote of this sort. The money spent upon protecting the health of the country is the most productive expenditure that we can possibly have. It brings in money's worth many fold, besides what it brings in the happiness and well-being of the people. It is particularly important that there should be pathological laboratories for improving the treatment of disease throughout the country. To refuse this small sum for that purpose would be quite as foolish as if a farmer were to refuse to call in the veterinary surgeon when his stock were ailing, or if he refused to manure his field, or if we in our own homes were to

    1047
    say, "This is war time and we cannot afford to call in a doctor to attend to our families." This expenditure is absolutely necessary not only in the interests of the general health of the country, but also because we have to remember that a large number of our soldiers are coming back from the War afflicted with various forms of disease contracted in their heroic struggle. The least we can do is to vote this small sum of money, which is necessary to help in the inquiries that are essential for the protection of their health as well as the protection of the health of the general population. I could have wished that the scheme had been more forward and more definite. However, we have had perfectly sufficient reason given why it has not been possible to do that, and to say that we are unwilling to vote money for this important national purpose would, I think, be a very ill-judged move. I think that if we vote this money the Departments concerned will do their very best to expend it judiciously, and if they do not find it possible to do that they will not waste it, but it will be saved to the country in the long run. I hope, therefore, very sincerely that we shall not be guilty of false economy by refusing this small sum of money.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: If there is a Division on this Vote I shall certainly vote in favour of the exclusion of this sum. We have never had any scheme put before us. As far as I can understand, it is not in existence yet. We do not know what kind of pathological research it is intended to undertake. Already we have more than a hundred laboratories throughout the country where pathological research, which takes the form of torturing living animals, is constantly prosecuted. We have in connection with our universities funds provided for this purpose, and under the National Insurance Act a sum of £60,000 or £70,000 is put aside each year for this very purpose. I understand that if the money is not spent in the way indicated in the footnote it will be paid over to the Insurance Commissioners. Why should that be necessary? The insurance funds provide large sums year after year for this purpose. To my mind it is absolute waste at a time like this to dip our hands into the National Treasury for the purpose of handing money over for obscure experiments, most of which are of no use. I have
    1048
    the strongest possible objection to a large sum of money like this being spent for such a purpose, and I shall certainly vote against it if the proposal goes to a Division.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last on the other side could hardly have listened to the Debate, because he spoke as if there was a scheme or project in existence and as if by refusing to vote this money we would stop that scheme from being carried on. There is no scheme in existence, and last year when we did vote £50,000 the only result was that the £50,000 was surrendered and spent in reduction of debt. That being so, as the year advanced, no scheme was carried out. We were told that a scheme was going to be adopted, but no scheme has been adopted. Surely, then, it would not be out of place, instead of voting £25,000, which may be, and probably would be, surrendered later on, to vote against the money being granted now. If the money is voted now, possibly later on the Government may invent some more or less reasonable excuse to have the money spent, and the result would be that the money would be certain to be spent in a foolish and extravagant manner. In these circumstances I can see no possible course but to vote against this money being granted.
    Mr. L. JONES: Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I was very heartily in favour of the scheme for setting up these pathological laboratories when it was adumbrated some years ago by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What was that?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The late Chancellor of the Exchequer never adumbrated any scheme whatsoever—not the details.
    Mr. L. JONES: The late Chancellor of the Exchequer induced the House to vote £50,000, by describing in eloquent terms the good results which would follow the spending of the money. Personally, I think that it is not at all an unwise expenditure, and if I join in criticism of this Vote, it is that I see no prospect of the money being spent usefully. I have listened to the Debate and to the defence of my right hon. Friend, and I think it would be far better to withdraw the £25,000 and to bring it up again on a Supplementary Estimate, if he has got any definite scheme or plan. He says that he has often heard criticism in this House

    1049
    on the Supplementary Estimates. I have followed Supply closely in this House since I have entered it, and I have not heard any criticism in the House of Commons on Supplementary Estimates. Ministers of course desire to avoid Supplementary Estimates. Their objection to Supplementary Estimates is well understood. Once they have got their Vote for the year, they do not wish to raise awkward questions, by introducing Supplementary Estimates, and it is Ministers who object to Supplementary Estimates being introduced into the House of Commons. I have listened to the Debate, and it is quite clear that we are no nearer to the consummation of this scheme than we were sixteen months ago, and it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Vote and bring up a Supplementary Estimate if it becomes necessary to do so.
    Mr. MORTON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is going to reply to these remarks by various hon. Members! I think that we are entitled to a reply, for courtesy sake if for no other reason. Ministers are here, or ought to be here, for the purpose of answering these criticisms and of telling us what is really going on. The hon. Gentleman above the Gangway just now told us what was done with our wounded soldiers who came back to this country, but he did not tell us, what he should have told us, that not a single penny of that £50,000 was spent on one of the wounded soldiers up to the 31st of March this year. To me, that spoiled the speech altogether. We have no evidence that wounded soldiers are going to get this £25,000. In all human probability, if it goes at all, it will go on useless extravagant salaries. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the strictures that have been made, and unless he does so I do not think that he is entitled to the Vote.
    Mr. MONTAGU: One word more. Although I have failed so far to satisfy the critics of the scheme, may I point out that a scheme brought forward last year to the extent of £50,000 was put on exactly the same principle. It was voted by the House of Commons. The House of Commons then said that they were anxious to see the scheme adopted, and that they were willing to vote the money in anticipation. This year, as there has been a delay in perfecting the scheme, we ask instead of voting £50,000 that they should vote £25,000. It is not a question of what is going to be done with the money. What
    1050
    is going to be done with the money is to invite the co-operation of the local authorities, or failing them, the National Insurance Committees in the investigation of disease in the localities. I can understand the objection of a thorough going enemy of research, who describes himself as an anti-vivisectionist, or an anti-pathologist. That is perfectly rational. But I am bound to say that I cannot understand the objection of hon. Members who approve of a scheme of pathological research being made, and are delaying the starting of this very valuable reform.
    Mr. MORTON: We do not want to delay it. We gave you £50,000 to go on with and you did nothing.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The £50,000 was granted by the House of Commons with a view to starting these pathological laboratories. Much to our disappointment, owing to our failure to get a successful scheme, as the co-operation of the local authorities was refused, we were not able to start it last year, but all the more likely are we to start it this year. Almost every Member of this Committee—those who like the scheme and those who do not like the scheme—who has spoken up to the present is opposed to this Vote. I still remain in hope that this money, or a substantial portion of it, would be spent on a purpose which I regard as very essential to the well-being of the community, but I cannot disregard the criticism of all those Members who have urged that this Vote should be withdrawn, and if that attitude is persisted in, the result is that, however forward we get in our negotiations with the Insurance Commissioners and the local authorities, and however desirable the scheme, we shall not be able to make any progress until next February, when the House will have an opportunity of considering it probably on Supplementary Estimates. If the Committee choose to take that responsibility, and prefer that this Vote should be postponed, then I have no choice but most reluctantly to ask permission to withdraw the Vote.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BOARD.—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £42,015, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the

    1051
    year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board, and for a Grant in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service."—[NOTE.—£2,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am very glad that no reduction has been made in the amount granted by the Government for the upkeep of this service for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I desire to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland as to one or two points on which I wish to be reassured. I wish to be reassured on the question whether there is an adequate supply of doctors and nurses still in the Highlands of Scotland. During the War a great many doctors, who were living in wild parishes, and nurses who were also in the same wild parishes, have left the Highlands of Scotland to proceed to the front, or to occupy positions in other parts of the Kingdom. It would be a very grievous thing for the Highlands of Scotland if these wild parishes should be without an adequate supply, both of doctors and nurses. Another point is this: In the Highlands of Scotland doctors have often great difficulty, indeed, in procuring comfortable houses. Everybody knows that no doctor can work efficiently unless he has a comfortable house, carefully chosen, and well situated in the midst of his parish. I hope that a certain amount of money will be used to see that in all parishes in the North of Scotland, in those wild districts, the doctor, who is the servant of everybody, will be comfortably housed in the centre of the parish, if possible.
    There is another point to which I direct particular attention in connection with the Island of Lewis. My right hon. Friend knows that that island has sent more to the fighting forces of this Empire than any other part of the Kingdom of the same population. Unfortunately, in that island, although it does produce stalwart fighting men, there is a tendency to the grievous disease of consumption, at any moment becoming rife. I understand that the Medical Service Board visited the capital of the island, Stornoway, some time ago, and seriously considered then the advisability of taking particular steps to combat that disease. I would impress upon my right hon. Friend, who has always the interest of the Highlands of Scotland at heart, and has done much for them during his term of office, the advisability, if it is in his power, of allotting a part of the
    1052
    Grant of this year to some scheme which may be formulated by the Medical Board, to establish on the Island of Lewis, some means whereby this disease can be combated. I desire to impress these particular points on my right hon. Friend. I think that the Government have been wise not to exercise the economic spirit in the matter of this Grant. It would be false economy if it were so exercised.
    Mr. HOGGE: They have done so—the travelling expenses.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh says that they have done so—that the travelling expenses have been reduced. That may be so, but I am satisfied that the sum of £42,000, which I understood was the original sum granted under the Act, is given to us this year, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will devote as much sympathy and time as possible to seeing that these three points on which I have enlarged, are carefully considered, and that the money so granted by the Government will be used to effect those objects.
    Sir J. D. REES: There is a saving on this Vote of £882, at which I rejoice. Will the right hon. Gentleman spread the correspondingly less benefits fairly over the islands concerned? The hon. Member referred opposite to Lewis, but I want to champion the cause of Rum, which has no crofters, and is very apt to be regarded as a sort of official Cinderella of the Hebrides. If there must be some lessening of the benefits in consequence of the reduction of the Vote by £882, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to see that Rum does not suffer, as I believe it is likely to do in regard to this as to other Votes. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman who last spoke means about the housing of doctors. I did not think that the Government had the housing of doctors any more in Scotland than in England. However, the point in regard to which I rose is that relating to Rum.
    Mr. MORTON: I am glad the Secretary for Scotland has arrived on the Front Bench. I am sorry, of course, that we had no opportunity of giving him notice that these matters were coming on to-day, but we could not give him notice because most of us did not know until this morning. What I myself think is, that the Secretary for Scotland ought to give us notice; he is the official in charge, and should take care that we have notice of everything that is

    1053
    coming on. I want to know something about this Vote. We have got a Report which tells us that practically nothing has been done. It is the Report of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Board, which two years ago was proposed and sanctioned by this House, on the ground that the matters to be dealt with were urgent, and we who knew something of the highland counties knew, also, that it was urgent. But the extraordinary thing about this urgency is that nothing has been done. Two years have gone by, and nothing of any consequence has been done, except paying the salaries. I am glad to hear that there has been a little reduction in the salaries and expenses this year. In regard to this Report, I think we have been treated in a somewhat shabby manner, because it is for two years, instead of having been made annually. Why we should be treated in that way I do not know, except there was a desire to conceal what was going on in connection with this Grant. On this White Paper which has been issued there is a footnote which says that they have propounded schemes, but that
    "they have not been finally approved by the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, though it is hoped that they will be published shortly."
    Therefore the Secretary for Scotland is to blame at the present moment for not having settled in two years some sort of scheme about something. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me to-day, notwithstanding this White Paper, that he has done something, so much the better for his character—I mean, of course, his public character. The Treasury also is to blame in regard to not giving their approval, and I want, before the money is obtained, to know from the Treasury why they are blocking the way. We were told by the Government two years ago that it was an urgent matter, and I want to know why it has not been carried out. As to this White Paper which has been issued, it does not help us much forward as to the doings of the Board, except that so far the members of this Board have treated their work as a sort of holiday. We arc told that
    "they proceeded to Stornoway where the special difficulties of the Lewis district were fully discussed with representatives of the local bodies."
    But they have done nothing. They go on to say in the Report:
    "In April the mainland districts of Ross-shire and a considerable part of Inverness-shire were overtaken."
    How "overtaken," or what or who was overtaken it does not say. Proposals
    1054
    affecting Caithness and Sutherland were considered, but poor Sutherland was not "overtaken" at all. Sutherland is not a drinking county, and therefore I can understand why it was not "overtaken." These Gentlemen borrowed a cruiser and went to a pleasant part of Scotland, namely, Orkney and Zetland. Then the Report says:
    "On their way to Zetland members of the Board visited Fair Isle"—
    —a beautiful place for a holiday—
    "on which a fully trained nurse has been resident for some years."
    What this Committee wanted to borrow a cruiser and to spend money to go and visit a trained nurse for I do not know, but
    "She has been resident some years under the auspices of the Fair Isle Nursing Association. The strained financial resources of the association have, however, rendered the help of the Board necessary in order that the nurses might be retained."
    It does not say that they have done anything. This Report, of course, does not help us at all. I believe that the hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness-shire, from personal observations he has made, is as dissatisfied as I am with the doings of this body. It has evidently done nothing, but we are entitled to get from the Secretary of Scotland, and from the Lord Advocate, if he likes, or from somebody else connected with Scotland, some information and explanation. We are, indeed, entitled to a very full explanation from the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury. I am afraid the representative of the Treasury has gone away, but he had better be sent for to give some answer before he gets the money. We are entitled to a full explanation, because in the note to this Report we are told distinctly that the right hon. Gentleman and the Department are blocking the way. I do not wish unnecessarily to take up the time of the Committee, and I think it will be admitted that since the War commenced Scottish Members, at any rate, have done all they can to help the Government and have neither taken up time by discussing matters nor in putting questions during eleven months. But there are some matters affecting the crofters in the Highland counties in regard to which I am personally glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words. I am sure that my Constituents are as anxious as I am to help the Govermnnet. What we do want from the Secretary for Scotland and those many boards which are supposed to be under his control—although I venture to say it is the boards who control him and not he the boards—is as much infor-

    1055
    mation as possible. I hope, therefore, with all respect to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, that they will give the Committee every possible information in regard to these matters which they themselves, two years ago, described as urgent.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I only wish to ask my right hon. Friend, in regard to this Vote of £42,000, whether the Supplementary Vote of £10,000 for those parts of Scotland which are not strictly and technically in the Highlands and Islands comes under the Insurance Vote? If that is so, I need not say anything more.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask two questions of the Financial Secretary arising out of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I see that £44,000 was voted last year, and if it was not spent, why was it not surrendered? I rather gathered from the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway that nothing was spent.
    Mr. MORTON: Except salaries.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Salaries form a very small part of the amount in comparison with the amount voted last year and this year. I want to know whether it was surrendered last year. If it was not, what happened? Of course, if there is a fund under an Act of Parliament for which this money is provided, that would be some explanation of it, but I should like to know that we are not departing from the salutary rule, that money which has been voted and not spent should be surrendered to the Exchequer.
    Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Baronet who has just taken part in this Debate I dare say has not had time to read the annual report of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Board, or he would have discovered that out of the balance which has been unexpended the report says that some 80 per cent, has already been earmarked for expenditure which is either in contemplation or in actual progress. The hon. Baronet, if he cares to look at the report, will find the details upon page 17. In connection with this subject I want to take up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty as to the provision of medical men who come under this board. The difficulty is to find suitable candidates for vacancies as they occur, and, for one reason or another, medical men are only
    1056
    prepared to accept the more easily worked practices. In those Highland counties and in the Islands the people left at home, owing to the large number of men who have volunteered for service abroad, consist mainly of women and children and aged parents, and of those in receipt of old age pensions. The whole physical work of maintaining the crofts, for instance, in a great many districts is thrown on those who remain. The difficulty of providing them with the right kind of medical attention is obviously great. Those who remember the original Report of the Committee which investigated the condition of affairs in the Highlands and Islands will recollect the stories that were there printed about the difficulties that those people experience with regard to medical attendance. The Secretary for Scotland, who, we are glad to recognise, is the only Cabinet Minister who has taken the trouble to attend these Debates today, perhaps can tell us what progress is actually being made with the small type of hospital which it was proposed to set up. He will remember that a very excellent proposal was made that in these outlying districts where the population is sparse they were to erect small hospitals giving accommodation for something like half a dozen patients, where there might be a resident nurse with one other attendant to look after the people in those localities, and that those might form the centre to help the people in the surrounding districts. Has any progress been made in the matter, or have any of those small hospitals been erected, and, if so, what is the experience of the board with regard to them?
    Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Island of St. Hilda is all right. As he well knows, that island is cut off from the mainland, and the condition of the people is sometimes rather lamentable. I do not know what the recent reports are, but I understand that the nurse that was sent there is now back on the mainland, and that a relief nurse has not yet been sent. I may be wrong, as one sometimes mixes up dates, but can he assure us that the island is being looked after in addition to the other islands mentioned by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. This particular service is a matter of great concern to all Scotsmen, because of the districts which it covers and of the hardships which we know to exist amongst the very deserving race of people. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to

    1057
    assure us that the service continues to engage his most close attention and sympathy, and that he himself takes a very deep interest, personal interest, in seeing that what was intended by this Board is being adequately carried out.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Members of the Committee will recollect that Parliament decided to deal with the question of the Highlands and Islands medical service by a new authority, with the provision that both the Treasury and the Secretary for Scotland should approve of the general scheme. My hon. Friends appreciate the urgent necessity of this provision in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and my hon. Friend behind me spoke in a very sympathetic way of the work of the board, as I am sure everyone who has any knowledge of or close relation with the islands must necessarily do. Many of us from our boyhood have known of the miseries and suffering and loss of valuable lives caused by the inadequate medical provision in those scattered populations. I confess I am sorry that some dealt rather flippantly with the subject, but my hon. Friend spoke sympathetically and touched on one of the difficulties—that is the question of an adequate supply of doctors. That is, of course, the great difficulty. The provisions of the Insurance Act, and now the War, have made it very difficult to obtain an adequate supply of doctors for places where the practice is not very lucrative, and where the work is often very hard and arduous. But what the condition of the Highlands and Islands would have been if the Government had not set up this board and provided it with this money, I do not know. Even as we are, we have great difficulty in finding an adequate supply of doctors, but the circumstances in many parts would be serious indeed if this board had not been created, and the money provided for it. With regard to the question of Lewes, I know that the board visited that island, and considered carefully what they could do. I am afraid I cannot now give any information in detail as to what they did either in that island or in the Island of Rhum more than is contained in the Report, and I would require to have notice for further information. With regard to St. Kilda, I believe they have replaced the nurse there, and I hope that that will be a great advantage to the islanders.
    A very curious criticism was passed upon the fact that the travelling expenses were reduced, as if that were some act of mean-
    1058
    ness on the part of the Treasury. I found it very difficult to fathom the meaning of that criticism. What has happened is this: The board on starting its work visited the localities, and the first year they required, I think, £1,500 for travelling expenses, but this year they will not require more than about half, because the whole board will not be travelling over the island, but only inspectors and officials. I think that reduction is very natural and proper. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) seemed to find fault with the board for actually travelling in a cruiser. Did he suppose they were to go to Fair Isle by any other method1? Those acquainted with the circumstances know, of course, that they went in a fishery cruiser, which was the most inexpensive thing they could have done. It has to be cruising about, but the hon. Member seems to think it was a sort of giddy holiday. I cannot imagine that to the ordinary man, who is not an exceptionally good sailor, it was a holiday of a very hilarious sort. I really expected the hon. Baronet opposite, after that speech, to rise and move that the money should not be granted, because the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Sutherland was whittling away and deriding the utility of this board, a most unfortunate speech, I think, to come from a Highland Member.
    With regard to the new task which the hon Member provided me with, namely, that of informing Members of the criticisms they ought to pass on my Department, I have had a great many tasks suggested in my time, but I think that is the most superfluous that has ever been suggested. My hon. Friends are quite capable of providing themselves in that matter, and doing it, I think, very efficiently. I think we ought all to express our gratitude to this board. It is an unpaid board consisting of well-known Scotsmen, who have given themselves to this work purely from their interest in it. There are upon it men like our colleague the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Sir J. Dewar). I very much wish he were here to-day to have spoken in this Debate and to have done so with a degree of minute knowledge of this subject which no other Member of the House could have displayed. The other names include the Principal of Glasgow University, and other Members who have, I think, been doing disinterested service of the highest value. I am sure that the reception of that work by the Scottish Members, and especially

    1059
    by the Members for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, is one entirely of gratitude.
    Sir J. D. REESasked a question which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: I mentioned Rhum.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What about the question of the surrender of the money?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This amount is granted and the balance is to be carried over. It is very fortunate we can do that, because, of course, in the first year we had to undertake expenses which will not recur and which this balance will enable us to defray.
    Mr. MORTON: I cannot understand the speech of the Secretary for Scotland. He left unanswered the main points I raised, namely, as to his non-approval of the schemes that are mentioned in this Report. I supposed that he would be in a position to give us information on the point. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in suggesting that I derided anybody. I mentioned no names except the chairman, the hon. Baronet the Member for Invernesshire (Sir J. Dewar), and I am aware he is not satisfied at all. I have said nothing about this Committee at all beyond the fact that they are not getting on fast enough. I asked him to explain, and he has not attempted to do so. Further, I should like to know what are the schemes that, as printed on this Report, have been kept back through the non-approval of the Treasury and of the Secretary for Scotland. Surely we can be told that. I am not at all satisfied that this board has done all they ought to have done. The only reasonable excuse perhaps that might be put forward is the difficulty of getting doctors. It is very possible if you had a Committee which was less crammed with officials it might be more efficient for the work in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I do trust the right hon. Gentleman will tell us about the non-approval of schemes, and I also ask the Treasury, as it is put forward that they are blocking the way, and I submit I am entitled to get an answer.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The schemes are on the point of being approved, and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury assures me that we shall have them back from the Treasury immediately.
    Mr. MORTON: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has approved of these schemes mentioned here as having been delayed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I explained in my speech that those schemes have to be jointly approved.
    Mr. MORTON: Have they been approved by the Secretary for Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They cannot alone. They have got to be approved by the Secretary for Scotland and by the Treasury. That is the scheme, and I cannot criticise it as that is the wisdom of Parliament.
    Mr. MORTON: I will ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us something about the schemes and why they have not been approved. We cannot expect the Committee to get on if somebody is blocking the way with regard to schemes. Until they are settled I quite understand that they cannot get on. I can understand that these two right hon. Gentlemen have to settle these schemes. Let them do so, and not block the way. May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give us any information as to why these schemes have not been approved?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Owing to Parliamentary action my right hon. Friend and I are jointly responsible for the approval of these schemes. We arc proposing now to fulfil our joint responsibility and jointly to approve these schemes. They are now in course of being approved. The details of the schemes have to be considered. Both Departments have other work to do. Nobody wants to block the schemes; we are anxious to get on with them, and I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay.
    Mr. MORTON: I quite understand now, and I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for the reply he has given. I wish the Secretary for Scotland could have replied in the same spirit.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' DEFICIENCY.— Class VII.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,712, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for making good the Deficiency on the Income Account of the Fund for Friendly Societies."
    PETERHEAD HARBOUR.— Class I.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, 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, 1916, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead." [NOTE.—£10,000 has been voted on account.]
    RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.—Class I.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £458,000, 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, 1916, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade." [NOTE.—£425,000 has been voted on account.]

    PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, IRELAND.— Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £160,585, 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, 1916, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for the Maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon, and sundry Grants in Aid." [NOTE.—£120,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This Vote has not been discussed for, I think, ten years, and now that it has come up I wish to raise a a matter of importance to the citizens of Dublin. In the year 1903 I induced the late Mr. George Wyndham to use his kind offices in getting the Office of Woods and Forests to buy the Inchicore and Long-meadows estate, the importance of which from the point of view of the citizens of Dublin was recognised. The estate was a part of the ancient demesne of the King, which had been alienated in former times and through some jobbery which I need not now discuss given away in the reign of Charles II. The land being up for auction, I suggested to Mr. Wyndham, who Nearly loved Phœnix Park and its associa-
    1062
    tions, that this property should be acquired for the Crown. Accordingly, as there was a Conservative Government who were anxious to do something for Ireland, they bought this lot of property and conveyed it to the Crown. About a year afterwards, when the Conservatives were dealing with the scheme for annexing it to the park, a Liberal Government came into office. From that hour to the present this great pleasance, through which the Liffey flows before much pollution can reach it, has not had anything whatever done to it, except the mending of a wall; and it has been left idle except for one extraordinary purpose for which it was never intended. The Government, instead of carrying out the object of the purchase, have handed the estate over to soldiers to enable them to practice making pontoons. I wish we could cross the Rhine in some of these pontoons, but I see no prospect of that at present.
    As far as the general body of the public are concerned, they are still excluded from what was bought for public property to make a noble and valuable addition to Phœnix Park. It is in a district of Dublin inhabited solely by the artisan class; it is the seat of the Great Southern and Western Railway shops, and nothing would have been better for the health and pleasure of the people than the making of an entrance to this great stretch of sward from the Inchicore side and the throwing it open for the benefit of the public. Instead of that, once or twice a year on fine days you see some twenty or thirty soldiers using the place in the way I have described. That is the only use, except the grazing, from which you get, perhaps, a hundred pounds, that has been during all these years made of the beneficence of Parliament or the action of the Office of Woods and Forests. The Office of Woods and Forests admit that they owe a special debt to Ireland, because, in the whole century from the Union, done to 1903, they had not, as far as I know, spent a single sixpence of their income in Ireland. Accordingly, when we have performed the miracle of inducing the Office of Woods and Forests to make this Grant for Irish purposes, I think the least we might expect is that something should be done to enable this great amenity to become of service to the citizens in Dublin. It may well be that to "parkefy" the place, if I may coin a word, would cost a great deal of money. I am not urging the Government to enter upon any large expenditure in

    1063
    time of war, when economy must necessarily be the main purpose. But there was no war until a year ago. I am commenting on the nine years delay. I now make this humble suggestion. Let a road be made through the place, with a gate at each side, so that the people may walk or drive up and down by the side of the Liffey, and allow the children of the working-classes to go in and enjoy the green grass which Parliament provided for them ten years ago. That is not a great demand to make.
    I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not responsible for this, and that he hardly expected this Vote to come on. I have been watching for nine years for an opportunity to raise the question on the Phœnix Park Vote, and this is the first time the Vote has had a chance of being discussed. I wish to acknowledge that in consequence of speeches of ours in bygone days the Government have done much for the improvement of the roads in Phœnix Park. I remember once complaining that that they spent tenpence a square yard on the roads in the parks, in London, and only three-halfpence a square yard on the roads in the parks in Dublin. That figure has probably been increased now, because I must give the Office of Works this tribute: They have done much to improve these roads. But there are not enough of them. There are not enough paths for the people passing through the park. Wherever the foot of man or pleasure-seeker has trodden a path, the Government should recognise that that is a public convenience, and make a path there accordingly. In winter time these paths are turned into lakes and become impassable. In recent years the Government have spent a good deal of money upon the park, and I am not complaining of any cheeseparing. The Government are entitled to credit for what they have done. But I do not think the money has been as well spent in some places as it might have been. But I am not going to complain of that now. What I suggest is that since the development of modern traffic a number of the roads are not of proper width. It is a remarkable thing that in going through England you find that some of the ancient roads are much narrower than the roads which are modem in Ireland. But the park roads want widening for the purposes of modern traffic, and the corners need to be taken off.
    1064
    6.0 P.M.
    Turning to another topic, the Government have recently erected, in connection; with the police barracks in Dublin, a magnificent building which is a beauty and an ornament. But when they came to-put up a building in connection with the Law Courts they put up a building in concrete, quite out of keeping with the general character of the structure. It would appear to me that it ought to have been of a more dignified substance, and that to put up a concrete structure in connection with a building of granite or some other durable stone is a great mistake. The evil, however, is done and cannot be remedied. It is the result of this Vote having had no criticism for at least ten years. The Office of Works know that they can do as they please in Ireland, because their Vote never comes up for discussion. It used to be a main Vote for discussion in the old days, and the result of its non-discussion has been, I will not say such blots on civilisation, but such disfigurements as the erection, in connection with the great Courts of Justice which are built of magnificent stone, of a concrete building, while elsewhere they put a building of a more ornamental kind. In conclusion, I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should drop that contentious Section of the Public Works Loan Bill to which I referred earlier, for war time is not the time to give more powers of a punitive character, and when the main body of Irish Members are absent. I do not want to worry the Government—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman is now dealing with a subject requiring legislation.
    Mr. HEALY: Of course, I am dealing with the Board of Works, who are coming down in order to ask for what might be thought excessive powers, and from that point of view I submit that it would be in order; but I do not intend to pursue the matter except to say that they have no right to come to Parliament at the fagend of the Session to ask for these powers, and I suggest, in the interests of harmony, that it would be well if the punitive Clauses were withdrawn.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and learned Member has taken full advantage of the opportunity that he has been waiting for for nine years. He also said that he recognised that in this

    1065
    year of all years it is not desirable that the Works Department in Ireland should undertake any avoidable expense. I therefore gather, so far as that point of making new roads in Phœnix Park and throwing into Phœnix Park this new land—a matter which he thinks ought to have been attended to long ago—he was rather taking the opportunity—which he was afraid might not recur—in order that his views might be brought, through me, to the Department concerned for consideration under somewhat happier conditions. I can assure him that the opportunity which he has taken to-day will not be wasted. I will draw the attention of the Department in Ireland to the suggestions he makes with a view to their consideration when peace is once more restored.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    RAILWAYS, IRELAND.—Class I.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,008, 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, 1916, for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, and for other purposes connected with Irish Railways." [NOTE.— £10,000 has been voted on account.]

    WORKS FOR RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.—Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916. for Works to be carried out for the Relief of Unemployment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Vote. I desire to tell the Committee something of the history of this, which, as the Committee will see, is a very exceptional Vote, and one on which some explanation ought to be forthcoming. The Works Votes for buildings and for new undertakings are arranged in the autumn of each year by a conference which sits under the presidency of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The various works in contemplation are reviewed and the Vote is kept as low as possible, consistent with public requirements. In the
    1066
    autumn of 1914, when this Conference met, the Office of Works and the Treasury had one object in view, and that was to postpone every work that could be postponed, only to go on so far as inevitable, and with works of which the contracts had already been let, and which it would have been uneconomic to stop. The consequence was that exceptional reductions in the Vote were agreed to.
    At that time, however, nobody could predict cither the length of the War or the results of the continuance of the War. There were many people who anticipated a considerable and serious unemployment, and it was, therefore, decided by the Minister of Munitions, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in these peculiar and exceptional circumstances a sum of £250,000 should be set aside, and that Parliament should be asked to Vote it, in order to begin, as opportunity arose, projects which in ordinary circumstances had to have the sanction of the Treasury, but which were postponed for the present because we wanted to save money which might advantageously be taken in order to relieve unemployment which might exist. As events have turned out, the fear of unemployment has practically disappeared. Under the circumstances it does not seem to the Government to-day to be necessary to ask the House to vote this money, designed to meet this exceptional unemployment, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Vote.
    Mr. HOGGE: I desire to put a question or two.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question is, that leave be given. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If hon. Members object, it is not possible to withdraw the Vote.
    Mr. HOGGE: I understand this Vote was down on the Paper, and I had no notion that it was going to be withdrawn until the Chief Patronage Secretary informed us that there was to be no discussion upon it. Since then my right hon. Friend has been put up on the Front Bench to withdraw the Vote. That is not the way to deal with hon. Members who are sitting in the House, and desire to criticise those Estimates. We subsequently asked what Votes were going to be taken, and having been given the information, we notified what Votes we were going to ask questions upon. Since then the information has been given that the Vote is to be withdrawn. That I do not think is quite—
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): I did not exactly hear what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will repeat it, then: The point I am making is that this Vote has now been withdrawn; that leave is being asked to withdraw it. It was on the Paper. I say that the Patronage Secretary came round here and asked us, amongst other things, what Votes we wanted to raise questions on, so that he could inform the Ministers that they might be present. This Vote was mentioned as the very next Vote, and the result of that action is that the Minister in charge—
    Mr. GULLAND: That is what I absolutely object to; there is no connection between the two.
    Mr. MONTAGU: What occurred was this: the Patronage Secretary came down here after consultation with the hon. Member and told me that he proposed to raise some question upon this Vote. I then told the Patronage Secretary that it was my intention to ask the House to withdraw it.
    Mr. HOGGE: We were never informed of that. If the Patronage Secretary comes here and asks us our idea, and conveys that information to the Minister, surely he could have come back and told us that the Vote was to be withdrawn. This Vote is put down for a specific purpose. I am not sure that the money is not required. No case has been made out by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in favour of withdrawing this amount of money because of the absence of unemployment. Everybody in this House knows that the whole of the East Coast of the country at the present time is very hardly hit, and that there are large numbers of trades which are very badly employed. There are in our own country of Scotland the case of the fishermen and fishermen's dependants. The War has entirely ruined that industry in Scotland, particularly that portion of it which is carried on by the dependants, and I do not know of any other fund that is provided by the Government to deal with these cases. From time to time these cases are brought up in this House, and we are informed that they are the consequence of the War, and that these people must suffer in the same way just as other people suffer. But the House knows perfectly well that a great many people, for instance, in connection
    1068
    with the Stock Exchange, and people engaged in the City—friends of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), who-is in favour, I understand, of this Grant being withdrawn—they have been supported by Government money and Government credit. The hon. Baronet shakes his head. I think he will find it very difficult indeed to prove that they have not been supported by Government money and by Government credit.
    But these poorer working classes engaged in those various industries around the coast are suffering hardly, and there is no fund that I know of, except the Prince of Wales' Fund. I do not know, Mr. Whitley, how far one is entitled to refer to that fund in this discussion, but part of that fund is at the disposal of the Local Government Board for the relief of civil distress. This Vote of £250,000 is also for the relief of civil distress, and therefore, if I may, I should like to refer to the fact that we never have had yet placed before the House any adequate or full statement from the Local Government Board of the amount of money subscribed to the National Relief Fund that has been expended in the relief of civil distress throughout the country. I am perfectly certain, so far as I am aware, that anything that has been done has not been devoted to particular trades. I would like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to believe me when I say that one is concerned for this particular purpose. He knows perfectly well—these towns apart, and the places I have mentioned in my own country—that on the East Coast of England you have distressed industries and people that are largely out of work. You have, for instance, watering places along the coast practically this year without visitors of any kind, and ladies who make their livelihood from year to year by letting apartments on the verge of ruin. They are having an extremely hard time of it. Why should the Government, unless they can give us some real and tangible explanation of their hold upon the National Belief Fund for the purpose of relieving civil distress—unless, I say, they can make that plain—not earmark, at any rate, that small amount of money that the Government every year earmarks, of £100,000, for the purpose of the Unemployed Workmen's Act in connection with our Labour Exchanges? That is the usual Grant that is made from year to year.
    Here is a sum of £250,000. If it is not required and not spent—and here the hon.

    1069
    Baronet opposite will surely agree—if it is not spent it will go back into the Treasury; it will not be lost. It is one of those balances which goes back. It is not as the sums which we have been discussing this afternoon. Surely it is much better that the Government should have this small amount in hand to deal with that exceptional kind of distress should it arise. Take the point again, of the landladies at the boarding houses. You will not really know until the end of the season how badly they are going to be hit. Their great difficulty will be in carrying over from the month of October to the spring, and I think the Government ought to provide some fund of money which they could use, if there is not enough available from the National Belief Fund. The Financial Secretary knows of the rumours going about that so much of that money is used for soldiers' and sailors' allowances which ought to be provided by the War Office and Admiralty. Whether they will ever get that money back I do not know. At any rate, an enormous number of claims are coming out of that National Relief Fund, and it would be unwise of the Financial Secretary to withdraw the only fund that does exist to meet exceptional cases of distress that are in existence and will arise as distress becomes more intense in the winter months.
    Mr. FELL: Statements have been made that there is no distress, or will be no distress this winter. I know there is a great deal of prosperity while this money is being spent, but if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is the case everywhere he is grievously mistaken. My committee are having a meeting, I hope, next week with the Local Government Board, and the mayor and corporation are sending a deputation, because there is not the slightest doubt distress is acute in my Constituency, and people at the present moment are selling their furniture bit by bit to pay their immediate expenses. The town has been absolutely stopped from having visitors this summer and lost its herring fishery last season. If, therefore, this Vote is not to be applicable it will be serious. It is a most serious matter to lose a great herring fishery, and then to lose the summer season entirely, seeing that an enormous number of lodging-house keepers and others depend on it. They have not been allowed to have Belgian or French refugees, because it is in the danger zone, and they are not allowed to
    1070
    have troops billeted there, because, for some strategical reason, troops are not desirable in the locality. The withdrawal of the Vote, which might enable assistance to be given to such a town, is, therefore, a matter of serious moment. I do not know what would be done with this money, but it should be left available for such cases as will be brought before the Local Government Board next week.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think there is some misapprehension. This money was for the relief of only one kind of unemployment— that in the building trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the Vote not an estimate of the amount required in the year to defray the cost of: "Works to be carried out for the Relief of Unemployment in the United Kingdom"?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I quite agree, but works to be carried out by the Public Works Departments, and the works which were contemplated were building works. In the present state of things, it seems to me highly undesirable to go on with that, particularly as you would be using men especially useful for other and more urgent work, and also raw material—girders and things of that kind—which might be required in other work. If my two hon. Friends are interested in unemployment generally, there are other ways of meeting such unemployment as may occur during winter. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) has already mentioned the extra-Parliamentary Fund. Distress arising out of the War can be met out of the Vote of Credit, and later on this evening I hope to move a Supplementary Estimate under the Unemployment Workmen's Act, not of £100,000, but of £50,000, which is specially designed for the purpose of relieving unemployment, so that there are other means of meeting this.
    Question put, and negatived.

    MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT.—Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £32,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for a Contribution to the Cost of the Improvement of the Approach to the Mall."
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation on this Vote. The Committee will remember that last year, only, I think, a few months

    1071
    before the War began, an Act was passed through this House providing for this particular improvement, and under that Act a contribution was to be given by the Imperial Government, another was to come from the Westminster City Council, and a third contribution from the London County Council. The three bodies were all to contribute to the cost of the improvement. I understand that under that Act the land and buildings which were involved, and the acquisition of which was necessary for the purposes of the improvement, have actually been acquired. The question now is, I believe, the carrying out of the work under the Act. It seems to me that it is important the Committee should understand what precisely is being done to carry out this work. The property acquired under the Act includes some buildings which are actually in occupation and are producing very large sums in the way of revenue. Obviously it would be a mistaken policy at a time like this for the country to demolish the buildings, which are actually a source of revenue, and to start upon these improvement works which would cost a great deal of money and absorb a large amount of labour; so that in both ways, if the work is carried out, the country is likely to lose. The country is first of all likely to lose in respect of the revenue which will be lost if the buildings are demolished; and, secondly, there will be a loss in carrying out the improvements at a time when the cost of this kind of work is the highest. I hope, therefore, this work is not to be done. If the £.32,000 which the Committee is now asked to vote is for the purpose of carrying out work where it need not be carried out, I shall certainly oppose the Vote.
    Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): In the absence of my right hon. Friend I may be allowed to try to explain exactly what this figure means. May I first say that no unnecessary work of any kind is being carried out as regards this improvement, but one of the bargains which was necessitated by the Mall improvement was made with the Phœnix Fire Insurance Company, and that company has actually procured other premises. Therefore it is only fair they should receive the money which it was agreed they should receive for the premises they are giving up in connection with this improvement. I understand that the sum to which they
    1072
    are entitled is some £70,000, and, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, this House last year approved of a scheme by which one-third of any cost was to be borne by the London County Council, one-third by the Westminster Corporation, and one-third by the Treasury. That, therefore, nearly absorbs the whole of this Vote, but I am happy to assure the House that the Phœnix Company, realising the difficult position that has arisen, has agreed to accept the entire sum due to it in the form of War Loan stock, in order to obviate the necessity of spending public money at a time like this. I can only end by assuring my hon. Friend and the House that no money that can possibly be avoided is to be spent on this improvement.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I should like to ask a question or two on this Vote. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Office of Works Vote said that the Phœnix Insurance Company had agreed to accept stock in the War Loan in lieu of cash for the amount of indemnity to which they were entitled under the contract of settlement for their premises. Does that mean for the whole £70,000 odd? My second question is: Have the contributions agreed upon as between the other two parties in the contract, the London County Council and the Westminster City Council, been paid; and, further, have proper arrangements been made to meet the inconvenience owing to prospective disturbance of the other insurance company, whose case was under investigation by the hon. Member who was at the Department at the time? I am with the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) in this, that I think spending a large sum of money, even on such a matter of decorative importance to London, would be inopportune; but, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, obligations would be kept, and I should be glad if, to that extent, the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether the acceptance of War Loan Stock is for the whole £70,000 and whether the contributions have been paid into the common fund on the part of the other parties?
    Mr. L. JONES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £7,000.
    The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote has accounted for one-third of the £70,000; there still remains a large amount of this Vote which, I gather, is not going to be spent. I do not see the smallest purpose in voting money which is not to be spent in the course of the financial

    1073
    year, and the reduction of the Vote by £7,000 will leave the Government a margin for small legal expenses.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: I desire to ask whether any arrangement has been entered into with the Phœnix Company on the ground that they will be enjoying the interest on the capital which is to be handed over to them and, at the same time, enjoying the benefit of the building they occupy? If they are going to get the £70,000 for this property and still remain in possession, shall we, in handing over our proportion of the capital, also derive some portion of the rent?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I wish to ask whether the amount which we are asked to vote represents one-third of the cost, not only of purchasing the buildings referred to, but also the pulling down of the buildings and the completion of the Mall improvement? I understand the Vote is for one-third of the cost, not only of taking over the buildings, but of completing the Mall improvement. Whilst we do not wish to interpose any obstacle in the way of completing the agreement entered into, we do not want the buildings pulled down and the rest of the expense undertaken at this stage unless it is absolutely necessary.
    Mr. BECK: The Treasury has nothing to do with this work, except to keep obligations which this House has entered into. The London County Council is actually responsible for the performance of the work. With regard to the other holders of offices in the neighbourhood, I am informed that the Phœnix Company was the only company which was committed to the new arrangement that it was possible to withdraw, and they would have been left in a most unfair position.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Are we going to pay our contribution before we are assured that they will pay theirs? I know that one of these bodies is the acting instrument with the Phœnix Company, and I would like to know if we are anticipating their payment. What is the amount which the Phœnix Company will take up? Is it one-third or two-thirds?
    Mr. BECK: I understand that they have agreed to take the whole amount in War Loan Stock. As regards the other matters, may I point out that we are only fulfilling a bargain, and the London County Council is carrying out the actual work? The Treasury would not part with this money
    1074
    before it is actually needed, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) not to press his Amendment. This is a bargain entered into by this House last year, and I do not think it is becoming in a time of difficulty like this to go back on such a bargain.
    Mr. L. JONES: I only moved a reduction of this Vote because I understand that there is no intention of spending this money during the year. I know we have to fulfil our bargain, but if the hon. Gentleman can show me that this money is necessary for that purpose I will withdraw my Amendment. I understand, however, that he only wants one-third of £70,000, and in that case £25,000 is quite enough. As at present informed, I do not see my way to withdraw this Amendment.
    Mr. W. ROCH: As I understand the explanation which has been given, we are going to vote £32,000. The explanation of the Vote is that one-third of £70,000 is a liability which has to be paid to the Phœnix Insurance Company, and that is just under £25,000. What does the other part consist of? Is the balance to be left for the Department to pay? I think we might know what is in the mind of the Department on this point. I certainly think that when the House of Commons for once is showing a little interest in the saving of expenditure it will hardly be inclined to hand over to a Department £7,000 to spend as it thinks fit. I think we must have some kind of explanation.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask for a reply to the point which I have raised? My own position is that I am willing to assent to any sum that is necessary to enable the agreement with the Phœnix Company to be carried out. But I want to know whether the balance is not intended to be applied to the demolition of these premises, and the completion of the Mall improvement?
    Mr. BECK: I can assure hon. Members that not a single bit of unnecessary work will be performed, and I am assured that that is definitely so. I am not fully acquainted with this particular bargain, and the part which the £7,000 plays in it, but I am sure it is part of the bargain with the two great local authorities, and I again assure hon. Members that not a single unnecessary penny will be spent this year in this connection or until after the close of the War. I ask the House not to insist upon reducing this Vote.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: I think my question was a very simple one. If you are going to hand over this money to the Phœnix Insurance Company, surely it should be on condition that they give up something in return. At present they are enjoying the benefit of this building, and at the same time we are going to give them this money.
    Mr. BECK: No.
    Mr. PRICE: That is what this Vote is for. This company are still retaining possession of the building, and you are going to hand over this money before you get possession. I want to know, will the company pay back an equivalent in rent? And that is my simple question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the various explanations leave the Committee in a complete state of mystification. We have been told that no money will be spent upon any unnecessary work, and that it is not the Office of Works that will be doing the work. We arc told that we have merely to carry out a bargain, and the way the work is done depends on the Westminster City Council and the London County Council. I think the Office of Works might have given us some further details in this Vote. In the past the Office of Works has not been in the habit of treating the House of Commons with great courtesy, and it has regarded us as a rather subservient House, and probably this is justified, in view of its former treatment of the House. I think we might have been told what the exact amount due from the Exchequer is under this bargain. We are told, in a note to the Vote, that—
    "The works are to be carried out by the London County Council under the provisions of the Mall Approach (Improvement) Act, 1914. It is provided in the Act that the Commissioners of Works shall contribute one-third of the net cost of the work, or £38,333, whichever is the less; and that this contribution shall be defrayed partly out of moneys provided by Parliament, and partly out of other moneys at the disposal of the Commissioners.
    In addition to the expenditure out of this Grant the proceeds of the sale of securities available under the Metropolitan Improvements (Fund) Act, 1914, will be applied towards the post of the improvements."
    Surely it would only have been courteous to the Committee if the Office of Works had drawn up an account showing how this £32,000 was arrived at, and what is the complete sum. The hon. Gentleman has told us that it is something over £70,000. I think they might have given us a simple division sum showing what was available under the Metropolitan Improvements (Fund) Act which was to be deducted," dividing the balance by
    1076
    three, which I assume accounts for the total liability of the State. The hon. Member is not able to do this for us, although he has been brought down to reply to our criticism. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe has shown that the only amount really due is £23,000, and yet we are asked to vote £32,000, and no explanation is given to us as to what is to be done with the balance. I think the Committee should insist upon having a definite account as to what is going to be done with the balance before we part with this Vote. The hon. Member in charge of the Vote says that the Phœnix Company made arrangements to go into other premises, and on account of having made those arrangements this money has to be paid to them. If that is so, why do they not vacate the present building? I would like to know if on their vacation of the present building, the London County Council intend to demolish the building, or do the Office of Works intend to make representations to the London County Council that the building should not be demolished, but should be temporarily let to another tenant, so that there will be some revenue to the parties concerned in this bargain? That is a consideration which the Office should have in mind, and we should have an undertaking that we are not going to have this building waste-fully demolished and the revenue lost to the parties concerned. At a place like Trafalgar Square, obviously a building can be let for a very considerable rent at the present time. Even the Government might find this building very useful, because you are putting up temporary buildings, and this building might be occupied in order to save the expense of some temporary building.
    These considerations seem to be absent from the mind of the Office of Works. We have a Cabinet Minister representing the Office of Works who has been relieved of the greater responsibilities of the Colonial Office, and seeing that we have only one day for all these Votes, I think the right hon. Gentleman might have spared some little of his extra leisure for the House of Commons. We remember that the first day we came back after the Whitsuntide Recess the Government besought us to pass a Bill to secure the re-election of Ministers without going to their constituencies, in order that they might be here in the House of Commons to answer our criticism—and we have never seen them since. They got the Bill and

    1077
    "pooled" their salaries, and then disappeared except at Question Time. Now we have a sort of omnibus Committee of Supply covering nearly every Department of the State, and the only Cabinet Minister who gives an answer is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Of course he did better under the "pooling," and in the circumstances he is showing his gratitude by increased assiduity in this House. I think the First Commissioner of Works might have been here to explain. I remember in the days when the right hon. Gentleman was First Commissioner of Works before he used to be most efficient and give the elaborate explanations of all the Votes. I remember the first occasion on which I saw Committee of Supply in this House. His explanations were of the most complete character, and he satisfied all the most elaborate inquiries which arose, and even the inexhaustible curiosity of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). But now the right hon. Gentleman has vanished. I thought when the right hon. Gentleman had returned to his old office we should once more have clear explanations, but as he is not here I had almost intended to move to report Progress. I do not think the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) has any connection with the Office of Works. He is merely the conduit pipe between those under the Gallery and the Committee. Surely that is not the proper way to treat the Committee of this House? Failing a more sufficient explanation how the £32,000 is arrived at, and how the balance over and above the money actually payable to the Phœnix Insurance Company under the contract is to be dealt with, and failing any statement that the building vacated by the Phœnix Insurance Company is to be put to some profitable and revenue-bearing use, I shall either vote for the reduction or move to report Progress.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) will be good enough to allow me to ask him to withdraw the reduction. There was a block of three premises, one in the occupation of the London, Liverpool, and Globe Company, one in the occupation of the Phœnix Insurance Company, and one in the occupation of India-rubber merchants; and in order to make a decent entrance to the King Edward Triumphal Arch the opening was
    1078
    to be widened by the removal of part of this block. The question arose in Committee as to who should go out, and after long negotiations—there were a great many conflicts of opinion between the interests of the London, Liverpool, and Globe Company and those of the Phœnix Insurance Company—it was decided to buy these three premises with joint funds provided by these three contributory parties. After the improvement had been satisfactorily made by setting back a certain part of the buildings, the London, Liverpool, and Globe Company was to be rehoused, and their new building was to include a small fragment of their own old site and a considerable portion of the site of the Phœnix Insurance Company which was to be surrendered. Then, on the remainder, being the site of the India-rubber shop and warehouse and a portion of the old site of the Phœnix Insurance Company, the Phœnix Insurance Company itself was to be housed. There were three buildings which were to be remade into two, and a large slice was to be given to the road way. The litigation and expense with lawyers and surveyors and the rest of them must have been enormous in the whole of this inquiry, which occupied a large amount of time, and if you have got a definite assurance from the Treasury—and in these times the Treasury are to be trusted —that they will not spend a single penny more than is necessary, you are bound, these two big companies having acted in a high, public-spirited fashion, and having entered into a contract with them—
    Mr. L. JONESmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir W. ESSEX: The contract was only as concerns the Phœnix Insurance Company. That is true to a point, but we are under obligations to the other company, and the whole has to be taken en bloc. Therefore I think my hon. Friend should, in the interests of the honour of this House, waive his objection and trust to the promise that he has obtained as a reward to his assiduity and acuteness from the Front Bench and let this Vote pass.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: The question is not whether the House of Commons is prepared to carry out a bargain, but whether it is going to pass a Vote having imperfect information upon it. I have very great sympathy with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck), because he is obviously insufficiently

    1079
    informed. He was evidently under the impression that the House had got into the way of passing whatever was before it, and he had not got the information. I am not sure that we have not to blame the Scottish Members, who let the Secretary for Scotland off too easily and without sufficient heckling—
    Mr. HOGGE: That is coming on.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: And without sufficient heckling when one of his Votes was taken in the early part of the day. Consequently, the Chief Commissioner of Works, who is doubtless engaged on some other Cabinet Committee, has not had sufficient information that this Vote was on. Still, I do not think that has anything to do with the House of Commons at the present moment. This afternoon's occurrence ought to be an indication to the Departments that their Estimates must contain full information for the House. I must say I am very glad to notice that the House is getting into the humour for a very detailed examination of every Vote and every penny that comes before it. That will have to be the spirit in which it reviews these Estimates in the future. It is not sufficient for Ministers to come down here and say, "Oh, trust us; give us a large enough Vote, and we will see that we do not spend more than is necessary." We ought to know how every penny is going to be spent. Of course, all our undertakings will be carried out, but we are entitled to know the exact details on which this extra £7,000 or £8,000 is going to be spent, and unless that information is given, I for one am not prepared to vote this money this afternoon.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: I think the whole of this discussion would be brought to an end if the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) could assure the Committee that the whole of this £32,000 is required to carry out a bargain made by the Government. If that is so, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) will withdraw the reduction. There is at the present time some £7,000 or £8,000 which I can only describe as doubtful. We are not told for what purpose it is wanted, and until we are told I must support the reduction.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
    1080
    Stafford (Sir W. Essex) on the fact that he is now in a position to answer for the Front Bench. There was a very Front Bench tone, both in the manner in which he spoke and in the method by which he made his announcement to the House. I desire to ask for a little further information, but I am not quite sure whether I should address my remarks to the hon. Member who sits on the Front Bench (Mr. Beck) or to my hon. Friend on the second Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "To the Chair."] Through the Chair, of course. I desire to ask for information in regard to the manner in which this £75,000 is to be paid to the Phœnix Insurance Company. We are told that they have agreed to take it in the form of War Loan, which is certainly a patriotic thing to do at the present time, but I am a little bit mystified as to how that is to be accomplished. I thought that the list of the Loan had been closed, and that the Loan was completed. In these circumstances, I should like to know how this War Loan is going to be issued to the Phœnix Insurance Company. The list of the Loan itself is completed, and the only part which is now open are the £5 bonds issued through the Post Office and the 5s. vouchers. Is it proposed that this £75,000 should be taken out in the form of £5 bonds and 5s. vouchers? If that is proposed it is a very bad bargain on the part of the Department. It would be far cheaper to take some of the money which they have already raised at 4½ per cent, and to pay them money, instead of issuing notes and bonds on which 5 per cent, would be payable. Or is it proposed that this £75,000 should be used to purchase War Loan in the market, and having purchased it in the market that it should then be issued to the Phœnix Insurance Company? If that is proposed, I do not see what is the advantage to the Department or to the National Exchequer We ought really to have some further explanation as to the meaning of the statement we have heard that this payment is to be issued to the Phœnix Insurance Company in the form of War Loan.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) has been very unfairly treated by the Committee. This is a matter which was settled by the Act of last year. If anybody will take the trouble to turn to that Act I think he will see that a great injustice is being done to a new Member of the Government. It seems to me to be a decided matter, and this discussion, which undoubtedly would

    1081
    have been relevant to the Act of last year, is certainly not relevant to the present Vote. The Act consists only of thirteen Clauses, and it begins by setting out:
    "Whereas with a view to enhancing the dignity of the approach to the Mall from Charing Cross and the East, it is expedient that the London County Council should be empowered to acquire the lands and execute the improvements by this Act authorised."
    Then there are provisions giving power to the Council to take the lands incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts, giving power to the Council to make the improvements, giving protection to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and limiting the period for the completion of the improvements to five years, and then this Clause follows:
    "The Commissioners of Works and the Westminster City Council shall each contribute towards the net cost incurred by the council in the execution of this Act a sum amounting to one-third of such cost, or thirty-eight thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds, whichever is less.
    The contribution of the Commissioners of Works under this Section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament and out of other moneys at the disposal of the Commissioners in such proportions as the Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine."
    Apparently, in pursuance of the powers of this Act, the Commissioners of Works have made their bargain with the county council and with the Westminster body, and this Vote now merely implements that transaction, and we have no escape, as I understand it, from paying.
    Mr. PRINGLE: There is more in the Vote than the amount necessary for that bargain.
    Mr. HEALY: The figure in the Vote, as I understand it, is £32,000, whereas Parliament authorised the sum of £38,333.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Or one-third, whichever is less.
    Mr. HEALY: Quite so. It must be at all events perfectly plain that a sum has been agreed by the county council, and that we have to make our contribution in order to carry out that bargain. Therefore it seems to me that any discussion as to the position of the Phœnix Company or any other subsidiary matters hardly arises
    1082
    on the Vote, because all the hon. Member for Saffron Walden is doing is simply to-carry out a bargain which Parliament, sanctioned last year.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) has not quite grasped the point that some of us are trying to make. We may be wrong, but may I make it again for the benefit of him and the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck)? We are by this Vote-providing one-third of the amount. We are told that the whole amount is £70,000. A third of that is obviously £23,333 6s. 8d. That leaves a balance of £8,666 13s. 4d., which is not absorbed by the one-third1 which we are entitled to pay. We are concerned with the one-third, which is our legitimate debt, and to pay which we propose to vote the money. What we are asking the hon. Gentleman is: What does the Board of Works want with the extra £8,666 13s. 4d.? This House has had a very painful experience of leaving the Board of Works power to spend money. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) will remember we had a discussion here the other day as to who was responsible for spending between £4,000 and £5,000 on a tea-room downstairs, for which there is no use and for which a use has still to be found. The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Works now was that this was done when he was not at the Department. But no information has ever been given to the House as to who was responsible for spending money on that tea-room. An hon. Member who was a member of the Kitchen Committee, in the course of that Debate, told the House of Commons that the Kitchen Committee asked for something entirely different, and did not want that tea-room.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather abroad in his remarks.
    Mr. HOGGE: I was only trying to illustrate my argument that it is not wise or safe to leave the Board of Works in possession of £8,666 13s. 4d., unless we know exactly what they are going to do with it. They spent money on a previous occasion without any explanation; but if the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, with that painful experience before him, in this rather wooden discussion will give an assurance that there is necessary work to. be done in pursuit of the bargain to which we are committed, the Committee will give

    1083
    him the money. If he cannot give us that information, if he cannot tell us that the money is required for necessary work at that particular corner, why should we vote it? That is the whole thing in a nutshell, and this Debate can be brought to a close quite easily if the hon. Gentleman who has now had time to consult his expert adviser under the Gallery, will say what work is necessary to be done. We can then approach the realm of law on the Votes in Class IV.
    Mr. BECK: I am sorry I did not make myself clearer over this matter. I understand the position to be this. I explained to the Committee that, as regards the Phœnix Company, the money is actually due at this moment; and, in reference to the not very important point as to how the War Loan is to be arranged, in order that there may be no further mystery on that question I may say that the London County Council have subscribed for War Loan to the extent required and the Treasury will repay one-third of the amount so subscribed. As regards the main point, I do not know if anything further is necessary, after the remarks we have had from my hon. Friend behind me (Sir W. Essex), and from the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy), but I may give this pledge as to the money beyond the amount immediately due to the Phœnix Company. It is believed by the parties that this money is necessary in order to fulfil the bargain Parliament made last year. There are negotiations going on with the London County Council with a view to cutting out every avoidable penny of expense, and I can give the Committee a most definite pledge that, while we feel it essential the money should be available in order to fulfil our bargain, yet any possible sum that can be saved will not be spent. That is a definite pledge, and I do not think hon. Members should press the Government further.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I only rose to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Cork, and to say that, so far as I, at any rate, am concerned, there is no desire to avoid our bargain. We want to carry it out; but we do not want to do more than we are obliged to do. The bargain is that a certain sum—the hon. Gentleman said £70,000, I think—was settled upon.
    Mr. BECK: It is immediately due.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman could not tell us how the money in excess of our one-third share is to be spent. That is not a new experience. Very often hon. Gentlemen on that Bench are unable to give the Committee information asked for. But we have had a long discussion. We are indebted to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division for having raised the question, but as the point involved is not very large I think now the Vote might be agreed to.
    Mr. L. JONES: The amount involved may not be large, but the principle at stake is one of considerable importance. I do not know still whether or not the Government are going to spend this money, and I strongly object to voting in the Estimates money when the Government cannot tell us exactly for what purpose it is to be used. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden has given an absolute guarantee that the money will not be spent except so far as our commitments go at the present time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. PRICE: May I have answer to my question as to whether the Government or the Treasury is going to derive some benefit from the occupancy of the premises for which they are advancing this money. Are we to retain possession of the money until the buildings are pulled down, or will rent be derived from the premises for their temporary occupation?
    Mr. BECK: The Treasury have already written to the London County Council saying it will demand one-third of any revenue that may be derived from these premises.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    LAW CHARGES.—Class III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £44,754, 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, 1916, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury and King's Proctor, and the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; for the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal

    1085
    Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency." [NOTE.—£45,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. WATT: I wish to call attention to the fact that these law charges this year show a large increase of £7,575, and that is rather surprising in face of the fact that the legal world is exceptionally depressed in these war times. Everybody else is saving money on law, but the Government is not. It is, I confess, very difficult to understand that. This Vote includes the salaries of two important Law Officers—the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General—£7,000 being allocated to the former, and £6,000 to the latter. This Committee ought to consider its position in granting these salaries. It must be aware, from various sources, that these two Law Officers are not receiving these sums, but that by a private arrangement which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Lanark has aptly described as "pooling," the salaries are not paid directly to them. These salaries have been fixed at the amounts I have mentioned, because Parliament desires to secure the services of a certain type of men for the posts. It pays these high salaries in order that the officials may be above suspicion and, at the same time, be satisfactorily rewarded for the work which they do. I suggest that these gentlemen should not have the power of coming to some private arrangement whereby the Committee is baulked of its intention, and I beg to enter my protest against this practice.
    I desire further to have an explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of the extraordinary figures demanded for the King's Proctor. I find on Vote F there is an item of £7,000—£500 more than last year—which is described as the cost of intervention by the King's Proctor in divorce cases. That seems an exorbitant sum. I do not know what the King's Proctor does. I never could discover why he should poke his nose into these cases, or why it should be done at such an expense to the community. Then, if the Committee will turn to another page, they will find a sum of £2,000 asked for for the solicitor to the King's Proctor, and £l,500 for his assistant. Altogether that Department costs the country £40,000, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what value the community gets in return.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The King's Proctor, who is also the Treasury Solicitor, receives
    1086
    no salary or any other emolument for acting as King's Proctor, and his fees go to the Treasury as the Appropriations-in-Aid. With regard to the observation of the hon. Member, that this item shows an increase of over £7,000, I may say that that amount is practically accounted for by one item in the Appropriations-in-Aid, an item largely due to successful litigation. Last year there were legal proceedings in which costs were recovered to the extent of £11,000. This year the costs recovered only amount to £5,500, and that item therefore practically accounts for the whole increase in the Vote. I need not pursue the remarks of the hon. Member with regard to the method employed by individual Ministers for dealing with the salaries voted by Parliament. We had a debate on that subject early in the Session, and the House of Commons then, as I think, very rightly, declined to take any interest in the matter.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I had expected when I saw the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) here that he had given notice to the Law Officers that he wished to raise a question which he had upon the Question Paper to-day. He has shown a great anxiety to raise the question of the policy of the Law Officers in dealing with prosecutions for treason. Surely this is a suitable opportunity, much more appropriate than Question Time, to ascertain the policy of the Government in dealing with persons who are guilty of publishing or printing treasonable publications. I notice, for example, that on the Question Paper to-day the hon. Member for East Nottingham was anxious to ascertain why the Law Officers of the Crown—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is certainly not a matter which can be raised in Committee of Supply. It is a matter of the policy of the Government, not of the Law Officers, who simply carry out what is decided upon by the Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I have always understood that it was the function of the Law Officers to advise the Government as to what the law is. As this is a question as to what publications come within the law of treason, surely I am entitled to raise the matter on the salary of the Attorney-General?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not so. The hon. Member, I think, will be able to see this: that if that were permitted, we

    1087
    might have the Law Officers here in Committee of Supply answering legal questions in relation to proceedings in which they had to take action. That would obviously be out of order.
    Mr. PRINGLE: May I remind you that only a fortnight ago the hon. Member for East Nottingham gave notice that he was going to raise in this House the question of a publication of the senior Member for Leicester—
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not affect the point at all.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The Law Officers ought to be here.
    Mr. HOGGE: On the Estimate as it stands, I desire to make a few observations in view of what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said. Do I understand him to say that the King's Proctor has no official salary? I listened very carefully to the points made by my hon. friend (Mr. Watt), and from the right hon. Gentleman's reply I understood him to say that the King's Proctor has no salary. Is that so? If the Financial Secretary will look at page 4 of Class III., which we are considering, he will see there is put down a sum of £2,000 for an individual called "Solicitor and King's Proctor." That obviously is the person in question, and he is entitled to £2,000 a year for the work he is doing. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman will see that he cannot ride off on that horse in attempting to reply to my hon. Friend who raised this point. The point is a very serious one and involves a question of morals. The right hon. Gentleman will observe that there has been, that there is this year in fact, an increase of nearly £1,000 in the salaries and allowances for this Department. We ought to be more moral than ever we were, because there are fewer people here. There are fewer of these cases arising. It is a perfectly pertinent question to ask why this Vote is increased.
    I do not think my right hon. Friend really answered the point put to him by the hon. Member who introduced this discussion. On page 4, under the Law Officers' Department, it is set out that the Attorney-General gets £7,000 for non-contentious business and the Solicitor-General £6,000 for non-contentious business. My hon. Friend did not make the point quite clear, and perhaps the Committee will let me try to make it once more. Under the
    1088
    system which is known to exist one or other of these high legal officials is outside the rule and the other inside the rule; thus the lower-placed official, the Solicitor-General, will be in receipt of a higher salary for non-contentious business than the Attorney-General. That is a very undignified position for the Law Officers of the Crown to find themselves in. There is some little interest taken in this matter, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not addressed his usually clear mind to the degradation of this high office. Surely Parliament cannot mean that the lower-placed legal officer, namely, the Solicitor-General, by remaining outside a pool, whether compulsorily or otherwise the Committee has no knowledge, should be drawing a larger salary than the Attorney-General, who is the senior legal official. I do not know what other payment they get for contentious business. I suppose that is better paid than non-contentious business. At any rate, there is a point to which my right hon. Friend has not replied. In order that he may understand it I will repeat my questions. First, is it or is it not the case that the King's Proctor is paid a salary? Is this the King's Proctor who is paid £2,000, and if it is not the King's Proctor, whose Proctor is it? The second question is, does he consider it in consonance with the dignity of high legal positions in this House, by an arrangement over which this House has no control, that the junior legal official draws a larger salary than the senior and more dignified legal official?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member quite misunderstood what I said about the King's Proctor. The Treasury solicitor is a gentleman who has to act, particularly in war time, in a very large number of proceedings. It is quite true that the King's Proctor is also the Treasury solicitor, and it is quite true that as Treasury solicitor he gets a salary of £2,000. What I said was that he got no special emoluments as King's Proctor, and that all fees and emoluments paid to him as King's Proctor were paid into the Treasury as Appropriations in Aid. With regard to the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Attorney-General is paid £7,000 a year, and the Solicitor-General £6,000 a year for non-contentious business. Contentious business is specially defined in a Treasury Minute of many decades ago to be business for which they are specially paid fees.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: That was in 1895.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I must decline most respectfully to go into the question of what either of these Gentlemen does with his salary, because I venture to submit that this Committee has absolutely nothing to do with that.
    Sir J. D. REES: I was not quite clear about, your ruling, Sir, in reply to the hon. Member opposite, and I should like to ask, is it out of order on this Vote for the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown to debate here or to raise the question to what extent Members of this House are entitled to ask for their opinion? If you will allow me, I will put a concrete case. I wanted to find out, for instance, how far the present Militia Ballot Act was in force in view of the enactments subsequently passed which more or less deal with the same subject. If you go to the Table with a question like that, the Clerks—I have no doubt quite correctly, and I do not dispute it—say, "You cannot put this in JI question for answer." I accept that. But is it also the case that when the salaries of the Law Officers are before a Committee of the House it is not competent to raise that question? I would like to ask to what extent Members are entitled to appeal to them for information as to the present state of the law, which Members may require perhaps for their guidance. I submit that -the matter is not answered by their saying "Go to Mr. So-and-so, and pay your two guineas or five guineas." I am raising the question of what are the duties of these officials and whether it is not competent to discuss them upon this Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's assumption is quite correct; it would not be in order.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is mistaken in his history in regard to the fees paid to the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for non-contentious business. Those fees only go back to the year 1895. Before 1895, during the reign of the Liberal Government from 1892 to 1895, the salary was fixed at £9,000, to include both contentious and non-contentious business. In 1895, when Lord Alverstone came into office, he declined to accept that arrangement, and then, by a Treasury Minute, the old system was reverted to, by which £7,000 a year was paid to the Attorney-General, plus fees, and the Solicitor-General got £6,000, plus
    1090
    fees for contentious business. Therefore this arrangement does not go back many decades. It really goes back to 1895.
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend's point is a very small one. The date of the Treasury Minute to which I referred is 5th July, 1895, so that instead of saying "many decades," I ought to have said exactly two.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Then my recollection is quite correct. I said 1895, because only two years ago I looked up the whole matter. I was a Member of the 1895 Parliament, and I remember that an ex-Chairman of Committees (Mr. Caldwell) who was very exacting in these matters, discussed this question several times in that Parliament. I agree with some of my hon. Friends that if we are going to pay these salaries they ought to be received by the persons named. If they are entitled to receive £7,000 and £6,000 a year, then they certainly should not, without the consent of the House, divide those sums with other Members of the Cabinet.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it in Order in this Committee to discuss a matter over which the Committee has no control whatever?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am not going to pursue the subject.
    The CHAIRMAN: One or two other Members have been walking round that subject, and I had intended to intervene if it had developed at all.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am not going to pursue it. I do think that out of respect to the Committee the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General ought to be present upon this Vote.
    Mr. PRINGLE: They are in the precincts of the House.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I do not know where they are, but it is in accordance with precedents in previous years for them to be present when the Vote is under discussion. The amount we paid two or three years ago to the Attorney-General was no less than £20,000, and to the Solicitor-General about £18,000. At any rate, it averaged about that amount. We think that is a very excessive sum, and I think also we ought to have each year a Return showing how much is paid for contentious as well as non-contentious business.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to call attention to the question of the fees which arc received by the Law Officers. I think

    1091
    when the question of the Law Officer's salary is being discussed, the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Estimate should be in a position to tell us what the Law Officers respectively receive in fees for contentious business. The Committee is entitled to that information because, after all, at present we are entitled to consider the salaries which are being paid, and if on a system of payment, partly by salary and partly by fees, any servant or officer of the Crown is receiving a disproportionate salary, it would be for this House of Commons to take action with a view to reducing that salary. I am all the more surprised that when this Vote is under discussion neither of the Law Officers has thought fit to be present. I am informed that before this Vote came on the Attorney-General was within the precincts, was informed that it was imminently coming on, and in spite of that he has departed. In these circumstances of disrespect to this Committee, I beg leave to move to Report Progress.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): If the hon. Member will be good enough to read the Standing Orders, he will find that no Motion to Report Progress can be moved.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL EXPENSES.—Class III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,166, 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, 1916, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, including Grants in Aid of the Expenses of the Incorporated Law Societies of England and Ireland." [NOTE.—£26,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: A very important point arises on this Estimate, in view of the situation in which we find ourselves. This Miscellaneous Legal Expenses Estimate deals with Sheriff's Expenses, Fugitive Offenders, the Railway and Canal Commission, the Wreck Commissioners, and other bodies. On page 7, which deals with revising barristers, there is estimated for 1915–1916 a sum of £25,463, which is the same as last year, for the duties of revising barristers. A revising barrister is elected ad hoc to what amounts to an ad hoc judgeship, as to whether a man shall have a right to be on the voting
    1092
    roll or not. We do not know whether we are going to have a voting roll this year or not. We are told by the Prime Minister that legislation will be introduced shortly to deal with the question of the extension of this present Parliament and with registration, and it seems to me that to expect us to pay £25,000 to revising barristers this year, for work which is absolutely unnecessary, is an extravagance which my right hon. Friend would not even allow himself. I may be wrong, of course, in saying that the economy can be made. I do not know whether we are committed to it from year to year.

    ROYAL ASSENT.
    Whereupon the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, having come with a Message to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. The House went, and having returned,
    Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

    1. National Registration Act, 1915.

    2. Kilmarnock Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1915.

    3. Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Act, 1915.

    4. Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage Board Act, 1915.

    5. Prescot Gas Act, 1915.

    6. Spennymoor and Tudhoe Gas Act, 1915.

    7. Skegness Urban District Gas Act, 1915.

    8. Rotherham Corporation Act, 1915.

    9. Chelmsford Corporation Gas Act, 1915.

    10. Lurgan Urban District Council Act, 1915.

    11. Port of London Act, 1915.

    12. Sutton District Waterworks Act, 1915.

    13. Aberdare Urban District Council Act, 1915.

    14. Northwich Gas Act, 1915.

    Supply again considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Mr. HOGGE(resuming): When the proceedings were interrupted I was drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that this year we are proposing to spend

    1093
    £25,463 on the salaries of revising barristers. The point I was putting to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was a perfectly sound one, that this money ought not to be voted until we have determined what the register is going to be this year. These revising barristers have it within their power to say whether a man shall or shall not be upon the register, and I know that it is contemplated by the Government in connection with their Registration Bill that so far as Scotland is concerned the register as it stands ought to be the register for the time being. If that is so, it is obvious that there cannot be work in the register for England and Wales to call for this sum of money. Here, therefore, is another case where I invite my right hon. Friend to economise.
    In these miscellaneous legal expenses there is another item which interests me from the point of view of the nature of the expenses incurred. I notice in 1915–16 the amount incurred in arresting fugitive offenders in foreign countries has been very considerably reduced. As a matter of fact the Government is only asking for £400, instead of £800 they got last year for this purpose. I do not know what the definition "foreign" really means here, but there are some neutral countries at the moment which we would never speak of in the sense of foreign countries to which criminals at any rate can fly. It is obvious that although it will be rather inconvenient for a person to take himself to many countries in Europe at the moment in order to escape arrest, there are other countries more remote from Great Britain than any of these foreign countries to which these criminals could fly. I do not know whether this reduced amount in the Vote means that there is a great diminution in the type of crime that originally necessitated a Grant of £800. We are all interested just now, for instance, as to whether a certain individual who has fled to one of these countries is to be arrested and brought back. I hope that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that he is taking enough money under the circumstances. There is another point in regard to wreck inquiries. I notice here again that the sum is very much less this year than it was last year. I am all in favour, as my right hon. Friend has discovered this afternoon, of paring down the Estimates, but in this instance I would point out that this year the total Estimate for wreck inquiries is only £4,500 compared with £6,250 in 1914–15. Is that sufficient?
    1094
    Does this money provided for wreck inquiries cover, for instance, the money that will be required for the inquiries relating to the "Lusitania" and the "Falaba." My right hon. Friend will see at once that the long inquiries that have been conducted in regard to the "Lusitania" and the "Falaba" are comparable to the very large inquiry that followed in 1914–15. The reduction this year is £1,750. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend has taken enough money. The two last points I have put means an increase in expenditure of £2,000, even if he were to make the sum as it was before, but I have pointed him a way in which he can get that extra money out of revising barristers' salaries. These revising barristers are political appointments, usually political jobs, and economies could easily be exercised in that direction this year, and possibly for the period of the War. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation in regard to revising barristers, and that he will tell us whether he thinks that £4,500 will be sufficient for these wreck inquiries, assuming that wreck inquiries will include such matters as the sinking of the "Lusitania."
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think my hon. Friend will understand that in framing these Estimates the preparation has to be made late in the autumn of the preceding year, and it is quite impossible to take into account all threats, warnings, and mutterings. We have got to frame our Estimates in accordance with the statutory obligation to meet the objects already approved by Parliament on which money has to be spent. At the present time it is statutorily necessary to appoint a certain number of revising barristers. At the present moment it is statutorily necessary to compile a register of voters both for municipal and Parliamentary purposes. It may well be that in the course of the financial year, Parliament in its wisdom shall otherwise determine. In that case this Estimate will be larger than the actual amount required, and there will be at the end of the year a total saving which will accrue to the benefit of the Treasury and, therefore, to the benefit of the taxpayer. But we must take the law as it is, and not as my hon. Friend has good reason to believe that it may be. That answers the point in regard to revising barristers.
    Mr. MORTON: Have the revising barristers been actually appointed?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The appointment of the revising barristers dates from the summer assizes. In regard to the arrest of fugitive offenders in foreign countries, I can assure my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) that we have no intention of allowing people to escape because we have not voted enough money. I can also assure him that the cost of arresting them does not depend upon the size of the offence or the importance of the person. It happens that those who are responsible for advising the Treasury in these matters have come to the conclusion that it will cost less to arrest offenders this year than usual, partly because there may be fewer of them, and partly because there are certain geographical areas in which it may be difficult to affect an arrest. If these misgivings are not justified, and if it costs more to arrest them than is provided for in this Vote, it will be necessary to confess that we have made a mistake, and to come to the House for a Supplementary Vote. In any case no offender will escape because enough money has not been voted. The same remark applies to wreck inquiries. It may well be that the amount voted in this Estimate for wreck inquiries will turn out to be insufficient in view of what was happened since the Estimate was framed, and if so, we shall have to ask my hon. Friend and hit, colleagues in the House of Commons to vote a little more money.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AND COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.—Class III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £180,995, 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, 1916, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund." [NOTE.—£150,000 has been voted on account.]
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We all know that there has been a considerable decrease in litigation, and that as a result of the War, law is a depressed industry. It is surely a matter that requires some explanation that in spite of the depression in litigation there should appear to be an increase in the cost of the various items of £991 for salaries,
    1096
    wages, and allowances. It is very strange that at the present time, when salaried appointments under the Government should be cut down, we should have this increase in these items. I notice also a further increase in salaries in respect of the District Probate Register. These things call for a word of explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. We hope that in the Votes of this year in this particular Department efforts will be made to secure retrenchment. The public themselves have indicated that they do not want to spend their private money on the law. If the public are not anxious for the services of the judges, and do not wish to spend money out of their private pocket on ascertaining the variable opinions of these gentlemen, surely it is the duty of the Treasury to see that the public expenditure on these salaries is correspondingly reduced. I am, therefore, inclined to believe that the Estimate now before the Committee is an excessive estimate, that the increase over last year is not at all justified, and that in the circumstances the Treasury should have sought from the Department an explanation of the increase, and, failing any explanation, in view of the circumstances which I have indicated, should rather have insisted on a diminution of the charge.
    Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. This is a case in which there ought to be a large reduction. Obviously we are labouring under great disadvantages to-day, being unable to keep pace with the rate at which those Votes are got through. We are doing our best, but if we had more time we could illustrate from actual items in those Estimates where we think economies could be effected. If my right hon. Friend will look at page 24 he will see that for some extraordinary reason in the Supreme Court of Judicature the Court of Appeal spends £28 on the "Daily Official Stock Exchange List." I understand that they were paid for administering the law. Why are they diverted from the law by the Stock Exchange daily lists Does my right hon. Friend wish to cultivate the spirit of gambling on the judicature? Does he not think that it is an unsettling quality to introduce into the minds of men who ought to be devoting themselves strenuously to matters of law? Is it the tape or the list that they get? What do judges want with the tape of the Stock Exchange? If the right hon. Gentleman looks further up he will see that they spend £250 on washing

    1097
    at the Royal Courts of Justice. Whose washing? Do the judges have it spent on them, or is this washing that is provided for the public or for lavatory attendants, or what? It seems an extraordinary charge to place upon the judicature. If the right hon. Gentleman would go through this, as one could go through it, he would see that these are just the kind of things in which, if he would give us a little more time and opportunity, we could effect the economy which he desires. If he handed over this particular Estimate to the Members who are present and gave us a Committee Room upstairs for an hour we could fetch it back with the £3,160 wiped out, which would be a great economy. This is the kind of detail which we do not have the opportunity of dealing with on the Estimates, and which tends to mount up. In this case, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will achieve not only economy, but also serve a high moral purpose by discontinuing the "Daily Official Stock Exchange List" at the Courts.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I can assure my hon. Friend that whenever he rises to address this Committee I do not fail to detect a high moral purpose. I am much obliged to my hon. Friends who sit behind for the very illuminating speeches which they have made. There is an increase in this Vote of £3,160, but this increase is practically entirely due to the diminution in litigation. Though litigation costs everybody something, it does to a certain extent benefit the State in fees, and if my hon. Friends will look at the Appropriations they will see that they are reduced by £4,410. which more than accounts for the whole difference. With regard to salaries, an investigation of the salaries of the whole judicature is now going on. Pending that inquiry, a diminution in litigation does not mean a diminution in salaries. Many of these officers have gone to the War, but under the decision of the Government, of which I am sure the House approves, no one in the Civil Service or the Courts loses by going to the War, and we are still paying the full salaries, and in certain cases as officers go up in years of service or in the rank which they hold, they have annual increments of salaries, which make up some of the fluctuations of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.
    With regard to the other frightful disclosure which my hon. Friend, by careful scrutiny of these Estimates, has brought to the notice of the Committee, I venture
    1098
    to suggest to him that the dismal picture which he draws to the House of most learned judges neglecting their duties in order to gamble on the Stock Exchange at the public expense, owing to the fact that we have paid £28 for the "Daily Official Stock Exchange List," is wholly, I will not say frivolous, but a phantasy of imagination. The judges of the High Court, and the officers of the High Court, and many of those whose daily avocations bring them to the High Court, have to do with a large number of commercial cases, bankruptcy cases, settlement cases, and the investment of money paid into Court under various Acts of Parliament, and it is clear that at the library of the Courts of Justice there should be available that very useful publication, the "Stock Exchange Daily List," which I venture to suggest is not expensive, having regard to the use which is made of it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    LAND REGISTRY.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £24,497, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry." [NOTE.—£15,000 has been voted on account.]

    PUBLIC TRUSTEE.—Class III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £o, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee." [NOTE.— £5 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: This is a very interesting subject to the public. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success which is attending this Department from year to year. I do not know whether this Department has gone into its new offices yet. Perhaps my hon. Friend can say when it is likely to do so. He may also give us some interesting information which will help to emphasise the, as far as I know, great confidence that is reposed in this public officer by a large number of people in this country. We in Scotland would like a similar official appointment there, but, of course, that is irrelevant to this Debate, and I will not pursue that subject.

    1099
    I should like if my right hon. Friend could say something publicly with regard to this office. It is one of extraordinary growth, which appears likely to have an extraordinary future, and which is being watched very carefully and very sympathetically by a large number of people who have money to leave for administration purposes to those who come after them. If the right hon. Gentleman can say something with regard to it, I am perfectly certain that it will be appreciated by the public outside.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid that the only information which I could give my hon. Friend which would be of any value would consist of figures. These would show, as he has said, the very marked growth of this office. I am sorry to say that I do not carry these figures in my head, but I should be glad to obtain for him any information which he may desire, and I should like to endorse the words which fell from his lips as to the great success which has attended this office. It is quite obvious that from one end of the country to the other the work of the Public Trustee has not only gained the confidence, but the increasing confidence of those who avail themselves of his service, and there are constant suggestions for increasing by legislation the sphere of his activities. With regard to the new offices, I hope that the staff will be in them shortly.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    COUNTY COURTS.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £68,982, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts." [NOTE.—£50,000 has been voted on account.]
    LAW CHARGES AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,308, 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, 1916, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates." [NOTE.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]
    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AND OTHER LEGAL DEPARTMENTS IN IRELAND.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £67,744, 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, 1916, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and of certain other Legal Departments in Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund." [NOTE.—£47,000 has been voted on account.]
    IRISH LAND COMMISSION.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £470,320, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission." [NOTE.—£315,000 has been voted on account.]
    COUNTY COURT OFFICERS, ETC., IRELAND.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £68,685, 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, 1916, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision." [NOTE.—£40,000 has been voted on account.]
    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,914, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin." [NOTE.—£65,000 has been voted on account.]
    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £774,267, 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, 1916, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary." [NOTE.— £680,000 has been voted on account.]
    PRISONS, IRELAND.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £68,974, 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, 1916, for the Expenses of the General Prisons Board in Ireland and of the Establishments under their control, the Registration of Habitual Criminals, and the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics confined in District Lunatic Asylums." [NOTE.—£45,000 has been voted on account.]
    REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS, IRELAND.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £50,516, 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, 1916, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland." [NOTE.—£60,000 has been voted on account.]
    DUNDRUM CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM, IRELAND.—Class III.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,452, 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, 1916, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland." [NOTE.—£4,000 has been voted on account.]

    BOARD OF EDUCATION.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,906,378 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid." [NOTE.—£5,575,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. LYNCH: I desire to say a few words on this subject before the Vote is passed. I do not see a representative of the Board of Education present. I wish to make a criticism with regard to the personality of the appointment of the actual holder of the position of President of the Board of Education, not in any invidious sense, that is to say, but, to put
    1102
    it bluntly, I do not think, with all my respect for the right hon. Gentleman, that the Ministerial position which he now occupies is that for which he is best adapted. I think the Ministry is convicted for that reason, of bearing on its face evidence, not of a desire for efficiency, but to patch up a Ministry anyhow, amid all the intricacies of party warfare and the difficulties of an unprecedented situation. I wish to en force this question of the personality of the President of the Board of Education. If the Prime Minister desired at this crisis to form a truly national and most highly efficient Ministry, I think that to fill the office of the President of the Board of Education he should have selected some man—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The question of the qualifications of the President of the Board of Education for his office cannot be raised on this Vote, it is a matter for the Prime Minister.
    Mr. KING: I am very loath to intervene in this Debate, but I think that a little explanation is necessary when we vote nearly £10,000,000 away in less than ten seconds, and I think that on an occasion like this it is necessary to have some representative of the Board of Education present.
    Mr. LYNCH: Upon the point of Order, Sir. If my hon. Friend is beginning his speech, I would point out that I only sat down on that point of Order.
    Mr. KING: I will give way.
    Mr. LYNCH: I wish to ask an explanation precisely on my own account of the point of Order. Surely, when we are voting money to a Minister named, is it not in order to discuss whether he has qualifications, at any rate, to fill the position which he holds, and for which we are voting the money. If I am ruled out of order on that point, I have other matters I should like to raise.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have ruled the hon. Gentleman out of order on the point he raised, and perhaps he will continue his speech on some other question which he has in mind.
    Mr. LYNCH: I should have liked to see the President of the Board of Education, or some other representative of the Department, for this reason, to know whether—
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On the point of Order. I am far from agreeing with the hon. Member upon the point he raised, but do you rule it out of order to discuss the qualifications of the President of the Board of Education on the Vote of his salary?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    Mr. LYNCH: Let me say that I have no personal animus towards the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Education, for whom I have the highest respect, and who I think would be of utility in the Government if he had another post. I repeat, that I should like to see a representative of the Board of Education present while the Vote is being considered, in order to know how far the Board of Education has proceeded with this scheme, which was presented to the House by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, linking together higher education in this country with industrial development, that is to say, providing for this country, or rather to make some tentative steps towards providing for this country, a large and adequate scheme of technical education, founded, if necessary, upon the German model, because among the greatnesses and the faults of the German Government there is one point on which it has scored, and scored even in this country, is their very admirable, far-reaching, carefully thought out, and highly efficient scheme of higher technical education. I would like to know from the representative of the Board of Education whether that scheme, which was outlined by the President's predecessor, is being, not merely adopted, but is being actively fostered, and put into working operation, so that, with the least possible delay, we may have something tangible as evidence, at any rate, for what I hope may afterwards develop into a large and extremely useful scheme of higher technical education.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I am not quite sure whether I shall be in order in discussing on this Vote a matter which arises definitely on a Supplementary Estimate, which provides for the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred. But if it is for the convenience and advantage of the Committee that I should now make a statement upon that scheme, I shall be very glad indeed to do so. It will be remembered about two months ago the
    1104
    late President of the Board of Education gave notice to the House that he proposed to frame and push forward a scheme—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Reference to that scheme will come more appropriately on the Supplementary Estimate; it does not arise on this Vote.
    Mr. KING: I take this opportunity of urging upon the Board of Education that in their administration they should study economy. I hope on a later occasion, before the adjournment, to raise this question in another form, and when the President of the Board of Education is present. I intend to put some proposals before him for efficiency combined with economy, but I will take the opportunity of saying now that there are many directions in which economy can be practised at the Board of Education. I have studied the methods of this Board, and they are rather marvellous in many directions, but in none more than the way in which, in order to please various vested interests, they spend money, and allow money to be spent. There is to my mind a great waste of money in public education, dictated all the time by fear of touching vested interests. I will give one instance. We have got, no doubt, something like from 150,000 to 200,000 endowments connected mostly with schools which are Church schools, Roman Catholic schools, Wesleyan schools, and council schools; they have all got endowments of a peculiar kind. There is a provision in the Education Act of 1902, Section 13, by which the Board of Education can make schemes for all these endowments. They do not do so.
    They appoint committees, they allow minorities to present reports, and then they are afraid to exercise the powers they have, or to bring in legislation. All that money is lying idle at the present time. It might all be brought into use for the promotion of efficiency and work. That is only one direction, which I could follow out at great length if necessary, but I do not intend to do so. The right hon. Gentleman is new to his office, and, therefore, I do not want to puzzle him, but I want to give him two suggestions, and if he will follow them out with courage and industry, I assure him that they will bear good fruit in time. Let me mention one more point with regard to efficiency and economy, and that is as to the small schools which sometimes occupy the field of a whole education authority, and which is the most

    1105
    wasteful, extravagant, and inefficient system you could have. At various times by questions I have called attention to some of the scandals of this system. If the right hon. Gentleman would look up the questions I have asked he would see a wonderful way in which to save national money. Torquay is a case in point, and if he will look up the Blue Books and Be-ports he will see that there are something like a dozen schools with 120 scholars, which means a perfectly extravagant, wasteful, ovelapping system. A head teacher has to be appointed in each of those schools, with salary according to scale, and the whole period of school life is arranged with such few scholars that you cannot have full classes in each separate staff. The result of the system is waste and extravagance with too many teachers, and in the end inefficient education. I do hope this question, resulting as it does in favouritism, inefficiency, extravagance, and hopelessness with regard to any progress, will be taken in hand by the Board of Education. I know it is a difficult subject to absolutely force through, but you can now do what you could not do a year ago, you can appeal to the people's national interests, and economy and concentration of forces which you can have in education more effectively than in any other form of administration. If the right hon. Gentleman will go away determined to look into this matter and to give his best consideration to do, by tact and administration, everything he can in this direction, he will be of service to the State and to education.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether I would be in Order in stating the reasons why I consider the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Department of Education is competent for the office he holds?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Remarks of that kind as to the personal qualifications of persons holding Government offices do not arise in Committee of Supply. That is a matter for the discretion of the Prime Minister, which can be challenged on another occasion but not on this.
    Mr. L. JONES: As we are voting £2,000 for the Gentleman in question, surely it is open to the Committee to discuss whether he is worth £2,000 per year or whether the Committee ought to give a smaller salary! I submit unless we
    1106
    have an estimate of his character and qualifications how can we decide whether £2,000 is the right salary to give? Anything which affects the question of the salary he ought to have is surely relevant to the Debate!
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I gave the ruling on the point before the lion. Member, I think, came into the House that it is not in order to do so.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I am afraid that you have, by anticipation, ruled out of order all the remarks I intended to make upon the Vote which we are now considering.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    BRITISH MUSEUM.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £84,935, 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 the 31st day of March, 1916r for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants in Aid." [NOTE.—£70,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. KING: I notice that in connection with the Museum at South Kensington they are spending £316 more on police than they did last year. In most of the offices and public buildings less money is being spent on police because there is no longer any danger in connection with the Suffragette outrages, and it has been possible, and a large reduction has actually been effected, in a number of cases in connection with the police.
    Mr. LEWIS: In the absence of the Financial Secretary I should say that in all probability the increase is occasioned by the necessity of taking additional precautions for protection against fire, and we all know that in the exceptional circumstances of the present time that is a precaution which cannot be safely or wisely neglected.
    Mr. KING: That is a very ingenious reply, but in the National Gallery, where you really have got much more reason to guard against fire than in South Kensington, the reverse is the case. It is not at all a satisfactory answer, and I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to draw his bow at a venture at other times.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NATIONAL GALLERY.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £8,670, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank." [NOTE.— £7,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. KING: Here, again, in connection with the police question there is an actual saving in the cost of police this year over last of no less than £2,608. Apparently because of the danger from aeroplanes you are going to guard the South Kensington Museum at much greater expense than before and on the National Gallery you are spending £2,608 less. There is really an important discrepancy between the two cases, and I do think a representative of the Treasury, or someone who knows something about it, ought to be here.
    Mr. LEWIS: My hon. Friend will no doubt remember that last year there were certain special dangers arising out of a particular agitation which in the occurrences of this year have practically ceased to exist. This year, fortunately, those who were perhaps the source of danger are now doing what they can to come to the aid of the safety of the country and are helping as far as it lies in their power to do so. The result is that the same expenditure is not required in the current financial year.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.—Class IV.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,493, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Portrait Gallery." [NOTE.—£2,500 has been voted on account.]
    WALLACE COLLECTION.—Class IV.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,462, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Wallace Collection." £NOTE.—£3,500 has been voted on account.]

    LONDON MUSEUM.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,965, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses in respect of the London Museum, Lancaster House." [NOTE.—£2,500 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. KING: I must refer to the question of the police once more, because we have now the advantage of the presence of the Financial Secretary. We had a reduced sum for the police in the last Vote and also in the Vote for the National Portrait Gallery, and I am glad to see that that applies also in regard to the London Museum. I should like to know why the sum has been reduced in these cases, when, in regard to the South Kensington Museum, it has been found necessary to increase the amount?
    Mr. MONTAGU: All that I can tell my hon. Friend is that we are guided in these matters by those who are responsible for the protection of these invaluable collections. The guiding principle is that, having regard to the demands made upon the Metropolitan Police Force, we should do with as few police as possible. During the War it has been noticeable in the Metropolis that all classes of citizens have been more law abiding and better disposed towards properly constituted authority than usual, and for that reason it has been possible to do with a smaller number of police. It is also true that the number of visitors to the museums during the War has been reduced, and, as a consequence, the guardianship of these collections has not been so onerous. The number of police in the different buildings depends also upon the construction of the building and the disposition of the objects therein contained.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, ETC.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £48,582, 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, 1916, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants." [NOTE.—£42,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. KING: Here is an opportunity for a word of explanation which will be very welcome. A Supplementary Estimate is to be put forward at a later stage on behalf of scientific research. It would be just and right that the right hon. Gentleman should give us a brief survey showing what is already being done in connection with scientific research and how it is proposed to be supplemented or added to in the future.
    Mr. LYNCH: I should like to know what really are the functions of the British Academy. It has always been a great mystery to me what even the British Academy really is, and what right it has to use the title by which it is known. Four hundred pounds is put down for the service of the British Academy. What is the employment of that sum? If time permitted, and the Debate were more likely to be followed up by something of reality, I could point out the discrepancy between the £400 voted for the British Academy, which is sheer waste, and the very inadequate sum voted for biological research. I should like to see the whole perspective changed, so that immensely important work of real utility, such as that of biological research, might be encouraged, and all attempts to departmentalise literature and make it a kind of function of the State, or anything of that kind, especially in such uncongenial soil as that of Great Britain, might cease.
    Mr. KING: Perhaps we could also have some explanation why £300 is given to the Royal Hibernian Academy, while the British Academy receives only £400. It seems to me, without any disrespect to the nationality of my hon. Friend (Mr. Lynch), that if you give the Royal Hibernian Academy £300, you ought to give the British Academy at least £600.
    Mr. MONTAGU: With regard to the relation between this Vote and the Supplementary Estimate which is to be moved later on, the Supplementary Estimate is for a different purpose altogether. It is with a view to supplying all the assistance which science can give to the technical training of those who are going to embark on experiments in industry, with a view to capturing some of those specialised trades which have in the past been the prerogative of our enemy. The Grants under this Vote are nearly all well-established Grants. I can well imagine Members saying that in this time of war, when strict economy must be practised, it would
    1110
    be desirable to reduce these Grants; but when from year to year you give scientific institutions Grants from the Treasury by means of which they are enabled to engage officials or to lay down plant, it is impossible to withdraw those Grants without grave derangement of duties involving the dismissal of officials, or the dispensing with plant. As regards the British Academy, I can give my hon. Friend a certain amount of information. The British Academy received a Royal Charter on the 8th August, 1902. Its objects are the promotion of the study of moral and political science, including history, philosophy, law, politics, economics, and archaeology. The hon. Member showed a predilection for biology, which is not one of the objects of the British Academy.
    Mr. LYNCH: That is another item.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I should prefer to leave to the Chief Secretary, or some other well-educated person, the task of deciding as between one science and another, and of saying which ought to be the more highly appraised in the matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. All I can say is that at the usual time it receives this Grant for a specific piece of work, the publication of Ancient Historical Documents illustrative of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales. This is an undertaking which in peace times the Government have accepted. It is not yet complete.
    Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the method of election.
    Mr. MONTAGU: No, I am afraid I have not the information, but I can refer the hon. Member to the charter, which has been published. I have no doubt it will assist him to get the information he requires. The Royal Hibernian Academy also has a charter, dating from 1823. The amount of Grants which these various institutions receive must again not be measured by the nationality of those who are connected with them, or their domicile, but by the amount of their expenditure, and the value put upon it by the House of Commons in peace times. The Royal Hibernian Academy Grant has not been increased. On the Vote altogether there is a very satisfactory net decrease of £14,105.
    Sir J.D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain to me the provision of £1,500 for the School of Oriental

    1111
    Studies? Is the scheme, which, after long consideration, was finally adopted by the Committee, to be brought to full fruition in 1915 or 1916? If so, will £1,500 suffice? I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman once again if he will represent in the right quarter, or himself consider, whether, it would not be possible to bring the Russian language under the head of oriental studies for the purposes connected with this School of Oriental Studies? I am glad to see that something is to be done. We have occular proof that something is being done to fit up the buildings in Finsbury Circus for this school. The matter has been hanging over for a very long time. I understood from Ministers I have questioned that nothing would be done in this current year on account of the War. Therefore I am in some little doubt about the provision of the £1,500. Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten me so far as he can, and if he is not prepared with the information, will he kindly inquire?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid it is not possible to go fully into the activities of the School of Oriental Studies. This £1,500 is due under an old pledge. The hon. Member knows how long this project has been under discussion. Early representations were made by very influential people that a School of Oriental Studies was very urgently demanded, and that before you began you must furnish the building. This is merely to be regarded as a furnishing grant for the completion of this undertaking.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, GREAT BRITAIN, AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, WALES.—Class IV.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £211,200, 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, 1916, for Grants in Aid of the Expenses of certain Universities and Colleges in Great Britain, and of the Expenses under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889." [NOTE.—£105,000 has been voted on account.]

    UNIVERSITIES, ETC., SPECIAL GRANTS.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £145,000, be granted His Majesty, to defray the Charge
    1112
    which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for special Grants in Aid of certain Universities, Colleges, Medical Schools, and Agricultural Institutions, to meet loss of Income arising during the War."
    Mr. KING: This is a very important Vote. It is all new, that is to say, there was no corresponding Vote last year. Anyone who studies the modicum of information given to us will observe that this is to help or support these universities, colleges, medical schools, and agricultural institutions, because they have been adversely affected by the War. When we are giving a large sum like this to those who are adversely affected by the War, I think we must have some explanation. Everybody, more or less, is adversely affected by the War. Though, personally, I myself desire to see education less adversely suffering from the War than any other Department of our Administration, yet I do think we should have some explanation when we are voting £145,000 in a few seconds. We ought to know how this is going to be administered; who are going to get it; whether it is proposed to continue this Vote, and what conditions are made in connection with this quite unprecedented Estimate.
    Mr. LYNCH: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies I should like to mention the question of the medical schools. What kind of loss is it intended to repair, and is any part of the cost for new research? On these various questions we have very meagre information presented to us. I should like, if possible, to follow out the use of these sums in regard to actual projects in scientific work to see that there is a real return, so as to use that as an argument in case of allocation on subsequent occasions.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think the reason of this is very easy to understand. The War has had very far-reaching consequences. One of the first to feel the brunt of it were certain universities, colleges, and medical schools that were depleted to a very large extent of their students, and which have suffered in a serious diminution in their income—other than fees—which were not paid—and which had the alternative of closing their doors, dismissing their teachers and servants, destroying beyond the possibility of repair their available teaching centres, or of being preserved during the period of War from the direct

    1113
    consequences of the War The only bodies that receive Grants under this Vote will be those universities, colleges, and medical schools which are already in receipt of Parliamentary Grants. They are bodies helped in peace time by the Government. It seems to me that they are deserving of assistance over this difficult time because of the losses which they have sustained. There is nothing for new expenditure. It is merely to help these institutions to keep their heads above water. We can find out what ought to become of them after peace is once more declared.
    Mr. KING: To my mind the explanation is not at all satisfactory. First of all, why do you not give something to Oxford and Cambridge? [An HON. MEMBER: "They do!"] I thought it was only those colleges and universities that get a Parliamentary Grant, and Oxford and Cambridge do not get that. That, I think, is unsatisfactory. Also it is unsatisfactory that the amounts given here will not be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I object to that altogether. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is one of the financial safeguards of economy in this House. I also sec no reason for the provision that the unexpended balances will not be surrendered at the end of the year. These provisions make it easy, I know, for hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to pass their money on. But it is not good finance. It is not economical finance. I am very sorry that the financial experts and authorities in this House are away dining. They have had a very good day already in connection with other Votes, but there are certain Members who know their way about in regard to our financial system generally who, if they were here, I am sure would want more explanation. I see the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) has just come in, and I wish he would join in some protest against this laxity and looseness in devoting money to very good objects in time of war, but apart from the usual financial control. I am very dissatisfied.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    PUBLIC EDUCATION, IRELAND.—Class IV.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £825,919, 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, 1916, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education
    1114
    in Ireland, including a Grant-in-Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland." [NOTE. —£980,000 has been voted on account.]

    INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, IRELAND.—Class IV.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Grant towards the Salaries of Teachers in Secondary Schools in Ireland."
    ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS, IRELAND.—Class IV.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1916, for the Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners for managing certain School Endowments in Ireland." [NOTE.—£400 has been voted on account.]
    NATIONAL GALLERY OF IRELAND.—Class IV.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £665, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland." [NOTE.—£1,500 has been voted on account.]
    SCIENCE AND ART, IRELAND.—Class IV.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £121,287, be garnted 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Institutions of Science and Art in Dublin and of the Geological Survey of Ireland, and Annual Grants to Schools and Classes of Science and Art and Technical Instruction, including sundry Grants-in-Aid, administered by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland." [NOTE.—£25,000 has been voted on account.]

    UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, IRELAND.—Class IV.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £64,000, 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

    1115
    day of March, 1916, for Grants under the Irish Universities Act, 1908." [NOTE.— £60,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. KING: I would like to know whether Grants in connection with universities and colleges that are going to suffer by the War will also extend to Ireland, and whether any provision is to be made to the Irish colleges and universities, where I have no doubt the students have been as ready to come forward as elsewhere?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am sorry to inform the hon. Member that in this matter Ireland does not benefit in the expenditure.

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.—Class V.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £289,917, 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, 1916, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote." [NOTE.—£465,000 has been voted on account.]
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir J. D. REES: There is a satisfactory decrease in this Vote, but when one looks through the Paper to see where the decrease chiefly occurs, it does not occur where I expected to find it—in the savings of Embassies of nations with which we are now at war, because full provision is made in such cases. It is stated that the savings, if there should be any, on that account, will be utilised to meet the cost of extra staff and other expenses, which so far as not met from the Diplomatic and Consular Services Vote, would be defrayed by the Vote of Credit. I do not quite understand what extra staff and other expenses will be incurred sufficient to counter-balance, say, a saving of £8,000 a year at Vienna, and £8,000 a year at Berlin. I should be glad of any explanation that could make clear what to me, at any rate, is not quite clear. Looking through the other items which go to make up this large decrease, I see the chief item in the decrease of £43,000 is the difference in respect of a refund to Indian Revenues in regard to Diplomatic and Consular Services in China, Persia, Turkey in Asia, and Siam. I do not
    1116
    quite know what has happened in those countries which allows of an expenditure of £40,000 less. I am not unaware of the existence of the arrangement referred to in the Estimates, which says:
    "All additional expenditure in Persia since 1900 is shared equally."
    It is generally known that the expense of keeping up the handsome and hospitable Legation at Teheran is divided, but I take it there is no saving on that, and it is not likely that the expenses will be any different in 1915–16 from what they were in 1914–15. If the right hon. Gentleman would kindly explain, he may resolve the doubts of other Members besides myself. The only other point I wish to mention upon this Vote, although there is a great deal of matter which at another time might properly be considered, is the provision of £250 for opium traffic investigations in China. That, I see, is a repetition of a similar figure in 1914–15. Does that refer to the expenses of Sir Alexander Hosie, for instance, and is it proposed there should be a recurring Grant, if not in perpetuity, for a series of years in regard to these opium traffic investigations. For my part, I abhor these investigations, and think it would be better to let this matter drop; but I know there are other Members who think this is a thrice damnable drug which can have no use except to destroy the body and brain of those who use it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not the occasion for discussing the merits or demerits of opium.
    Sir J. D. REES: I was not really arguing the point. It was only a passing reference. I wanted to point out that it is only from the point of view that there is to be a perpetual hostility displayed by this country to the use of a particular drug that this recurring Vote would be justified. I had no intention of being betrayed into discussing the opium question now, which I am aware would be grossly out of order. Would the Noble Lord kindly tell me whether this is a provision for some perpetual investigation to ascertain whether there are any backslidings on the part of the Chinese who are now supposed to have abandoned the use of this drug?
    Mr. LYNCH: I will follow the example of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down by suppressing many of the points

    1117
    which I had intended to bring forward to night. In normal times there is a great deal to be said in regard to this Vote, because I think that the services rendered by the whole Diplomatic Corps abroad is extremely inefficient and inadequate. I speak with some amount of personal know ledge because I have lived for some years on the Continent of Europe. I have known ambassadors of every nation, and I have always found that with regard to the trend of public opinion on those matters which ought to be foremost in the view of ambassadors and Ministers abroad, an ordinary journalist is better informed and generally has a sounder judgment and a better opinion of the general trend of events than the ambassador. It so happens that I was a journalist myself, and looking back to that era, it always comes to me as one of the queer trades. A man has to use one perspective for his own opinions and another when he is presenting views to the public, and he has to carefully separate the two. Even abroad these ambassadors preserve a sort of insular exclusiveness which prevents them getting into real contact with the spirit and mind of the people amongst whom they live. I would like to point out in this respect the fact that the Diplomatic Service is not democratic. I have no doubt that to use the word "democratic" in regard to the Diplomatic Service is something like throwing a bomb to—
    Sir J. D. REES: May I respectfully ask, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, whether the hon. Member is more in order in enlarging upon this question of our diplomatic representatives than I was in the passing reference I made to the opium question?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is referring to the salaries of the officials of the Diplomatic Service, and he is in order on this Vote, whereas when the hon. Member for East Nottingham was referring to the opium question the Vote had no reference to that subject.
    Sir J. D. REES: The item I was referring to was £250 for an officer engaged in opium investigations in China for this year, and it was upon that I hung my remarks.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Whatever may have been the merits of my ruling on that occasion it is past, and I am now dealing with the Vote before the Chair.
    Mr. LYNCH: I am trying to keep in order, and I am trying to suppress a number of fulminates which I intended to
    1118
    use on this occasion, but I will skim very lightly over the subject because my object is not to show any dislike to the diplomatic-representation, but rather to show how it can be greatly improved for the benefit of this country. One way in which I think better representation could be obtained would be by allowing a freer draft of democratic principles to enter into this most exclusive of all Government offices. I believe it is impossible for the ordinary attaché of an Embassy to be appointed unless he can show that he has a clear income of £400 a year apart from the appointment of his office. I do not know whether it is thought by the representatives of the Foreign Office that the possession of £400 a year ensures intelligence, tact or zeal, or devotion, or any of the other qualities which go to make up a good diplomatic representative. Is it that the possession of £400 a year was originally intended to mean something of an alliance with highly respectable families or what is known as good birth? Nowadays the possession of £400 a year is more likely to mean the possession of a father who has made money in soap or the sale of pickles, gorgeously advertised, rather than claiming any descent from our own nobility.
    It is extremely invidious to put this petty bar of £400 a year to block the way of advance to a young man who might have every quality and talent which is necessary to make him a good diplomatic representative abroad. I will give one example of the kind of atmosphere which prevails in some of the embassies or diplomatic offices abroad, and how little they are in touch with the people amongst whom they live, or even with the subjects of British nationality. Some time ago I called at a British Embassy on absolutely official business. At that time I happened to be a Member of Parliament, and I duly sent up my card in order to find some representative who would give me certain necessary information which I was obliged to obtain at the Embassy. I was shown into a room almost without any kind of furniture except a chair and a table; in fact, it was such a room as might be used by an applicant for the typewriter's position or the second footman. After waiting in this room for an unconscionable time, the door was suddenly opened and there appeared before me an official who regarded me with a stony stare, standing bolt upright as if demanding, in a manner which was insulting more than any words could be, what I meant by coming there to disturb

    1119
    him. I was surprised by this unexpected treatment, but I stated my business. Without a word he turned on his heels and disappeared for ten minutes, after which he returned, gave me a most perfunctory reply, and disappeared again. I made a complaint, after due reflection, to his Ambassador, because I thought an incident like this might cause an extremely unpleasant feeling in the mind of any unfortunate British subject who might have occasion to pay a visit to that Embassy and who might have less means of defence than I have.
    I had no sooner sent in my message to the Ambassador than, at a very short interval, there appeared before my very modest lodging a distinguished individual bearing a voluminous letter from the Ambassador himself couched in terms which were almost excessively polite and which, of course, I accepted. I relate this incident now because it is typical, and any man who has travelled and has had occasion to deal with diplomatic representatives abroad will know it is typical. Perhaps what rendered this whole incident more disagreeable to myself was that this gentleman who left me in this style had not the remotest idea that he was acting in any discourteous way. I suppose, after the receipt of my letter, which I endeavoured to make tingle with irony, and after he was hauled into the presence of his Ambassador and taxed with his manner of reception of a British subject, his first movement was that of complete and sincere astonishment to find that he was charged with any fault at all. It is by virtue of the manner in which they are selected and by virtue of the whole manner in which they live abroad as people whose first idea of the importance of their functions is not to serve their country, but to be a sort of superior set in any foreign town, entertaining exclusively one kind of subjects known as the ambassadorial set, and looking with a certain amount of contempt or stony indifference upon all the rest of the community in the British Colonies abroad; it is by the infiltration of their minds from their school days that they derive their idea of their superiority, and not from their intelligence or their zeal, or any tact that they may possess, because those matters do not seem to enter into their consideration at all. It was by virtue of his position that there was infiltrated into the man's whole system such a view of his functions
    1120
    and of the ordinary British subject that he thought he was receiving me in a manner which was due to me and himself and his position. What makes this small incident more remarkable is that you would find it impossible to parallel it in any Embassy of any foreign country in any capital of Europe. At one time I was friendly with all the Ambassadors of a certain great capital of Europe.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is it in order to go into all the personal reminiscences of the hon. Gentleman as to whether he was friendly or not with Ambassadors in various Courts of Europe? Could the Noble Lord who is in charge of the Vote in any way deal with the fact as to whether the hon. Gentleman was friendly or unfriendly with Ambassadors? I submit that it would be quite beyond the scope or power of any Minister, and that all these reminiscences are out of order.
    Mr. LYNCH: Might I say that this is only a side reference.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot say that the remarks of the hon. Member are out, of order. I take them as being illustrative of his view that some portion, at any rate, of the Consular Service is not efficient. He himself referred to it as a very small incident. He has dealt with it at considerable length, and I would respectfully suggest to him that he might pass on—it is a matter for his own discretion or taste—to something of more importance.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will it be in order, following upon this, for another hon. Member to give his experiences of a totally different character with our representatives in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
    Mr. LYNCH: I was passing on to another subject. The reason I had for introducing my own reminiscences was not to include myself in the picture at all, but to give a ground for the opinion which I have formed, and which, of course, is perfectly legitimate. If the service were entirely democratised, there would be no loss whatever either to British prestige or to the efficiency in carrying out these functions. I had a conversation with a distinguished representative of a foreign Government, who had served in the Diplomatic Service for something like thirty years, and I asked him what was his opinion on this point He told me that when he

    1121
    looked back on his whole career and asked himself who were the most efficient representatives of any Power he had ever seen, he could recollect two. One, he said, was the representative of the Swiss Republic, who was not only a poor man in the Diplomatic Service, but was a poor man even as an ordinary citizen. He never attended functions, or large dinners, or spent money in that lavish way which is an excuse for paying large salaries to Ambassadors, but by virtue of the soundness of his judgment he obtained such a position of ascendancy in Paris that he was often consulted in a private way by the most powerful representatives even of all the Governments of Europe.
    He said that the second whom he recollected was a representative of the United States who was also not only a poor man, but a man who had personal dislike of all State functions and all kinds of display whatever, and who never attended any diplomatic dinners, except those which were completely obligatory. He, again, by his sheer force of character, by the soundness of his judgment, and by that peculiar faculty of sympathy which the other system does nothing whatever to foster, obtained such a position of ascendancy that he was consulted even in the most severe crisis of the country in which he was living, not merely on affairs which concerned his own Government, but also on affairs which concerned intimately the relations of the country in which he lived with other Governments. He was asked to give his opinion, not as an Ambassador or as a diplomatic representative, but simply as a friend. I hope that the representatives of the Labour party will take this matter up, perhaps on a more auspicious occasion, and demand that there shall be no kind of restricted preserves, I will not say for the science of nobility—that is not in question at all—but for the science of parents who possess £400 a year, and that this Diplomatic Service shall be thrown open.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I submit that it requires legislation if you are going to alter the rules by which people are elected or chosen for the Diplomatic Service, and that it is quite out of order in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. KING: May I point out that this subject has often been raised on the Foreign Office Vote in previous years, and has been replied to by the Foreign Secretary.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As far as I am aware—I may be wrong, of course—the change indicated would not require legislation, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that his personal reminiscences have now been addressed to the Committee for some time, and that he might pass from his illustrations to some more practical point.
    Mr. LYNCH: I entirely sacrificed the speech which I had prepared for this occasion, because I thought the moment was hardly auspicious for it, but if I had spoken in the manner I had intended I would have done so with more force. I wish once more to insist on the necessity of democratising this service, and I hope that, on a future occasion when I raise this point, as I intend to do, some Members of the Labour party will back me up. More than a hundred years ago a certain French despot said to his soldiers, "Every soldier in my Army carries a marshal's baton in his knapsack." I want in this country to secure that no service shall be preserved for any privileged class: that entry to it shall depend on ability, energy, and intelligence, and that the son of the poorest man in the land may, if fitted, rise to any position—even in the Diplomatic Service. It should not matter be he son of duke or son of dustman. If he has the intelligence, energy and ability he should be able to aspire to render service to be country in whatever sphere he may choose. I am certain that that would be an enormous gain not only to the individual but to the general temper of the nation, and also to the direct function of representation abroad as redounding to the material benefit of the country itself.
    Mr. L. JONES: I rise to ask a question as to the form of these Estimates in regard to enemy countries. I see that the full amount is taken for our Embassies at Berlin, Vienna, and Constantinople, and there is also included the full charges for our Consular Services in the three countries with which we are at war. We are, therefore, asked to vote a sum which, reckoned roughly, amounts to about £53,000, which cannot possibly be spent in the way allocated in the Estimates. I want to know what is the motive of the Government in taking the Estimates in this form? What is being done about the Ambassadors and their staffs who were representing us in those different capitals before the War broke out? I understand from, the footnote that they are being employed

    1123
    helping in other work which arises out of the War, but that does not apply in any degree to consuls in these foreign countries, and I really do not know why the Government have not taken the opportunity of reducing the Estimate. The cost of the Consular Service alone is over £20,000, and I cannot see any motive in this House voting to-night £50,000 or £60,000 which is not going to be spent in the way put down in the Estimates. I hope the Noble Lord will give some explanation of this, because the net result is that the Government will have in its hand, if this Vote is passed, a sum of £50,000 which it can spend at its own discretion. It is not the habit of the House to give a Government, however great the confidence felt in it, sums of money to dispose of just as it chooses.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): There is a great deal of force in criticism which has fallen from the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, but if he will allow me to say so, it is, after all, rather a formal matter, and I do not think as much money is being asked for as will actually be required for the service. The increased work caused by the War is very large indeed. The hon. Member will easily understand that I cannot give him the exact number of extra clerks engaged, but I know it is extremely large, and as stated in this footnote:—
    "Any saving arising from the War, as in the case of ambassadors who are placed on a reduced rate of pay while unemployed, is being utilised to meet the cost of the extra staff and other expenses, which, so far as not met from the Diplomatic and Consular Services Vote, will be defrayed from the Vote of Credit."
    I have no doubt that more money will be required than will be obtained from this actual Vote. The hon. Member is probably aware that several of those who were representing this country abroad are now engaged in connection with the new Department which has come into existence since the War began, and, in other cases, they are no doubt drawing reduced pay.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the extra staff mentioned in the footnote in the Foreign Office in London?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, I happen to know there is a very large extra staff in the Foreign Office in London. I would not like to say there is no extra staff elsewhere. With regard to the observations made by the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch), I think he occupied some
    1124
    half hour of the time of the Committee in explaining that he had been very badly received by one of the representatives of His Majesty abroad. I am sorry to hear it. But it is possible that that representative of His Majesty would give a somewhat different account to the one presented by the hon. Member. As to his general attack on the Diplomatic Service I can only say, if he wishes to have it more democratic—and I am far from disagreeing in general principle with that aspiration—you must pay them more highly, and in these days of economy I do not think this is a particularly desirable moment at which to introduce a proposal of that kind.
    As to their competence, the hon. Member complains that they are not such good collectors of news as journalists. I should think it extremely likely, because they are not journalists. It is their duty to represent the interests of this country at foreign Courts and not to collect news. Their true function is the successful negotiation of treaties and arrangements, and the protection of the interests of the nation of which they are the ambassadors, and I can only say, while it is quite possible that there are defects in the service, its-reputation on the whole among the best instructed of our foreign critics is that the service is almost diabolically clever. If hon. Members will be good enough to read the columns in German and other Continental organs, I think it will be-found that there are constant references to the extraordinarily cute diplomacy of this country. Personally, I think that the 'praise is a little overdone, but undoubtedly our Diplomatic Service is extremely competent, and its success is largely due to the fact that it does not attempt to practice the smarter forms of diplomacy, but rather relies on painstaking work, which is really much more effective. As to the criticisms of detail which my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has raised, I have incidentally dealt with one of them. I was out of the-Chamber when the hon. Member began his speech, and he will no doubt tell me if I am wrong, but I think one of them was in reference to page 5—
    "Refund to Indian revenues in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Services in China, Persia, Turkey in Asia., and Siam."
    I do not quite know what the hon. Member's objection is. I understand that since-1900 the Foreign Office and the Indian Government have shared equally the cost of the services in Persia, and that since

    1125
    1904 it has been necessary to repay to the Indian Exchequer a portion or the whole amount, I am not quite sure which, of the amount which was received from them. That is, of course, a matter of account, and this item is to provide for that repayment. That is what I understand it to mean.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am very much obliged. I have no doubt that is quite right, but it is a complete change in the arrangement in regard to the expenses of the Persian Legation. Is the division between Persia and India to continue, or is it now solely due to expenses incurred by India on account of the War?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am quite free to admit that I am not an expert in this matter at present. As I understand it, this system has been in operation for several years. That is the way I read the note at the bottom of the page.
    Sir J. D. REES: This is the first year.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It may be that there is a difference in amount — indeed there is, because the Grant is smaller this year than last. I have no doubt that that is due to the War. You would obviously expect that during the War, because there would be fewer Diplomatic Services to keep alive in Persia, and therefore less would be spent there—at least I should imagine so. At any rate, that is the best explanation I can give at the moment. As to the other item of £250 for Opium Traffic Investigations in China, I say quite frankly I have not the least idea to what that item refers. I imagine it is some investigations in connection with the opium traffic, which, as the hon. Member is well aware, have been going on for many years past, and which are not yet quite complete. Whether it will be necessary to have the Grant next year for similar investigations it is impossble for me to prophesy. If the hon. Member had gven me notice that he desired special information about that particular item, I would have taken care to be furnished with it, but coming without any notice, I am afraid I cannot give him any better explanation.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    COLONIAL SERVICES.—Class V.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £516,765, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which
    1126
    will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid." [NOTE.— £125,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir J. D. REES: Is this the Vote for Grants-in-Aid of Local Revenues?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is Class V., Vote 2.
    Sir J. D. REES: Then I desire to ask a question of the representative of the Colonial Office. What is the explanation of the absence of any Vote for 1915–-16—I am not objecting to it at all, but it requires explanation—for Nyasaland, as against the sum of £85,000 voted last year? Is it because of the King's African Rifles being removed from Nyasaland on account of the War, or is there any other explanation of that large decrease, so very large when the total income of that small Protectorate, with which I have some close connection, is considered? I presume it is on account of the removal of the military, but I do not know, and I should be glad to be informed. Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell me what is the significance of the slanting letters in Nyasaland and Uganda? Are they on some different footing to the other Grants entered in this column? I do not quite know. There seems to be some difference indicated, but I do not know what it is. I am referring not to the figures of money, but to the printing of the names Nyasaland and Uganda. As regards the interest on loan for redemption of railway subsidy lands in Nyasaland, I see the sum is increased by £2,000, which I presume is owing to a further instalment having been paid of the £180,000 Joan, to which reference is made. If there is any explanation available I shall be glad to have it, as I am interested in this as I dare say other Members are not. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared with the information, perhaps he will take into account what I have said, and it will not be necessary for me to delay the Committee.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I desire to ask him one or two questions. Items A, C, D, and E have a star against them, and the star shows that—
    "The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but he will be furnished by the Colonial Office with the audited accounts and with any report of the Director of Colonial Audit thereon. Ho surrender will be made at the close of the year of such sum as may bet issued out of the Grant-in-Aid."

    1127
    Item B has a dagger against it which shows that
    "This Grant-in-Aid is accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General, but any unexpended balance at the end of the year is not liable to surrender."
    I want to know why one Grant should be accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and not the other? I have not looked the matter up, and I may be wrong, but what I would point out is that in this Vote, the next Vote, and several other Votes there are footnotes to the effect that any unexpended balances will not be surrendered. That is a very dangerous precedent, and the habit seems to be growing. I can quite understand that it is necessary to give Nigeria a certain sum of money to defray the expenses which arise during the year, but I do not quite see why, if the £100,000 is not expended, the balance should not be surrendered. There may be some good reason for it, but on the face of it I do not see why it should not be surrendered. If this habit of not surrendering balances is going to increase, it will destroy all the checks which the wisdom of our ancestors imposed upon the expenditure of this money, which checks I feel sure the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) will agree with me are most important.
    Mr. KING: May I repeat what I have said before on other Votes, when the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was not present, that I am sorry to see an unprecedented number of Votes in the Estimates of this year which are not to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and in regard to which the balances are not to be surrendered. The Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion recently that, whatever changes were to be brought about, the financial control of this House was not to be surrendered. I very much regret to see the great number of eases where this is done.
    Sir J. D. REES: I cannot find the figures relating to Ceylon, though I have looked through several times. I want to look up something and cannot find it. Where does it come in?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know where Ceylon does come, really, but I understand that by special arrangement there is to be a day for the discussion of Colonial Votes on the Report stage next week. I have had no notice, and there is no repre-
    1128
    sentative of the Colonial Office here, and I find it difficult to answer all the hon. Member's questions; but I will answer some of them. The disappearance of the Vote for Nyasaland is because, I am happy to say, that, which was an instalment under an old arrangement, has now become unnecessary, Nyasaland having become self-supporting. With regard to the word "Nyasaland" being written in italics, it is a time-honoured practice, because Nyasaland is only printed at all to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is no Vote. With regard to the hon. Baronet's question, there are two ways by which this House grants money. It may be granted either as a Vote, subject to surrender of the unexpected balance at the end of the year, or as a Grant-in-Aid, and the. difference between the two is that a Grant-in-Aid is not surrenderable at the end of the year. It is not intended to be spent within the year. It is intended to be spent on projects begun during the year, but by arrangement with the body or Colony or institution receiving it it is deliberately put outside the conditions of surrender. It is not a new practice and it is not an extensive practice. I challenge the hon. Member to give me any evidence that Grants-in-Aid are becoming more frequent. On the contrary, everybody prefers that if the arrangement can be supported, if there are not grave inconveniences which tend to make the body receiving the money anxious to expand rather than to surrender, Grants—not Grants-in-Aid—are always preferred throughout the public service. In this particular case it is an instalment of an old Grant-in-Aid payable over a series of years—probably it will become extinct, like the Nyasaland Grant, in good time—and subject to the same conditions as during previous years when previous instalments were paid.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Grants-in-Aid are never surrendered. I believe there is an idea amongst officials that Grants-in-Aid ought not to be surrendered, but that is quite a different thing from the practice of the House of Commons, and a Grant-in-Aid has always to be surrendered unless there is a foot-note to the Estimate which acquaints the House of Commons with the fact that Ministers desire that it should not be surrendered. Then, the House of Commons having been acquainted with the fact, if they choose to pass it, it is not

    1129
    surrendered. But to say that a Grant-in-Aid is never surrendered unless it is accompanied by a footnote to acquaint the Members of the Committee with the fact that it is contemplated not to surrender it, is an inaccuracy. I do not want to press the matter any further, but I have taken a humble part in criticising the Estimates to-day, and I am sorry there is no representative of the Colonial Office here. One must be quite fair. I acquiesced in the criticism of the absence of the representative of the Office of Works, and there are two representatives of the Colonial Office, and I really think on the last night in Committee there ought to have been one Member of each Department of the Government, an Under-Secretary at least, present, and it is hardly respectful to the Committee that all the Under-Secretaries should go away on an occasion like this. I really think some representation ought to be made to the Government that they should be here. After all, they are paid for being here, and are not paid for going away and not answering legitimate criticism.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think the hon. Baronet is quite fair. The Secretary of State for the Colonies and his Under-Secretary know that there has been a pledge given that the next Supply day will be devoted to the Colonial Office Vote. For that reason—there will be ample opportunity for discussing the Vote next week—he had no reason to anticipate that, without notice, anything would be raised on the Vote. The same Vote is rarely discussed in Committee and on Report. Therefore I think the hon. Baronet, perhaps forgetting that the Colonial Office Vote was down for next week, has been rather unfair to my colleague.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not want to criticise any particular Member of the Government, but I had acquiesced in the criticism of the representative of the Office of Works, and I wanted to make a general criticism, not particularly on the Colonial Secretary, but on the fact that we have had, with the exception of the Secretary of State for Scotland, not a single Cabinet Minister here the whole evening. That is not respectful to the House of Commons.
    Sir G. BARING: I do not want to take exception to anything the right hon. Gentleman says, as he is always so courteous, but I am very sorry to disagree with him. I endorse every word which the
    1130
    hon. Baronet has said as to the proceedings during the whole of this afternoon. We had an important discussion on the Office of Works Vote. The First Commissioner of Works, who is a Member of this House, did not take the trouble to defend the Vote. I have only been in the House ten years, but during that time it has always been considered necessary that the representatives of the Department should be here on every occasion when the Vote comes up for discussion; and, considering that the Colonial Office has two representatives in the House, it would have been more courteous if one of them had been here to defend the Vote. Surely it is possible for the Government Whips to give notice to Ministers that their Votes are coming up, and, with regard to the discussion which is to take place next week on the Colonial Office Vote, that is entirely beside the question. Whatever Vote comes up for discussion in Committee of Supply, there ought, if possible, to be a representative of the Department present to defend it.
    Mr. HOGGE: I hope it will be observed that, at any rate, the Secretary for Scotland did attend when Scottish Votes were in progress. I am very glad to find that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has at length returned to his political senses and that he now supports the discussion, of these important Estimates of which yesterday he deprecated the discussion any longer. Yesterday he tried to impart the view that we ought to close down and discuss nothing. To-night he has been making a great fuss about not having sufficient opportunities for discussion in the presence of Ministers.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Not at all. The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I said yesterday that I was prepared under the circumstances to agree to a curtailment of the days of Supply. That did not mean that on the days which we were to have nothing was to be said, and no one was to come down to explain anything. I do not recede from anything I said yesterday, and everything I said yesterday is consistent with what I have said to-day.
    Mr. HOGGE: I cannot agree, because if the hon. Baronet still holds the view that he expressed yesterday, that the-public, in his opinion, wanted this place shut up, obviously the public would not want any discussion here, and it is ridiculous for him to make a fuss to-night about

    1131
    things not being discussed. However, I agree with those who do want things discussed, that the treatment of the House from that Bench has been not what we have a right to expect. A very great number of Votes have not been covered, and I do not think that anyone can complain that the Votes which have been taken up to the present have been delayed by any discussion which has arisen, and I hope time can be found even yet for a special discussion on the. Colonial Vote. Time ought to be found for other Votes, because time has been promised for the Colonial Vote, that does not do away with the argument that there are other Votes as important as the Colonial Office Votes which have not been discussed to-day, and which in a few minutes' time will be put from the Chair.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    TELEGRAPH SUBSIDIES AND PACIFIC CABLE.—Class V.
    Resolved, "That a sum not exceeding £23,129, 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, 1916, for Subsidies to certain Telegraph Companies and a Grant in Aid for the Annual Expenses of the Pacific Cable." [NOTE.—£17,000 has been voted on account.]

    CYPRUS (GRANT IN AID).—Class V.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, 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, 1916, for a Grant in Aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus." [NOTE.—£49,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: Can we have some information in regard to Cyprus? (Something has happened to Cyprus in the course of the War. One does not know precisely what the position of that island is at the present time.
    Mr. L. JONES: It is still where it was.
    Mr. HOGGE: Physically it is still where it was, but I understand that some fresh arrangements have been made there consequent upon our movements in regard to the European War. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what is our position now in regard to that island?
    Mr. MONTAGU: This Grant in Aid is, I believe, a very old institution, payable by annual instalments, and you will see that the amount for this year is precisely the same amount as for 1914–15. Therefore, the Estimate in its simplicity gives the answer to the hon. Member's serious allegation that something has happened in this important part of His Majesty's dominions.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £15,785, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords." [NOTE.— £20,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: Something does require explanation on this Vote. The House of Lords has had a special discussion, introduced, I believe, by Lord Midleton, on the necessity for economy, and here is an Estimate put before us whereby we are asked to provide £8,798 more than we provided last year for this effete institution.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not allowable here to make remarks about the other House.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I substitute "respectable" in place of "effete"? If the right hon. Gentleman will Took at the Estimate he will see that the salaries of the Department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod have been increased from £4,255 to £4,305. In a time of national economy, and of grave necessity for it, it does seem ridiculous that for all the ceremonial observance that this House sees of that particular office we should require to find an extra £50. Why is it that it requires an extra £150 to police the House of Lords? Has the House of Lords become less amenable to discipline? Have its Members become more disorderly in their ways that it requires the provision of £150 additional expense to police the House of Lords? That, surely, is an item of expenditure which reflects great discredit upon an institution the officers of which we are discussing now. That House meets much less frequently than we meet. This is another moral problem. Moral problems have been cropping up all the afternoon, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain this particular moral problem.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I should much like to satisfy my hon. Friend, but in the time that he has given me it would prove a very difficult task.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    It being Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
    Question agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in Classes 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the Civil Services Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy and the Army, and the Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates:—

    Class II.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,710,386 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, 1916, for expenditure in respect of the certain Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    2.

    House of Commons

    218,649

    5.

    Foreign Office

    38,413

    6.

    Colonial Office

    37,410

    7.

    Privy Council Office

    5,233

    12.

    Charity Commission

    16,931

    13.

    Government Chemist

    15,397

    14.

    Civil Service Commission

    26,273

    15.

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    40,382

    16.

    Friendly Societies Registry

    10,936

    17.

    Local Government Board

    234,791

    19.

    The Mint

    48

    20.

    National Debt Office

    7,903

    21.

    Public Record Office

    14,981

    22.

    Public Works Loan Commission (including a Supplementary sum of £7,200)

    7,211

    23.

    Registrar General's Office, England

    26,251

    24.

    Stationery and Printing

    531,657

    25.

    Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues

    13,346

    26a.

    Privy Seal Office

    1,693

    27.

    Secret Service

    70,000

    Scotland.

    29.

    Board of Agriculture, Scotland

    41,553

    33.

    Local Government Board

    14,630

    Ireland.

    34.

    Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

    2,054

    35.

    Chief Secretary for Ireland

    14,165

    36.

    Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

    84,406

    37.

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    1,320

    38.

    Congested Districts Board for Ireland

    105,750

    39.

    Local Government Board

    67,266

    40.

    Public Record Office

    4,410

    41.

    Public Works Office

    26,732

    42.

    Registrar General's Office

    7,862

    43.

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    22,733

    £1,710,386"

    Question agreed to.

    Class IV.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, 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, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    7A.

    Scientific Investigation, etc.

    25,000"

    Question agreed to.

    Class VI.
    "That a sum not exceeding £11,776, 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, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £"

    8.

    Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    11,776"

    Question agreed to.

    Class VII.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, 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, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    13.

    Expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

    50,000"

    Question agreed to.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £16,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—

    £

    2.

    Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

    1,000

    3.

    Medical Establishments and Services

    1,000

    4.

    Civilians employed on Fleet Services

    1,000

    5.

    Educational Services

    1,000

    6.

    Scientific Services

    1,000

    7.

    Royal Naval Reserves

    1,000

    8.

    Sec. 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc. Personnel

    1,000

    8.

    Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc. Materiel

    1,000

    8.

    Sec. 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc. Contract Work

    1,000

    9.

    Naval Armaments

    1,000

    10.

    Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

    1,000

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    1,000

    12.

    Admiralty Office

    1,000

    13.

    Half-Pay and Retired Pay

    1,000

    14.

    Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

    1,000

    15.

    Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities

    1,000

    £16,000"

    Question agreed to.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services namely:—

    £

    2.

    Medical Establishment, Pay, etc

    1,000

    3.

    Special Reserve

    1,000

    4.

    Territorial Forces

    1,000

    5.

    Establishments for Military Education

    1,000

    6.

    Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

    1,000

    7.

    Supplies and Clothing

    1,000

    8.

    Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

    1,000

    9.

    Armaments, Aviation, and Engineer Stores

    1,000

    10.

    Works and Buildings

    1,000

    11.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    1,000

    12.

    War Office

    1,000

    13.

    Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers

    1,000

    14.

    Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Men, etc

    1,000

    15.

    Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities

    1,000

    —

    Ordnance Factories

    1,000

    £15,000 "

    Question agreed to.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1915–16.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,738,399, 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, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—

    £

    1.

    Customs and Excise

    1,414,607

    2.

    Inland Revenue

    1,323,792

    £2,738,399"

    Question agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday-next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE.
    Resolutions of 14th July [see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, cols. 966-969] reported, and agreed to.

    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. KING: We were told to-day that all these Bills on the Paper will be taken on Monday. It is rather a curious thing to take any of them to-day after the progress which we have made. There has been a considerable amount of discussion on this Bill in former years, and though I do not wish to raise any to-day, I do not think that it ought to be taken.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member's recollection is at fault. The question was asked to-day by the hon. and learned Member for Cork whether this and the next two Bills were to be taken to-day, and I said that the Second Reading would be taken to-night. The Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is never discussed on Second Reading. We do not propose to take the Committee stage to-night.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it possible to get a copy of this Bill? I asked at the Vote Office, and it does not seem to be printed.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think that the Bill ought to be in the Vote Office. I am very sorry if my hon. Friend has been inconvenienced, but I think that the Bill is in exactly the same terms in every detail as the corresponding Bill of last year.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not know that it had not been printed. I venture to suggest that it is irregular to take a Bill which has not been printed. It has never been the custom to do so since I have been a Member of the House.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have had among my papers all the afternoon a copy of the Bill. I thought that the rule to which the hon. Baronet refers was not so applicable in the case of a Bill introduced regularly every Session in the same terms. If the hon. Baronet persists, the Bill can be postponed.
  Mr. L. JONES: If the Bill has not been printed and is identical with the Bill of last year, I would suggest that we should alter the date and save the cost of reprinting it.
  Mr. HOGGE: I do not mind the Bill being now taken.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We had better carry out the old rule.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Very well.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—[Sir Frederick Banbury,]—put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BILL.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February,, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. KING: I desire to ask the Secretary to the Treasury about the Supplementary Estimate which we have not had an opportunity of discussing. There are three of these that are new services, and two of them are of peculiar interest. There is-Class IV. for Scientific and Industrial Research, upon which we have had an explanatory statement, but which is of extreme importance, and upon which a number of Members wish to address the House. Then there is also Class VII., expenses on the Unemployed Workmen's Act, which introduces an entirely new principle and an entirely new system. It does seem to me most important that some fair opportunity should be given to this House before these are passed, apart from

  1139
  the Appropriation Bill, on which we can discuss them. The House should have some definite opportunity of discussing them.
  Mr. HOGGE: There are some points on which I would like to ask a question. On Class II. of the new services I notice that the salary of the Lord Privy Seal is put down at £1,693. I do not know if that is the salary which the Government propose to attach to that office in future, or whether this is only an amount for a certain part of the year, and whether the salary is intended to be £2,000. Why is it necessary in the new Government to provide an extra salary of £2,000 in an enlarged Cabinet? That seems rather an extravagant waste of public money. Coming to Class VI., No. 8, Repayment to Civil Contingencies Fund, I am rather disappointed to find that in the granting of honours, these honours, in addition to whatever cost they entail on private persons, are a very serious cost to the public. I notice, for instance, that on Letters Patent conferring knighthoods on twenty-eight persons resident abroad, or otherwise unable to attend the investiture, £856 16s. has been spent, on letters making Viscount Kitchener an Earl of the United Kingdom, £1,000 has been spent, and on letters creating the Right Hon. J. Bryce, O.M., a Viscount of the United Kingdom £200. Colonel Sir Edward Ward, £100. Then there is an item for deeds and other instruments for public departments, £2,238, or altogether over £4,446.
  I notice that the Right Hon. Lord Wimborne, on his appointment as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, was allowed an equipage allowance of £2,769. That seems to me to be just the kind of expenditure that might be saved now by the Treasury. There is an expenditure which is a very considerable one, although it is now more important than any of the others, namely, the contribution in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen's Act. This has been reduced from £100,000 to £50,000. Earlier in the afternoon we discussed that same question on the withdrawal of the Grant of £250,000 for the same purpose. I would again like to point out to my right hon. Friend that the only Government provision for unemployment is the reduced provision of £50,000. Surely the Government provision for dealing with the possibilities of unemployment, which are pressing and painfully tangible, is a matter on
  1140
  which the Government ought to act as generously as they do in regard to the equipage of the Lord Lieutenant of Ire land, and with the fees in connection with Letters Patent in the case of those who are securing very high and very distinguished honours. I really think that if a man is elevated to the rank suggested in these Letters Patent—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is taking the opportunity, on the Motion for the Adjournment, to discuss the Estimate. I do not think that can be correct. We should discuss the Estimate that is proposed either in Committee or on Report. That is the proper time.
  Mr. HOGGE: I apologise. I submit that we should have an opportunity of putting these questions.
  Sir F. BANBURY: These Supplementary Estimates include two or three new services. I did not know that the Prime Minister was going to move the Supplementary Estimates, and that, contrary to the Rules of the House, they were to be included in the Guillotine Resolution. If I had known, I certainly should have objected. I think we ought to have had an opportunity of discussing these Supplementary Estimates, which include new services. I do not think it is quite fair to take advantage of what the House did yesterday. I wish to assist the Government, still I do not think it is quite fair to include to-day these Supplementary Estimates in that provision. I do not want to discuss them, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will, to represent what I think I may say is the universal feeling of Members who are present here to-night, to the Prime Minister that we think there ought to be some opportunity to discuss those Estimates. I would suggest that they should be put down as the first Order on the Report stage. It is true that we should not have such an excellent opportunity as we should have had in Committee, but if they are put down on Report stage we should have an opportunity of saying a few words.
  Mr. L. JONES: I would like to join in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that a number of Members wish to raise points on these Supplementary Estimates, and, as they contain new services, it is really of importance that the House should have an opportunity of discussing them.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Of course, I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the feelings generally expressed, but I must respectfully point out that at the end of July the Supplementary Estimates are always passed under the guillotine, and have never been discussed. Since I have been here they have not been discussed but have been passed in that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "New services."] I come to the question of new services, but I do not think that is right with one single exception, and that is the £25,000 grant for scientific investigation. But that has already been debated in the House, and that has been approved as the amount to be spent this year. There is nothing really, technically, strictly new in that. With regard to the Privy Seal Office, that is not a new service. It is only the revival of an old salary now that the office of Lord Privy Seal has been separated from the office of the Secretary of State for India. With regard to the Unemployment Grant, that is not a new service, but is the same Unemployment Grant that we have had every year since the passage of the Unemployed Workmen's Act, except that it is reduced to a lower sum than ever before, because in the opinion of the Local Government Board they would not be able to spend more. It does not cover distress arising out of the War which can be met out of the Vote of Credit. I do not think, therefore, there is anything different in these Supplementary Estimates, but, notwithstanding that, I shall gladly represent to the Prime Minister what has been said.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman will represent the matter to the Prime Minister, but it is rather hard on us that a gentleman of his great authority should tell us that these are not new services. If that is so, why are they then put on the Supplementary Estimates as new services, and what possible object can there be in labelling Class 2 a new service and Class 4 a new service? I have waited here for a considerable period to discuss the Unemployment Grant. Why has the gentleman who draws up the I Estimates told us that these are new services if the right hon. Gentleman is right, and why are they headed new services? I
  1142
  hope the right hon. Gentleman will express to the Prime Minister very strongly the feeling some of us have about the lack of opportunity of discussion. I have taken no part in the discussion, but a very large part of it has been taken up very largely owing to the fact that Members of the Government were not in their places. Some were here, but the Colonial Office was absolutely unrepresented, and it went on from that. If Members of the Government had been in their places we might have had the opportunity, which we came down to get, of discussing these Supplementary Estimates, which I still look on as new services. I want a further explanation of the £50,000 Supplementary Grant in connection with unemployed workmen, and why it is necessary to have a Supplementary Estimate on the point at all, and why it is called a new service?
  Mr. MONTAGU: By leave of the House, may I say we used the description "new service" in different senses. Technically it means that it is not supplementary to any Estimate already passed. What I meant in saying it was not a new service was. that it was not something that had not been discussed by the House on a previous occasion, but was comparable with Estimates passed in previous years.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: They are new services here.
  Mr. LYNCH: I desire to reinforce what has been said on the question of the sum granted for scientific research. Although we have had this question debated, we have not had the plan very clearly outlined in detail. I hope some opportunity will be given so that we can have this plan really expressed in all its working, because it is all very well to vote a certain sum for research, but the advantage might be greatly lost unless we could show clearly the close concatenation between higher technical education on the one hand and, on the other, the manner in which it is linked to industrial work so as to render it as efficient as possible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Ten o'clock till Monday next, 19th July, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February.

WAR.
  WAR LOAN.
    CIVIL SERVICE SUBSCRIPTIONS.
    CIVIL SERVICE SUBSCRIPTIONS.
    INCOME TAX.
    INCOME TAX.
  SS. "ANGLO-CALIFORNIAN."
  SS. "ANGLO-CALIFORNIAN."
  ARMY BLANKETS (SCOTTISH MANUFACTURERS).
  ARMY BLANKETS (SCOTTISH MANUFACTURERS).
MUNITIONS.
  ROYAL GUN FACTORY (REPLY TO CHARGES).
  ROYAL GUN FACTORY (REPLY TO CHARGES).
  INVENTIONS AND RESEARCH BOARD.
  INVENTIONS AND RESEARCH BOARD.
  EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS.
  EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  PORTSMOUTH AND LONDON (LETTER DELIVERIES).
  PORTSMOUTH AND LONDON (LETTER DELIVERIES).
  HOME-GROWN SUGAR.
  HOME-GROWN SUGAR.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Prison Warders (Ireland).
  Prison Warders (Ireland).
  Disease in Poultry (Ireland).
  Disease in Poultry (Ireland).
  Export of Morphia and Opium.
  Export of Morphia and Opium.
  Registered Insurance Companies.
  Registered Insurance Companies.
  Imports (Excess).
  Imports (Excess).
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.
WEARDALE AND CONSETT WATER BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LINCOLN CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Committee to meet on Wednesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Hylton).
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Wednesday next.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to he proposed by the Committee of Selection.
FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord President (M. Crewe)). (No. 134.)
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—
No. 5446. Siam (Consular District of Chiengmai, 1913);
No. 5448. Italy (Finances for the year, 1914):
Workmen's Compensation (Industrial Diseases)—Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906:
Board of Education—Regulations for Technical Schools, Schools of Art, and other forms of provision of further Education in England and Wales. (In force from 1st August 1915):
Government War Risks Insurance Scheme—Report of the Aircraft Insurance Committee:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Companies—Twenty-fourth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 283 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to extend the powers of the Scottish Universities to make Ordinances for purposes connected with the present War—Was presented by the Lord Stan-more; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 135.)
INDICTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.

DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Amendments moved—
Clause 4, page 8, line 28, leave out ("Base") and insert ("Establishment")
Clause 4, page 9, line 10, leave out from ("Queensferry") to the end of the clause and insert:
Provided that the new Tramways Nos. 6 7 and 8 shall not be constructed except with the consent in writing of the Admiralty:
Provided further that subject to the consent aforesaid the new Tramways Nos. 14 and 6 and the Tramways Nos. 13 and 13A authorised by the Order of 1906 shall be constructed and opened for public traffic by the Company within eighteen months from the date on which the treasury has given the consent required by the section of this Order whereof the marginal note is "Company not to raise or borrow money during the continuance of war." The Company shall unless otherwise agreed between the Company and the Admiralty apply for the said consent of the Treasury on or before the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and fifteen and in the event of such consent being refused the Company shall renew their application to the Treasury within a period of twelve months after the date of any such refusal:
Provided also that if such consent is not given before the expiration of a period of twelve months from the termination of the present war then the said period of eighteen mouths shall commence to run from the expiration of the said period of twelve months.
Clause 5, page 9, line 36, after ("authority") insert ("and in the case of the new Tramway No. 4 with the consent also of the Local Government Board for Scotland and in the case of the new Tramways Nos. 5 and 6 with the consent also of the Admiralty").
After clause 8 insert as a new clause:
For protection of Admiralty.
. For the protection of the Admiralty the following provisions shall except so far as may be otherwise agreed between the Admiralty and the Company have effect—
(1) The Company shall be entitled to construct the new Tramway No. 6 along the Castle Road on a ballast track to the reasonable satisfaction of the Admiralty:
(2) The Company shall at their own expense to the reasonable satisfaction of the Admiralty maintain and keep in good order the roadway of the new Tramway No. 5 where such tramway is not situate upon a public road and the new Tramway No. 6 between the rails and on either side thereof to the line of the tramway poles if such poles are placed on either side of the portion of road set apart for tramway purposes and in any case to not less than a total width of between the rails and five feet beyond each of the outer rails of such tramways:
(3) In so far as not inconsistent with the method of construction of the new Tramways Nos. 4 5 6 7 and 8 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the said tramways") the provisions of subsection (8) of the section of this Order whereof the marginal note is "For protection of Corporation of Dunfermline" shall be fulfilled by the Company to the reasonable satisfaction of the Admiralty:
(4) The Admiralty shall be entitled to construct and repair drains sewers water pipes electric mains and cables and telegraph and telephone wires under or over the said tramways on their property Provided that in the execution of any such works they shall not interfere with the working of the tramways or the traffic thereon more than may be reasonably necessary Provided further that if any portion of the said property shall before or after the commencement of this Order be conveyed to the Local Government Board for Scotland the provisions of this subsection and of the immediately succeeding subsection shall ensure for the benefit of that Board in respect or such portion:
(5) The Company shall allow their standards and poles on the new Tramways Nos. 4 and 6 to be used by the Admiralty for attaching thereto electric lights and electric telegraph and telephone wires provided that the same shall not interfere with or restrict the use of the standards and poles for tramway purposes:
(6)—(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Orders of 1906 to 1915 the Company shall—

(A) Convey passengers from or to the termination of the new Tramway No. 6 at the Dockyard of Rosyth to or from the commencement of the new Tramway No. 4 at Queensferry Road for a fare of one penny for each passenger and from or to the said termination of the new Tramway No. 6 to or from the junction of High Street and New Row Dunfermline for a fare of threepence for each passenger; and

(B) Convey workmen employed at the Rosyth Naval Establishment to or from the said termination of the new Tramway No. 6 from or to the junction of High Street and New Row for a fare of three half-pence for each workman going to or returning from work at the Naval Establishment and shall issue to any such workman applying therefor a ticket or tickets available on the day of issue

435
only entitling such workman to travel once both ways between the dockyard gate at or near the termination of the new Tramway No. 6 and the commencement of the new Tramway No. 4 for a return fare of one penny:

(ii) In the event of the fares which the Company are by the Orders of 1906 to 1915 authorised to demand and take for the conveyance of passengers on the tramways being increased under statutory authority the fares hereinbefore in this subsection prescribed shall be increased proportionately:
(7) In addition to the service of carriages for artisans mechanics and daily labourers prescribed by section 48 (i) of the Order of 1906 the Company shall run such a service of carriages for the purpose of conveying on the tramways workmen employed at the Rosyth Naval Establishment to and from their mid-day meal as may be agreed upon between the Company and the Admiralty Provided that the Company shall not be required to provide a service of carriages under this subsection on Sundays New Year's Day and general holidays:
(8) Any dispute or difference arising between the Company and the Admiralty under this section shall be referred to and determined by an arbiter to be agreed on by the Company and the Admiralty or failing agreement an arbiter to be appointed by the Board of Trade on the application of either party.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE MILITARY OPERATIONS IN SOUTH-WEST AFRICA.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I move to resolve: That this House desires to place on record its grateful appreciation of the distinguished skill and ability with which General the Right Honourable Louis Botha planned and conducted the recent military operations in South-West Africa, and of the eminent services rendered by him and by General Smuts, and by the officers and the forces of the Union of South Africa under their command.
In making this Motion, my Lords, I feel sure that the House will remember that the day before yesterday in the House of Commons a similar Motion was carried, moved and seconded by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State for the Colonies respectively, and I ought to explain that owing to an unfortunate blunder, for which we were not responsible, we were not placed in a position to make
436
a simultaneous Motion in this House as we should have desired to do. It was, however, conveyed to my noble friend Lord Lansdowne and myself that it would be the desire of your Lordships that a Motion in the same terms should be made here which, though somewhat late, would not therefore be the less genuine. I therefore now rise to make it, and I may be perhaps permitted to state that it is a particular personal satisfaction for various reasons to myself to have the privilege of doing so, since in the year 1909, when I was Colonial Secretary, I had the pleasure and privilege of being responsible for the passage of the South Africa Act through this House and of conducting the business in connection with it so far as the Imperial Government took part in the conception and also in the carrying out of the terms of the measure. During that time it was my good fortune to be able to become on terms of personal friendship with General Botha, and during the progress of the various negotiations connected with that Act I enjoyed the opportunity of acquiring an ever-increasing appreciation of his great moral qualities and also of that saving common sense which distinguishes him just as we know it did our great statesman soldier of the nineteenth century.
During the last few months we have seen General Botha, Prime Minister of South Africa, once more taking up arms, although in a very different cause from that in which he so distinguished himself before. We have to bear in mind that on this occasion for General Botha and his Government and his Army the question was not solely one of meeting and beating the enemy in German South-West Africa. As we all know there was domestic trouble of no slight kind—a domestic problem which had to be faced by the South African Government. The question was not only one of a certain element of rebellion and of disloyalty, but there was also in South Africa a not inconsiderable party of those who were not actively disloyal, but who disliked the adventure of making an attack on German South-West Africa by the Union. As to that, it is only right to mention that at a very early stage Majesty's Government made it clear to General Botha and to his Government that no greater service could be rendered by the South African troops to the common cause of defeating Germany than that, which they were so proud to undertake, of disposing

437
of the German forces in the South-West. On the other hand, the South African Government had not only, of course, the warm support of the British within the Union and of the great majority of the Dutch population, who have cordially accepted the Union Government under the Crown, but besides those there were, I believe, not a few of the Dutch who had been less enthusiastic about the Union Government who at the same time were impressed and appalled by the sinister history which had been well known to them—far better known than it is here—of the brutalities and barbarities committed by the Germans in their conquest of South-West Africa.
We all admire the display of high military qualities which General Botha has shown. We had our own experience of him as a most chivalrous and a most capable commander against our forces. Now that he is one of us we most fully appreciate the evidence that he has shown in this campaign of the qualities of a great commander, not merely in a wide grasp of the general situation, but in a close attention to the detail which, in a campaign of that character, is all-important if victory is to be achieved. We have observed with admiration how, with the skill of a great strategist, General Botha was able to bring to bear at particular points a superiority of force which brought about a lower scale of casualties than that to which we are sometimes unhappily accustomed in this war. We have to remember what enormous physical obstacles were encountered and surmounted in the invasion of German South-West Africa; and in this connection we certainly ought not to pass over the admirable work done by the Defence Department in South Africa, and in particular the supreme qualities of organisation displayed by General Smuts, who presides over that department.
We have noted with pride and admiration the marvellous cheerfulness of the troops, which has to be added to the great qualities of courage which they displayed and the endurance they showed in undertaking long and arduous marches in a most difficult country. We certainly also remember with pride the invariable assistance and counsel which the soldiers in the field received from Lord Buxton; and altogether we are able to state that the South African Government and the Generals and the officers and rank and file
438
of the Army have all contributed to add a glorious and an absolutely stainless chapter to the record of this world-wide war.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, with that graceful consideration so natural to him, suggested that I should take his place as the seconder of this Motion because of my personal connection with General Botha. When his late Majesty King Edward VII conferred responsible government upon the Transvaal I had the honour of being Governor, and I entrusted to General Botha the task of forming the first Ministry under the new system; and from that day to this General Botha has been consecutively Prime Minister of the Transvaal and Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. The relation which began in this official manner between General Botha and myself ripened into great personal friendship, and therefore on private as on public ground I am glad, indeed, to be allowed the honour of seconding this Motion.
It is unnecessary for me to enumerate to your Lordships the deeds of General Botha. They are written large in the history of South Africa. If you were to ask me where in my judgment his success originates, I would say in his character and in his political insight. When peace between His Majesty and the Boers was made at Vereeniging General Botha accepted the new condition without reservation. But, as I think, he came as time went on to this opinion, that there was greater scope for the absolutely free development of South Africa, and of any part of South Africa, such as the Transvaal or the Orange Free State, in working out its own salvation within the British Empire than there would be for it if it were technically an independent Republic. I believe that to be an absolutely true statement of the case.
But in my judgment that became the opinion, not only of General Botha, but of many other Boers who were in a position to study the field of world politics. I only say that, my Lords, as my judgment, because never could feel quite sure of what General Botha would think. I often differed from him very greatly, and if I ever had the pleasure of working with him again I have no doubt I should often find myself again differing from him, and,

439
indeed, I feel confident that a very large number of the British South Africans who trust him and honour and respect him, and give him their constant political support, yet constantly disagree with him. This is not wonderful, my Lords, because they, like myself, naturally approach every question from the British point of view but General Botha approaches every question, equally naturally, from the Boer point of view. General Botha is a Boer of the Boers. So far as I know there is no British blood in his veins at all. I know of no Boer more proud of his birth and origin or more devoted to his people. He has achieved a wonderful success in putting down with the least possible loss of life an extraordinary and inexplicable rebellion. He has overcome a powerful and highly-organised enemy and conquered German South-West Africa in a campaign subjected to the most extraordinary physical difficulties. But he has still a great and grave task before him. He has always been, as your Lordships know, the steadfast opponent of racialism in any form, whether shown by the extreme exponents of the Boer or the extreme exponents of the British point of view. He has never done his countrymen a greater service than in pointing out again and again, as Sir Thomas Smartt and Mr. Merriman have pointed out to our fellow-countrymen, that the only road of peace and prosperity in South Africa lies in what is known as the one-stream policy, and that the two-stream policy is the sure road to eternal strife and misery. General Botha has been wonderfully seconded by that very remarkable Boer, General Smuts, who has made both politically and militarily an almost perfect Chief of the Staff.
I should wish you also, my Lords, to give your tribute of praise to the officers and men of both races who have served under General Botha. I do not suppose that a little Army has ever done more in a shorter time with more complete success under more strenuous conditions of campaigning. The interior of the country just conquered, so far as I know from information given me, does not differ materially from the rest of the Middle and High Veldt in South Africa. But there are parts which are the most uncompromising desert which exists, I should think, in the world. For instance, from the coast inland a belt of at least 100 miles in width had to be traversed, in which rain never falls, in which, in the most
440
literal sense of the word, there is not one blade of grass or any other herb and no living creature; where the sand is always shifting because the wind is always blowing, and over that miserable desert the columns had to toil to make a railway which had to be cleared all day long from the sand that had drifted over it, to distil their water at the coast, and to bring all the water for men and for animals by the railway as they made it to the railhead. I think, my Lords, you will agree that this vote which you are asked to pass is no extravagant testimony to services so great.
Moved to resolve, That this House desires to place on record its grateful appreciation of the distinguished skill and ability with which General the Right Honourable Louis Botha planned and conducted the recent military operations in South-West Africa, and of the eminent services rendered by him and by General Smuts, and by the Officers and the Forces of the Union of South Africa under their command.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine contradicente.

MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time I should like to bring once more to the notice of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture the hardship which may be inflicted on farmers under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Clause 1. The case is a very common one. It is where a farmer gives up his farm at the end of his tenancy, or gives up business, or where the farmer dies and his successors are not prepared to carry on the farm. In those cases there is always a sale of live stock. If the farm happened to be situated in a restricted area under paragraph (e), the live stock could only be sold within that area, which might be a very small one. It is obvious that in all those cases a great part of the stock would be breeding stock, in-call cows, in-calf heifers, ewes in-lamb, and young immature calves; and it would be very hard on the farmer were the competition at the sale so restricted. There was a

441
notable case the other day, when the herd of the late Lord Rothschild was sold. One cow fetched 970 guineas, and her heifer calf 180 guineas. It is obvious that this cow was not bought for beef, nor the calf for veal. Had that sale happened to have taken place in a restricted area the competition would have been very much smaller. That would not have made much difference to the executors of a man like the late Lord Rothschild, but it would have made a lot of difference had the case been one of a tenant farmer. Then there is the case of pure breeds, in connection with which there are various societies which hold public auctions once or twice a year of young breeding stock, in-calf heifers, and sometimes old cows. If the sale happens to be in a prohibited area obviously the competition must be much restricted, and that would be very hard upon the breeder. Further than that, such a restriction would defeat one of the great objects which the noble Earl has in mind, which is to encourage the use of better bulls for dairy cows all over the country. If sale is to be restricted in certain areas it is obvious that these bulls will have much less chance of being spread about the country. The point, I know, is a difficult one to deal with. I have tried to draft an Amendment, but I gave it up as I did not wish to tie the noble Earl's hands. I admit the difficulty, and all I ask is that in any orders or instructions which the noble Earl gives to the local authorities he should provide for the widest possible discretion in dealing with these cases.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The case put by the noble Lord is a perfectly good one, and I will undertake that if ever an order is made under paragraph (e) it shall be made so as to meet both of his points.
LORD BARNARD: May I ask the noble Earl whether he has been able to meet the criticism which was made in Committee on paragraph (c) of Clause 1. The noble Earl will remember that the criticism was that under this paragraph as now drawn the Board of Agriculture would he given power to impose a burden on the rates. The clause provides that the Board of Agriculture may, inter alia—
(c) authorise any local authority specified in the order to execute and enforce within their district all or any of the provisions of the order, and provide for the manner in which the expenses incurred by the authority are to be defrayed.
442
The suggestion made was that the insertion of the simple word "to" before "provide" would obviate the difficulty.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have taken legal advice on that point, and am told that the suggested Amendment is quite unnecessary. The effect of this provision in the clause is, as I said in Committee, that the whole thing could only be done by arrangement with the local authority. Therefore any provision with regard to imposing a charge upon the rates would be made with their consent.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1:
Power to make orders for the maintenance of stock.
1.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, for the purpose of maintaining a sufficient stock of animals to which this Act applies, by order applicable to England and Wales or any part thereof—

(a) prohibit or restrict the slaughter of animals;

(b) prohibit or restrict the sale or exposure for sale of meat of immature animals which has not been imported;

(c) authorise any local authority specified in the order to execute and enforce within their district all or any of the provisions of the order, and provide for the manner in which the expenses incurred by the authority are to be defrayed;

(d) authorise any officer of the Board or of a local authority to enter any slaughterhouse or other premises on which animals are slaughtered for human food and examine any animals or carcases therein;

(e)prohibit or restrict the movement of animals out of any area in which the slaughter of such animals is prohibited or restricted;

(f) revoke, extend, or vary any order so made.

(2) The animals to which this Act applies are cattle, sheep, and swine.
LORD STRACHIE: It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he refused my Amendment to exempt "male lambs of pure breeds and all crossbred lambs," said he would be ready to accept the first half of it, and on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread I readily assented to that course. But in placing my Amendment on the Paper to-day—after the word "animals" at the end of paragraph (a) of Clause 1, to insert "except male lambs of pure breeds"—I did not think it right to put down other than the exact words of my own Amend-

443
ment which the noble Earl had consented to accept. But I notice from an Amendment standing in his name on the Paper that he is ready to exempt all male lambs whether of pure breeds or not, and I therefore move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("animals") insert ("except male lambs").—(Lord, Strachie.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have two Amendments which I would ask your Lordships to allow me to insert in Clause 1. They are both with a view of meeting the point made by Lord Ribblesdale and other noble Lords, and they give power effectively to exempt from the operation of the Order that is in existence or any similar Order to be issued that class of calf which may be termed a misfit—the class which has been so well described by Lord St. Audries and others, which no man wants to buy and no man wants to rear. If the words which I propose to add are inserted I think I shall be able to meet that point. I am now having it very carefully considered, my object being to relieve the farmer from having to keep and feed with milk any calf which would be unsaleable to another farmer who wishes to rear young cattle as stores. While showing my desire to meet the point made in that respect by noble Lords opposite and by deputations that I have received, I wish to emphasise that the other side of the case has not had a sufficiency of spokesmen among your Lordships. The dairyman's side of this question has been heard almost exclusively, and I ventured to point out, with respect to the many calves that had hitherto been slaughtered for veal but which I wished to see in present circumstances reared for beef, that there was a market for them. There has been placed in my hand to-day a letter from an East Anglian farmer which entirely bears out that. contention. It is signed W. B. Damant and dated Helmingham, July 13, and is written to the East Anglian. I will read it to your Lordships—
"The Lancashire farmers' protest against the killing of calves regulations is so extraordinary that I think you might publish the information that if the said farmers will keep their calves well for a week, and then send a truckload to any East Anglian market, they can be assured of making very remunerative prices. Many
444
farmers would gladly give £3 each for good calves at a week old, for weaning purposes, at the present time. The serious shortage of store cattle in the country fully warrants the action of the Board of Agriculture, which might profitably be still more drastic, even to the extent of prohibiting the killing of any cattle under twelve months old."
I am endeavouring to meet the case of the calf which would not be welcomed by Mr. Damant or any other East Anglian farmer. But I hope noble Lords opposite who have so championed the interests of dairy farmers will assist the Board of Agriculture to help those farmers to pass on to rearers of calves those calves which ought not to be killed but which the dairy farmers do not wish to keep.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, after line 23 insert:
(f) authorise or require the marking of animals for the purposes of an order under this Act.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD ST. AUDRIES: I am certain that we shall all do our best to assist the noble Earl in this endeavour to transfer calves from one part of the country to another. But if we wished to send calves from Somersetshire to, say, Norfolk and we happened to be a restricted area—.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But you are not.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: How do we know that we shall not be?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is no such intention. I can assure the noble Lord.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: But paragraph (e) comes in supposing it is proposed to transfer calves from one district to another.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps the noble Earl will explain to the House how he proposes to mark the animals. I notice that in his Amendment the words are "authorise or require," so that it might be obligatory that they should be marked. From what the noble Earl said in Committee he rather led the House to believe that he had no intention, which I personally was very glad to hear, of adding to the large number of officials already attached to the Board of Agriculture and other Departments. But if this is not to be done by I officials and experts, who are the people who are to come forward and say that a

445
particular calf is to be marked and branded because it may be sold for slaughter The noble Earl indicated that it might possibly be done by voluntary help, I suppose by having a committee of agriculturists. That may be very good and may save expense, but there is a great deal of jealousy amongst farmers, and I am afraid that it would create considerable friction if you were to set up a small committee of farmers to be the sole authority with regard to marking their neighbours' stock, and it would probably defeat the very object of doing justice these particular cases.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid I cannot wholly satisfy my noble friend, because I have not yet finished drawing up my Regulations. But if an authority is used it will be a local authority.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Offences.
2. If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of an order made under this Act, or obstructs or impedes any officer in the execution of his powers or duties under any such order, he shall, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or if the offence is an offence committed with respect to more than four animals to a fine not exceeding five pounds for each animal.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I move the subsequent Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("or with a view to evade the operation of any such order marks, or alters or obliterates a mark on, any animal").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 136.)

NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS (EXTENSION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships now to give a Second Reading is one to extend the Notification of. Births Act, 1907, to areas in which it has not been adopted, and to
446
make further provision in connection therewith for the care of mothers and young children. Your Lordships will remember that up to the passing of the Act of 1907 it was not obligatory to register the births of children for a period of six weeks, and statistics proved that during the first six weeks of infant life the mortality in this country was terribly large. It is still regrettably large, but the Act of 1907, as I shall point out to your Lordships in a moment, has materially mitigated the percentage of infant mortality. Before the passing of that Act infant mortality under the age of six weeks amounted in some places to no less than 174 per 1,000. It was held by medical authorities and by other persons conversant with these matters that if an Act were passed making it obligatory on parents to register the births of infants at a much earlier period than six weeks, this infant death rate would be largely diminished. The principal reason for that hope was this, that as soon as the birth of an infant was notified to the public authorities it was possible for health visitors, either appointed by the health authority or voluntary assisters of the local authority, to visit the home where the birth had taken place, and by looking after the mother and the child in various ways, and by giving advice, and so on, in many casts to save the life of the child; and there is no doubt that since the Act of 1907 became law infant mortality, as I have said, under tile age of six weeks has very largely diminished.
It is, of course, open to critics to say that this is only post hoc and not propter hoc; but, on the other hand, doctors all over the country and people most conversant with the matter do attribute the great improvement that has taken place largely to the Act of 1907. At all events, the infant death rate has been reduced since the passing of the Act of 1907. The general rate all over the country was 130 per 1,000, but it was especially bad in instances like Burnley, where it was 174 per 1,000. Now the general rate is only about 108 per 1,000. The Act of 1907 was a permissive Act, but it has been adopted in a great number of places all over the country, and I believe I am right in saying that at the present moment it affects something like 75 per cent. of the population. But being a permissive Act it has not been universally adopted. The Bill now before your Lordships would make it obligatory all over the

447
country. I think I am entitled to say that your Lordships would at all times receive in a sympathetic way any measure that appeared to the House materially to benefit children and to reduce infant mortality, but I hope that you will view this Bill with an extra amount of sympathy, for it is most important, in consequence of the ravages of the present war, to do all that the Legislature can to protect infant life and, if possible, to reduce still further infant mortality.
The Bill has been passed through all its stages with practically no opposition in another place, and it is, as your Lordships will see, a comparatively short measure. The first clause enacts that the Notification of Births Act of 1907 shall extend to and take effect in every area where it has not been already adopted. The second clause reads as follows—
2.—(1) Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act (whether a sanitary authority or not) may, for the purpose of the care of expectant mothers, nursing mothers, and young children, exercise any powers which a sanitary authority has under the Public Health Acts. 1875 to 1907, or the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, as the case requires.
(2) Any expenses incurred in the exercise of these powers shall be defrayed in the same manner as expenses of the local authority are defrayed under the principal Act.
Any such powers may be exercised in such manner as the authority direct by a committee or committees which shall include women and may comprise, if it is thought the, persons who are not members of the authority. Any such committee may be empowered by the authority by which it is appointed to incur expenses up to a limit for the time being fixed by the authority, and, if so empowered, shall report any expenditure by them to the authority in such manner and at such times as the authority may direct. A committee appointed for the purposes of this section shall hold office for such period not exceeding three years as the authority by which it is appointed may determine.
The third clause applies the Bill to Scotland and Ireland. I beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced deals with a matter in which I have perforce taken a great interest for a long time, and I do not think any words are necessary to endorse what he has said. I believe the fact to be that most people imagine what is already enacted to be in existence throughout the country, and many will be
448
surprised to learn in what a large part of England to-day arrangements which have been long possible have not been adopted, and that we have been in different parts of the country without the requirements that this Bill will make obligatory. The need, in my opinion, was never more real than it is at the present time; and in view of all that is being said of late with regard to problems raised by war conditions, the need that proper arrangements should be made, and the desire that all possible information on the subject should be at the earliest possible date in the hands of the authorities with a view to preventing evils of any kind, I earnestly hope that no sort of difficulty will arise and that this Bill will be placed at once on the Statute Book.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the importance of this Bill has certainly not been overstated by the most rev. Primate. On the contrary, I think the Government are to be congratulated on having brought forward a reform of far-reaching importance. This is no suddenly conceived measure. It has been thought out for the last two years by the experts of two great Departments of the State, the Local Government Board and the Board of Education. I think the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill was too modest. He has introduced a more far-reaching Bill than he told the House. This Bill does two things. First, it makes the Notification of Births Act compulsory. But that is a small matter compared with the way in which it enables the local authorities to set up health committees. If your Lordsiiips read the Bill you will see that these committees, the duty of which is to look after the health of mothers, have their activity directed not only to actual mothers hut to expectant mothers. When the noble Lord mentioned the figures of infant mortality, he referred to the mortality of children who are actually born. He gave a very formidable case, an unusually formidable case in one of the localities. According to the last reports that have been published by the Government, the mortality works out in the case of children already born at something like 10 per cent.—108 in the 1,000, I think was the average—in the districts where the figures were taken for the period after birth. But there was a much worse set of figures—about 150 per 1,000, or 15 per cent.—in the case of children not born. That is to say, it was estimated that 15 per cent. more children night have come—or

449
a large proportion of them might have come —into the world if only there had been sufficient care directed to the attention of the mothers before birth.
This Bill does what to my mind is quite as important as anything connected with the notification of births. It sets up these health committees to look after expectant mothers as well as actual mothers. The Bill makes the Notification of Births Act compulsory. That is of great value, because it gives the information upon which you can bring to bear the real machinery of the Bill. For a long time past it has been realised that the care of children must not be confined to school years; it must begin at that early stage of which I have spoken, and must come into operation even in the period before birth. Our birth rate is falling. We shall, through the war, lose some of our most valuable young men, men who might have been fathers of families, and it is necessary that in every way we should set to work not only to raise as high as possible the number of children who are brought into the world, but to see to it that they come into the world in a healthy condition and that they continue until the period of school life to be taken care of and looked after.
These health committees which will be set up over most parts of the country—some of your Lordships know the voluntary committees that are in existence in London and elsewhere at the present time—will have this great duty. They will be composed of experts and presided over by the medical officer of health; they will consist of volunteer ladies and of others who have in many cases already devoted great attention to this subject, and who will continue the splendid work that is being done in the northern towns such as Bradford and Huddersfield, where the system already has been in operation. This is a first stage in a policy which I ventured to press on your Lordships the other afternoon—a policy of paying as much attention to what is going to be the position after the war as to what is going on during the war. We shall be faced with a situation in which we shall need all that the State can do for us to enable us to face what we shall have to encounter, and I am very glad to think that the President of the Local Government Board has taken up this Bill, which was already in draft—it is part of a very far-reaching scheme—and is determined to press it through.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, the Royal Commission of which I am chairman has been engaged for more than one and a-half years investigating matters very closely connected with the purposes of this Bill. The evidence that we have taken—and it is very voluminous—confirms entirely what has been said by the noble Lord and by the noble and learned Viscount. A few weeks ago we decided unanimously to press on the strongest grounds that the adoptive Act of 1907 might be made obligatory as soon as possible. That Act has been in operation over, I think, about 74 per cent, only of the population of England and Wales, and has had little effect in Ireland and Scotland. The Act has had far-reaching results already, and it is beneficial in two distinct ways. In the first place, it has provided statistical details which were wanting and which could not be obtained in any other way, and it has brought out important facts connected very intimately with public health which would otherwise have remained for ever hidden. The other excellent effect of this Bill, to which the noble and learned Viscount has drawn attention, is that it will empower the health authorities to get into touch with the mother and child at the earliest possible moment, and so enable them to give advice to the mother and bring treatment and medical assistance to the child in what is really the most critical period of its life. The loss of lives unborn is as great very nearly as the lives that are lost shortly after birth and in that way this Bill will have a marked effect in still further reducing the unnecessary loss. All who are deeply interested in trying to check the appalling wastage of infant life, much of which is really preventable, will welcome this Bill as a great advance in a direction in which we must move, and in a direction in which I believe we shall have to move much further in the future.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I thank the House cordially for the reception this Bill has been given by the various speakers, and I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount that I did not go as fully as I ought, perhaps, to have done into Clause 2. But the reason was that Clause 2 is only adoptive, whereas Clause 1, of course, is obligatory.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

GERMANY AND COTTON SUPPLIES.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether fresh supplies of cotton are now prevented, so far as the vigilance of the Navy can prevent them, from reaching our enemies either by direct importation or indirectly through neutral countries in Europe; whether the Government believe the naval measures taken for this purpose to be completely successful; what steps are taken to mitigate the injury caused to neutral countries in Europe by such measures, and whether those steps at all impair the stringency of the blockade of our enemies' countries; whether any neutral country in Europe is known to have imported, since the commencement of the present system of blockade, greater quantities of cotton than it had imported in the corresponding periods of former years, or greater quantities than are believed by the Government to be used by the manufacturers of that neutral country; how far the answers to the foregoing questions in regard to cotton apply, first, to other materials capable of use in making munitions of war, and secondly, to seaborne merchandise generally; whether under present circumstances or under any circumstances likely to arise during the war, the difficulty of our enemies in obtaining more cotton would be at all increased by declaring cotton contraband of war; whether, since the commencement of the present system of blockade, any article has been declared contraband of war, and if so, why.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject to which I venture to ask your Lordships' attention is one of very keen interest to many most competent observers of the war, not only in this country, but also, I am told, in France as well. I am informed that raw cotton, or cotton waste, is absolutely necessary for the manufacture of any sort of propulsive ammunition. I believe that at the beginning of the war an opinion had some vogue, both here and in Germany, that efficient substitutes could be found, but I am told that that opinion is erroneous, at least as far as regards manufacture on any large scale. At the beginning of the war Germany, no doubt, had very large stocks of cotton, and has since replenished them. But, on the other hand, this is a long war. The expenditure of
452
ammunition has enormously exceeded any possible previous calculation, and, further, cotton in very large quantities is necessary, not only for the making of ammunition, but also for the making of a great variety of things more or less necessary in the conduct of the war. Consequently I believe—and I say this upon the advice of distinguished artillery experts—that it is an object of first-rate military importance to cut off our enemy from the possibility of obtaining fresh supplies of cotton, or, if for any reason that cannot be absolutely done then to cut down his possible supplies to the lowest degree compatible with other national interests that would have to be considered. To my mind I have not stated the importance of this matter at all too high, and I think I shall have accomplished a large part of my object in putting these Questions if I can obtain from the Government some clear assurance that they, too, regard this matter substantially in the light in which I have just tried to put it.
My Questions relate entirely to present conditions, and have no reference to anything that happened in the early stages of the war. Whether I supposed that at the outset of the war the Government had made some grave error of judgment, or whether, on the contrary, I supposed that they acted wisely in pursuit of some paramount national interest, I should be equally averse—and I think your Lordships would be—to discussing now any matter that definitely belongs to the past. For this purpose the present begins at that date in March when the late Government adopted measures for the purpose, as it is defined in the Order in Council of March 11, of preventing commodities of all kinds from reaching or leaving Germany. The actual measures adopted in the carrying out of that policy apply, I understand, to all commodities, contraband or not contraband—to cotton and to everything else. Doubtless I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that for some purposes it is still convenient to declare certain things contraband, and a good many have quite recently been so declared, but that, provided the blockade measures to which I have referred can be effectively carried out, it is now a matter of extremely little importance whether an article, cotton or any other article, be declared contraband or not—of extremely little importance for this present and principal purpose of preventing those goods from actually reaching the enemy.
The series of Questions which I have put down substantially resolve themselves into this: Do the Government find that the measures they have been taking since last March are effective in regard, especially, to cotton? That, of coarse, is partly a question of the naval dispositions that can be taken, and as to that I suppose the answer will be a simple one; but it is partly also a question of our dealing with tin neutral countries through which cotton or other goods may be passed on to the enemy. That is the difficult point of this whole subject. I hardly suppose that the Government will be able to discuss in any minute details the precise character of their negotiations and dealings with neutral countries upon this subject. But I want to face that side of the question quite fairly, and there are two or three things which I will ask leave to say upon it.
In the first place, I think it is desirable that people in neutral countries should understand—and our debates in Parliament may help them to understand—that we regard these measures as matters of life and death to ourselves, and they are literally matters of life or death to ourselves and to those near to us. In the second place, may I say that I think the Press of this country might do something to make clear to the minds of the people in neutral countries that, we wish, as far as is possible to us, to have regard to the rights and to the interests of neutrals. We recognise, of course, that a great naval Power, fighting for its life, cannot be altogether a convenient neighbour, but we do not wish, where we can avoid it, to be a needlessly inconsiderate neighbour. We know that a great deal we have to do has given some annoyance to the business communities of neutral countries. I will venture to give two slight instances of this. In the restrictions which are imposed on the imports to a neutral country, it may happen, upon grounds which in some cases may conceivably be a mistake, that we withhold from one neutral trader the goods he has ordered from abroad, and at the next moment we pass on goods that have been ordered by his rival in trade in his own country. That creates friction. Or again—and several instances of this have been brought to my notice—our measures result in this, that some neutral trader has a large part of his business taken away, and that business is practically transferred to a trader in this country. That, of
454
course, is a lucky thing for the individual English trader, but emphatically it is not the national object at which our policy aims. I wish to say this that, subject to the paramount necessity that these goods should be prevented from reaching our enemy, we should heartily welcome any assurance that can be given that any possible device will be adopted to mitigate hardships of this kind which cannot be entirely removed and that the co-operation of neutrals will be invited, as no doubt it is being invited for that purpose. I dwell rather emphatically upon that side of the question, because at the present moment German propagandists are busily engaged in circulating in neutral countries the statement that our restrictions upon the trade in cotton are of no military disadvantage to Germany, and that our object in them is to benefit the British trader at the expense of the neutral trader. The precise contrary is, of course, the case, and it is very desirable that that fact should be made clear to the people of the neutral countries concerned.
Now to return to the main question. Is the blockade which we are carrying out effective—effective specially in regard to cotton? There are a good many published figures which would suggest that it is not completely effective, that there is a very considerable leakage of cotton through the neutral countries into enemy countries. Those figures, I ought to say, roust be taken subject to considerable deductions of seine importance. To begin with, most of the figures I have seen in no way distinguish between the importation that had taken place into neutral countries before these blockade measures began to take effect and the importation which may have taken place since; and without such a distinction the figures show nothing, or at any rate nothing clear. Then when one sees, as one often does in the papers, figures showing an increasing importation of cotton, or anything else, from this country to some neutral country, the explanation of that very often is simply that a source from which that country formerly obtained goods has been cut off by the war and the increased importation to that country is really for its own actual necessities.
Then I will take the particular case of Norway, and I do so because instructive figures on this subject have lately appeared in the Press. During the war Norway has

455
re-exported a considerable quantity of cotton, but it is also a fact—and this is worth noticing—that the enormous bulk of that export of cotton on the part of Norway has gone, not to our enemies at all, but to Russia. I thought it right to point out these deductions to be made from the figures one sees. Nevertheless, the figures do leave the impression that a very considerable leakage does go on. And the only figures so far as I know which we have, which clearly relate to the period since the blockade began—I mean the figures given the other day by Mr. Pretyrnan with regard to the imports during the mouth of May by one neutral country in particular—are quite sufficient of themselves, as I am sure the Government recognise, to give grounds for the great anxiety which is felt on this subject by many people in this country.
I make no sort of apology for having put the catechism which I have upon the Paper somewhat elaborately and I humbly hope searchingly. I do not think my Questions need very much explanation, but one of them invites the Government, if they are inclined so to do, to go beyond the question of cotton. And for this reason, that there are many other things needful in war besides cotton to which somewhat similar considerations to those I have been advancing must apply. My Questions are put not in the very least degree from any want of confidence in the Government in this matter; but in a matter so vital it is well that e, and our Allies too, should be told as plainly as possible just where His Majesty's Government stand. May I say this further. This is a very intricate and a very delicate matter. The fullest information in regard to one part of this intricate question lies with the experts of one Department and perhaps sonic experts outside, while the considerations which bear on another part of it are mainly known to a quite different Department. And when a question is of that character it might very easily happen, even in the case of a subject so momentous as this, that no one of sufficient authority had ever really grasped it as a whole in its full and true bearings. I quite understand that I may not succeed in eliciting the full-details, but failing the full details it will go a very long way to satisfy us if the Government can give an assurance that an adequate share of its fully informed judgment—and of its resolution and
456
capacity, if need he, for taking risks—is bestowed upon this particular subject. I should like to add to my Questions on the Paper one of which I have given private notice to the noble Marquess—namely, whether the policy of the Government in this whole matter is framed in concert and consultation with the Governments of the Allied Powers?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, so much public interest has been taken in this question of supplies which in certain circumstances may reach the enemy that I feel sure the whole House will agree that no apology is necessary from my noble friend for continuing here the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on the 12th of this month, when my hon. friend Lord Robert Cecil made a clear and concise statement on the subject, and succeeded, I think, in relieving some anxieties and in getting rid of some misapprehensions. I was glad to hear from my noble friend that in putting these Questions he desired to deal with circumstances as they are and not to go hack upon debatable questions of what might have been done, for instance, last autumn. That, of course, confines our discussion to a narrower and I think a more profitable field at this moment.
The main question which lies behind the various Questions which my noble friend has asked, and to which I will endeavour to reply as best I can seriatim, is whether or not it is an advisable thing now to add cotton to the contraband list. On that question there have been, as I have already stated, no small number of misunderstandings and misapprehensions, and some of those misunderstandings undoubtedly obtain not only in this country but also in other parts of the world, and particularly in those countries with which we are especially concerned for the moment—namely, the neutral States.
My noble friend's first Question is whether cotton is prevented, so far as the vigilance of the Navy can prevent it, from reaching Germany, and it will be noted that this particular Question has no bearing on the point as to whether cotton ought to be declared contraband or not, and I am able in general terms to reply to it in the affirmative. In the second place, my noble friend asks whether we believe that the naval measures taken for this purpose are completely successful. The word "completely" must, I think, be taken in

457
a somewhat relative sense both by those who question and those who reply. Complete success, literally taken, would mean that no vessel of any kind had succeeded in defeating our naval precautions, and he certainly would be a bold man who, during any time in history at which the stoppage of imports into a particular place has been attempted by blockade or otherwise, would assert that in no instance had those precautions been evaded. But speaking generally I would reply to that Question that, so far as can be ascertained, the answer is "Yes." And in connection with this the third Question of my noble friend—namely, what steps are taken to mitigate the injury earned to neutral countries in Europe by such measures, and whether those steps at all impair the stringency of the blockade of Our enemies 'countries"— becomes relevant to a reminder of what our existing system is. As Inv noble friend has told us, on March 11 an Order in Council was promulgated with the object of preventing exports generally from reaching Germany. As he has pointed out, that Order works equally upon all articles, whether they are on the contraband list or not. All ships are examined, and where it is necessary for the purposes of examination they are brought into port. If they contain a contraband article, that article is taken out and subjected to the decision of a Prize Court. Articles that are not contraband are either forwarded to their destination under restrictions or are dealt with in some other way, in some cases by purchasing them. The destination of the cargo and any part of it is noted, and as far as possible that destination is carefully checked.
It is, of course, to the interest of sonic traders in neutral countries to forward goods to Germany, and we ought in describing these goods to speak of individuals and not of countries. It is obvious that there are certain individual traders whose personal interests are greatly affected by the question of freedom of export to belligerent countries. Therefore when we permit consignments to be made to those countries our endeavour has been either to consign them to a Trust formed, for the purpose of dealing with them and distributing them to those who are entitled to receive them in the neutral country, and engaging to do its utmost to prevent their further proceeding into a belligerent
458
country—for this purpose, of course, Germany; or, in cases where a Trust is not formed, to firms or persons of proved respectability who are willing to give a similar guarantee. This is clearly not a simple or easy matter. The conditions are not the same in different countries. For instance, it has not been found possible to form in every one of the four neutral countries mainly involved a private Trust, not representing the neutral's Government but formed with its consent, such as exists in Holland; and therefore in different countries different methods have to be pursued.
Our hope is as time goes on and by continual friendly negotiations, as my friend described—by no means of an easy character and also a delicate matter—to improve the position progressively towards what must be our main goal and purpose, that is to limit the export to those neutral countries to the precise amount of their actual needs, calculated on the average imports which they have used and employed at home f luring the last few years. If that limitation is made it is also necessary, as the House will perceive, that it should be carried out preferably by domestic arrangements made within the country itself, with fairness to individual merchants and traders there. For example, if the amount of some commodity, say, cotton, exported to one of the Scandinavian countries is limited to a specific amount, unless it could somehow be arranged that the division of that particular amount among the different spinning firms in the country could be fairly allocated you would have precisely the same complaint from the merchant or trader who found that he could get no cotton at all as you would if you adopted the most stringent methods of preventing import altogether. The more, of course, that we can improve these arrangements —and we are endeavouring in all the countries every day to carry out that improvement and to bring them nearer to perfection—the less is the stringency of the blockade, if that is the proper word, which we desire to apply to the ports affected by our, action.
In his fourth Question my noble friend asks whether any neutral country in Europe is known to have imported, since the commencement of the present system of blockade, greater quantities of cotton than it had imported in the corresponding I periods of former years. Seine figures

459
have been published, as my noble friend says, which have excited no little doubt in some minds as to the success of the measures that we have taken. But it is important, as I think my noble friend pointed out himself, in dealing with these figures to note that excessive reliance must not be placed upon them, because it will be found that where different figures, as sometimes happens, are promulgated concerning a particular country, they are different because they do not really apply to the same thing. When we are told, for instance, that a certain amount of cotton has been imported into a particular country in the month of May, and a comparison is made, say, with May of a previous year, it does not follow that the calculation is framed on an identical basis. It happens in some cases, for instance, that consignments are noted and included in the calculation, whilst in other cases only the cotton is included which has been actually landed; and it is necessary to make various deductions in considering the figures which have been promulgated. But it cannot be disputed that there has been in the case of the four countries of which T have been speaking an increase in the imports of raw cotton and cotton waste since March, as compared with the amount in previous years, of several thousands of tons. On the other hand, it is not possible to state with accuracy to what extent the diminished import of manufactured cottons, piece goods and so on, has led to a quite legitimate increase in the import of raw cotton to be worked up in the neutral country itself to replace the cotton goods which in ordinary circumstances it would have been simpler to import. That I have no doubt accounts for some portion of the increase, although I do not think it ought to be taken as accounting for the whole. On tins question of cotton waste and raw cotton my noble friend stated—and I think it is worth while to note this by the way—that in his opinion it was practically proved that cotton of this kind is necessary for the making of all explosives. I should have thought that that was something of an over-statement.
LORD CHARNWOOD: Not of all explosives, not of high explosives, but propulsives.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It is undoubtedly necessary for some, and I am glad to have my noble friend's correction because I think it makes it clear. But
460
even, I fancy, for some explosives which do not come within the category of high explosives substitutes may be found, and knowing what we do of the extraordinary skill and pertinacity of German chemists it would, I think, be a bold thing to assume that no substitute, even if less convenient, can be found in many cases. I do not say that to minimise the importance of keeping raw cotton and cotton waste out of Germany, but I am not prepared to go so far as my noble friend did in speaking of its absolute necessity. Next my noble friend asks how far the answers to his foregoing Questions in regard to cotton apply, first, to other materials capable of use in making munitions of war, and, secondly, to sea-borne merchandise generally. The answer to that Question is that, mutatis mutandis, everything that I say in reply applies to all sea-borne merchandise precisely as it does to cotton.
Then we come to the Question which I think will be regarded by the House and by the public generally as the most interesting. My noble friend asks whether wide present circumstances or under any circumstances likely to arise during the war, the difficulty of our enemies in obtaining morn cotton would be at all increased by declaring cotton contraband of war. I have already stated that no little misapprehension has existed, and for all I know may still exist in sonic quarters, on this question of the effective declaring of either cotton or anything else contraband. My noble friend explained very clearly, and I have endeavoured once more to repeat its effect, what the present system does; and any one who has followed those explanations will see that there can be no magic in the mere declaration of any commodity as contraband so long as we pursue our present system of examining all goods of whatever class, whether contraband or not. Some people have appeared to imagine that it would be possible to institute a regular blockade of the neutral ports and thereby absolutely prevent goods of all kinds passing either by way of the Channel or by way of the North Sea. But I feel sure that nobody in this House can suppose that either under International Law or maintaining the most elementary rules of fair dealing it is possible to institute a blockade of neutral countries with whom we have no kind of quarrel, apart from the practical inconveniences which would accrue to ourselves and our Allies from the

461
adoption of any such policy. Therefore as I have tried to explain, we adopt this policy, which we admit to be a novel one, but which is rendered absolutely necessary by the changed conditions of maritime warfare. Our desire is to permit the export to neutral countries of goods representing their own needs and absolutely no more. That, is what we are endeavouring to do. One difference, which of course will be familiar to every one here, is that if you declare any article contraband, on its finding its wav to the Prize Court it can be Confiscated; whereas in cases of articles not on the contraband list that cannot be done. In the case of these articles which are not contraband, when they come into our ports to be examined they are either in some cases diverted or in other cases we purchase them ourselves in order to reduce to the lowest point the possibility of their finding their way to an enemy destination. As my noble friend very clearly put it, our One and only object is to stop the imports into Germany, and if in the case of any particular article we can effect that object, it is clearly idle merely for the sake of sounding highly energetic in our action to incur whatever, disadvantages may attach to the declaration of any article either absolute or even conditional contraband.
On this matter of cotton it is no use discounting the fact that in the United States, especially in what are known as the Cotton States, where cotton is not only the main product but represents the pivot around which the whole life of those communities revolves, the placing of cotton on the contraband list would cause no small amount of alarm and disturbance. That would undoubtedly be the case, because in the United States also there must exist no small degree of misapprehension as to what the effect of such a declaration would be. There are various such misapprehensions. I have no doubt that there is a tendency in some quarters in the United States and probably also in other countries to ascribe to the action of our Navy losses and disadvantages which ought not to be set down to us but are inherent in the fact that this world-wide war is raging. It is also, as my noble friend very usefully pointed out, believed—again not only in the United States, but no doubt in other countries—that there exists a desire here to secure and abstract the trade not merely of the hostile belligerents but also of neutral countries for the benefit of our own traders. I was
462
glad to note the expression of opinion, which of course we entirely share, that there can be no intention of the kind entertained by the people of this country. It is also, I think, probably believed by many persons in America that if we were to declare cotton contraband a serious and most damaging difference would be made to the growers and merchants, not in the amount of cotton which would find its way into Germany, but in their general trade all over the world.
It is our belief that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that the placing of cotton on the contraband list would make any difference to the general flow of the American cotton trade, and as matters now stand we are convinced that so far as the entry of cotton into Germany is concerned we should gain no benefit that can be ascertained from placing cotton on the contraband list. That being so, it would clearly be unwise for any of us to disregard the opinion of the United States in this platter, although we may believe that they, in their turn, are under a misapprehension in believing that the turning of cotton into contraband would prejudicially affect them At this moment, as we are well aware, we stand higher than our enemies in the estimation of instructed public opinion of the United States, because they are a fair-minded people who are able to weigh mid are determined to weigh the differing merits and demerits of the methods of warfare which we respectively pursue. Therefore unless it is clear that a change of this kind is imperatively needed, we are naturally—I think noble Lords will say rightly—averse to taking action which would be regarded by a particular interest in the Southern States of America as being substantially aimed at them, as being harmful to their interests, and as being generally unfriendly.
This brings me to the seventh and last Question on the Paper asked by my noble friend—namely, whether, since the commencement of the present system of blockade,- any article has been declared contraband of war, and, if so, why? The answer to the last part of his Question will, I think, be quite clear to the House from what I have just said on the subject of cotton. Certain things have been placed on the contraband list since March 11, including toluol and its deriva-

463
tives. Toluol, as your Lordships know, is a coal-tar product which it was quite of late years discovered could be used for the manufacture of high explosives; it is also used for the manufacture of dye-stuffs, and for a great number of other chemical products. There have also been placed on the contraband list machine tools and machines of a character suitable for making munitions of war, large scale maps of belligerent territory, various forms of lubricants, and also wool. Wool, as noble Lords will appreciate, is of prime importance, and of almost paramount necessity for the clothing of troops in cold weather, for so far as we know no substitute for it has been discovered. It is quite possible that the contraband list may be added to at any time. In the case of cotton I have explained that there are solid objections to placing it on the contraband list, which could only be outweighed by obvious or clearly proved military advantage.
The general conclusion which I would ask the House to accept is this, that the case of every commodity must be considered separately on its particular merits. You cannot make a contraband list which would be anything approaching universal, and the relative advantages and disadvantages must, I submit, be weighed in each case. I am therefore certainly not going to say that if in any case—that of cotton or any other—the military considerations were found to be paramount, we might not have to face the corresponding disadvantages which I have described to the House. That applies to all commodities, and as the conditions of the war may alter as time goes on we should, I am sure, be unwise to bind ourselves strictly in either direction. We feel compelled, as I have said, to leave the door open for ourselves to make such a declaration with regard to any subject, always of course bearing in mind as far as possible the fair claims of neutral countries but being, obliged, as they I am sure will fairly admit, to regard the military necessity. The shortening of the war, and the manner of the final victory, is the absolutely paramount consideration we have to hear in mind. That we shall continue to do, and I hope that I have convinced the House that we have not in any way neglected that object or compromised the interests of the country in the steps that we have so far taken.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on what is undoubtedly a matter of paramount importance. Nobody denies that this question of cotton and cotton waste is, as has been pointed out by the noble Marquess, a matter of great intricacy and difficulty. I may say that I am entirely in accord with the principle which the noble Marquess has laid down for dealing with this subject. I think he has made the same statement here as that which was so admirably made in the other House by Lord Robert Cecil, and I which I may summarise in these words—that in this great European struggle England has stood in the main for the maintenance of the public law of Europe in matters of this kind. That is a most important principle to maintain. First of all, speaking from the point of view of the legal position, I think it is right and just that we should act upon that principle. Secondly, I think with the noble Marquess that we lose much more by possibly putting ourselves in the wrong on matters of principle though we may gain in what may appear to be the immediate advantage at the particular moment. At the same time I think we all agree with him that a time of paramount necessity from the military standpoint may arise which is so great and so immediate that that principle will have to give way, and that may hereafter be the case as regards the declaration of cotton as contraband.
But there is every reason why raw cotton, should not be declared contraband unless it is a matter of urgent and essential necessity. After all, we are dealing with merchandise sent from a neutral country to a neutral country, and we are bound—and it is an attitude we have taken up in the past with regard to questions of this kind—to give a fair regard to the rights and claims of neutrals as regards traffic of this character. Of course, this is especially important having regard to the conditions in the Southern States of America. The noble Marquess told us in substance that the Government had obtained the results we all desired without declaring cotton contraband. I think that is a very important statement, on which the House is much to be congratulated. Consider the dangers and the difficulties of departing from what has always been our view at any rate of I International Law upon a question of this kind. I admit that in some senses International Law seems to be a figment of the

465
past. But I do not take that view, and I eon glad to hear, from what the noble Marquess has said, that the Government are maintaining what T may call the right principle upon essential points of this character.
Let us consider for a moment the question of contraband in connection with cotton. Practically at the instance of this country, but not entirely so, it was put on the free list in the Declaration of London. I am afraid. I am one of those who always opposed the Declaration of London. It has not been accepted up at the present time. But those who are in favour of the Declaration of London must take note that cotton was put on the free list— that is to say, it was placed as one of those articles which, as against the interests of neutrals, no belligerent was to be allowed to put into a list of contraband. No doubt that was done because we as a great industrial country an more than any other country interested to see that neutral industries were not interfered with during a long war. No other country is more interested than we are in maintaining a principle of that kind. Let me give an instance which came into my mind while the noble Marquess was speaking. The only time when cotton was declared contraband and treated as such was, I think, about 1861, in the Civil We r in America, the war between the Federal States and the Confederate States. That was justified on a very peculiar ground, and only on that ground—it was said that the only form of specie, or money, with which the Confederate States could deal was cotton, and therefore the Federal States on that very ground claimed to put cotton within the contraband list. Well, we can only say that since then every writer of the slightest importance on International Law has thought that that was at least a very doubtful action so far as the Federal authorities were concerned. In 1904 Russia declared cotton to be an absolute contraband in her war with Japan. We at once made a protest—I submit, a very proper protest—against that The result, partly though not entirely satisfac7ory, was that cotton upon that occasion was moved from the absolute contraband list into the conditional contraband list.
I do not want to go into technicalities upon a point of this kind, but no doubt most of your Lordships are aware that the conditions under which contraband can be dealt; with differ whether it is a matter of
466
absolute contraband or a matter of conditional contraband. Therefore oil every ground, and particularly having regard to what the noble Marquess said, it would be a great misfortune—I do not say it tray not become necessary to have to face what I must call in some respects the just criticism of neutral countries and neutral traders—it would be a great misfortune if, after all our history and all our declarations as regards International Law, we did put cotton and cotton waste on the contraband list. But from the answers which have been given in Parliament I understand that there is no question of declaring cotton contraband at the present time—no one, of course, can say what may happen in the future. And further than that, the noble Marquess assures us in substance that what is now being done under the various Defence of the Realm Acts is sufficient to protect this country against what I consider the greatest of all misfortunes—namely, the importation of cotton and cotton waste in any large quantities into Germany, because if we are to bring this war to a termination within anything like a definite time it is in my opinion absolutely essential that on a point of this kind Germany should be as far as possible prohibited front getting assistance by exports from outside.
There is one other point on which wish to say a word. Very often those who criticise the Government upon a point of this kind forget that these problems are extremely intricate and difficult. They seem to put out of sight any other interest or idea except the one dominant factor they may have present to their minds at the particular moment. An illustration of that was given by the noble Marquess. I understand it has been suggested, I presume to the Government, that you might have something like a general blockade of neutral countries. A noble Lord on the other side of the House says "Hear, hear." It appears to me that a suggestion of that kind can hardly emanate from those who have really considered the conditions in which we are at the present moment. It can only he suggested on the hypothesis that you absolutely disregard the rights of every one in every direction except what is suitable to yourselves at a particular moment. Will any one agree with such a proposition as that? One of the great difficulties of a great naval Power like ourselves is so to conduct operations of this

467
character as to be effective, and vet not unduly irritating to neutrals. And if we look abroad and see what is going on in Europe, is there any greater or better support that we could have than the support of neutrals on the ground, the definite ground, that we stand for what is really public rights and public order even during this great struggle of life and death to us? On these ground, so far as my support is of any value I most heartily support the attitude which has been explained by the noble Marquess and which I understand is the same as that mentioned by Lord Robert Cecil in the other House. I deprecate in the strongest manner the notion that for immediate advantage we ought to flout the rights and interests of others, which even in times of stress and difficulty ought to have fair consideration at the hands of our people and at the hands of our Government.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I think Lord Charnwood has done well in bringing this matter before the House. At the same time, like nearly all those who wish us to take stronger measures as regards cotton, he made his speech without making any allusion to the effect that a sterner dealing with cotton would have on our relations with the United States. I was in the United States at the time of the Civil War, when the Southern Press was full of articles condemning the Northern States for declaring cotton contraband. I was again in that country a few months ago, and in the South I found the Press unanimous in attacking Great Britain for its interference with the cotton trade. Unfortunately all the writers in the Press in America and all the writers in the Press in England were discussing the matter from totally different points of view, and apparently were ignorant of one another's arguments. The one fallacy of the Southern Press in America is that they keep on quoting the prices that cotton is now fetching in Germany as prices that the whole of their cotton crop would reach if they managed to get it exported to that country. I have seen one suggestion which may be of benefit—I am not financier enough to know whether it would be practicable to carry it out—but it is to buy the whole of the American cotton crop for this year. I know the immense importance of keeping cotton out of Germany. At the same time I want those who think strongly on that point to realise the
468
immense importance of cultivating good relations with the United States.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Charnwood has brought before the House a matter of the greatest interest and importance, and in his series of seven Questions there are practically two matters dealt with. The first is whether we are now successful in preventing cotton going to the enemy, and the second whether we should be better able to prevent cotton going to the enemy if we declared it contraband. I am sure we shall all agree that it is most. important, if we possibly can, to stop cotton reaching the enemy. Yet we all desire—and I was glad to hear the noble stand made by Lord Parmoor for the maintenance of International Law and international right— to allow neutrals their normal supply for internal purposes, and to act fairly to the great producing country which is, and I hope will always remain, our friend.
I was very glad to hear my noble friend the Leader of the House give a categorically affirmative answer to Lord Charnwood's question whether the position at present is better than it was some time ago. I believe that the present position is much better than any figures that have yet been made public show. Up to now the figures which have been made public—the figure that was used in another place the other day, for instance—are rat her alarming. I have seen some exaggerations, but it is undoubtedly the fact. that hundreds of thousands of bales of cotton over the normal consumption of Holland and Sweden have gone through those countries, and no doubt a good many of those bales have gone on to Germany. Both Holland and Sweden have each of them had, during the early part of this year, at least 50,000 tons of cotton over the normal, and when saving that I am not over-stating the case at all.
I am very much interested in this matter in various ways. During my active business career I was in the cotton trade, and for the last few months—since February, in fact—I have been Director of the War Trade Department, which has had to deal not only with cotton but with a great many other commodities. The War Trade Department issues licences for export, and a most difficult and thankless task it is, for it is perfectly impossible to satisfy at one and the same time the man who looks with the utmost suspicion on every commodity

469
that leaves this country, and the man who desires to do his ordinary export trade and believes that at any rate his customers are to be trusted not to deal with the enemy. It is entirely new work; a large new staff has had to be organised, with very few established men. I believe that the War Trade Department receives now between 2,500 and 3,000 communications a day; and I must take this opportunity of expressing a, word of cordial thanks to the staff, which has worked in season and out of season, late at night, on Sundays, and sometimes all through the night, in order to cope with the enormous amount of work thrown on that Department. We have been subjected from time to time to a certain amount of not very generous criticism. We are expected, in the circumstances I have described, to do things much better and quicker than the older Departments.
I will, however, say no more about the War Trade Department except this. In order to pursue rationally a policy of licensing, you trust know some of the statistics of the commodities which are gong to the countries in which von are specially interested. We find ourselves very short of statistics brought up to a recent date. Those published by the neutral countries surrounding Germany, which are the countries that interest us most, are often published very late, and they are not always reliable. Indeed, some of those countries appear to have given up issuing monthly returns, or, if they have not stopped them altogether, they are certainly very greatly in arrear. Some trades publish statistics of a fairly reliable character but by no means all, and therefore it became the duty of the War Trade Department to see what could he done in order to obtain statistics more up to date than any in the possession of the Board of Trade or any other Government Department. Amongst others I consulted the eminent statistician Mr. Bowled, and he agreed that the best plan would be to obtain particulars of the cargoes of all the ships going to countries in which we had a special interest. For some weeks I have had a staff working in the collection and tabulation of those figures, and I regret to say that the head of that staff, who has worked with extraordinary energy and ability, has broken down under the strain to which he has been subjected. I hope, however, that he may shortly be back at
470
his work again. But already a good many figures have been collected, and we have pretty late figures about cotton.
I am not going to quote these figures, because I have not hail time to test them sufficiently thoroughly yet, but I may say that they do not agree at all, month by month, with the latest official statistics issued by the Netherlands Government. For instance, the figures show that twice as much cotton entered Holland in March as is shown in the official Dutch figures; mid instead of 30,500 tons which are said to have entered Holland in May, the figures collected for me show a very small amount indeed. It is obvious, therefore, as my noble friend the' Leader of the House said in regard to the statistics, that these figures deal with different periods. But taking the five or six months of this year, and addling up the times which have been collected for the War Trade Department and the figures issued officially by the Dutch Government, there is substantial agreement in the totals. Therefore I feel considerable confidence in the figures that have been collected, and my belief is that in May and June the amount of cotton reaching the Scandinavian countries and Holland was not on time whole above the normal. In the case of Norway it was more than the normal, but in the other countries—Denmark, Sweden, and Rolland —I believe it was rather less than the normal. The figures collected for my Department apply to ships which have arrived in the countries in question and the cargoes on those ships. Of course a certain number of ships may be missed, but not any large number, and the general effect produced on my mind by the figures is that His Majesty's Government have at the present time control of this cotton question. If, as I hope, they can maintain that control, I do not think your Lordships need fear that any large quantities of cotton will go through these countries adjacent to Germany into Germany. On that point I feel considerable confidence in the statement I have made.
I have only one or two more words to say on the extraordinarily difficult question of whether cotton should be considered contraband or not. One cannot discuss the matter very fully, but I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor) that we ought to remember that we have looked at this matter from the point of view of a

471
neutral in the past, and we may have to regard it from that point of view at sonic future date. In any case it would not be fair or wise to tear up International Law as Germany seems inclined to do whenever she so desires. While the present position lasts, which really has curtailed the supplies going to Germany during the last month or two months, no substantial advantage can be gained by declaring cotton contraband. Were cotton declared contraband no more could be done than is now being done. In this matter the House will do well to trust the Government. It is a Government singularly strong in experience and knowledge of foreign affairs, and I do not think any body of men could be picked out of the whole of this country who could give a better decision on any point of that kind.
There is just one suggestion that I should like to make to them. The present position under which cotton is dealt with is based upon the famous Order in Council of which we have already heard. That Order avowedly proclaims a policy of reprisal on the German proclamation of the danger zone. The German proclamation was a violation of every canon of International Law as hitherto understood. I do not suggest for a moment that Germany is going to alter her present practice and procedure. I see no reason to suppose that that is likely to take place. But I do say that if Germany did alter her present practice and procedure the position as regards cotton, for instance, might be made more difficult than it is. I am not going to discuss the desirability or otherwise of making cotton contraband. I am glad that His Majesty's Government have declared their intention of keeping an open mind in case necessity should drive them to such a course. But I venture to suggest whether the present method of dealing with cotton, a method which it is most desirable to maintain if we can do so, is best founded on the Order in Council of March 11, or whether it might not be equally well based on other grounds no more contentious in their character to neutrals and giving perhaps an even more permanent sanction to the procedure and methods that we are adopting with regard to cotton at the present moment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, there is one feature of this matter which has not been discussed to-day. It is beyond
472
doubt that Germany is still doing an enormous trade with the Scandinavian countries. We have not heard a word to-day on the export trade of Germany across the Baltic. She is sending large quantities of commodities—I believe I am right in saying five or six times her usual amount—through Denmark and through Sweden, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will pay particular attention to the destination of those goods. They are, of course, fully aware that for every ton of goods sent out of Germany the Germans get a quid pro quo either in money or in merchandise. The Baltic Sea is at present nearly absolutely under German control, and this trade ought to be watched and stopped as far as possible. The noble Marquess, in answer to Lord Charnwood, said that the Government were checking the destination of all goods sent from this country. That is a very difficult matter. A trader sends goods on a bil! of lading to a firm, say, in Gothenburg; they sell those goods or pass on the bill of lading, or the consignees send an order for the goods to he transferred to a third person, and he sends them on to a fourth person, and then they slip across from Malmo, or go By another of the well-known routes, into Germany. I know that the international question mentioned by Lord Parmoor is a very difficult one. It is to our interest to stick up for International Law; but are we not, perhaps, hesitating too long in exercising the command of the sea which we do hold outside the Baltic? This war is going to be a long and difficult war, and there is a great public opinion in this country that we ought to stop at no means by which we can strangle the trade of Germany, and, in the end, help to strangle her.

MASSAGE ESPABLISIDIENTS.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will afford early facilities for passing into law the clauses in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill enforcing registration and inspection of massage establishments.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, my Question refers to the giving of facilities for the passing into law of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. That is a Bill of wide range, dealing chiefly with subjects quite outside my knowledge

473
or experience. There are, however, two parts of that Bill upon which I claim to voice the opinion of many people outside; and I ask that a moment's attention may be given to the matter, that we may learn how far His Majesty's Government are prepared to promote same effective action. The part of the Bill to which I refer is that which deals with the establishments for nursing or special treatment of illness. It would be absurd to descant for even a moment upon the immense advantage to the community as a whole from the existence of these establishments for nursing or special treatment which are to be found all over London and in every large town. Perhaps there are few of your Lordships who have nor taken advantage them way or other of nursing and surgical homes, and we are aware of the enormous gain they are to the community as a whole and the debt of gratitude we owe to them. But their excellence, to which I desire to bear tribute, is not incompatible with the fact that in their general merit there lurks a Trill, which for many years has been known to those who are students of a good many of our moral questions, and which has, I am afraid, grown to larger dimensions quite recently. It has for some tune been thought desirable that there should be a possibility of gaining accurate statistical knowledge about some of the homes to which I refer, with a power of registration or inspection which could check mischief, if mischief there be.
Many of us hoped last year before the war began that this matter hart been practically dealt with, because there was a Bill in progress, something like the Bill to which I am now referring but in larger forth, which gave to the London County Council fresh powers for examining and inspecting and registering homes where they felt it necessary to do so. With regard to that Bill, difficulties arose. They were not, as far as I am aware, difficulties on fundamental principles, but administrative difficulties in the main, questions of the right of power and procedure for conducting the investigation which was wanted. But we hoped that these had been overcome, and it is to some of us a little mysterious why during recent months the delay has occurred which leaves us still without the legislation for which we had looked. And I am afraid that we must add that ire the meantime, under the protection afforded by the apparent inability
474
of the authorities to intervene in the matter, the particular difficulties to which I have referred have increased to a very large extent, and almost, in what I may call a blatant and demonstrative manner. There are at this moment known to many people grave difficulties connected with some—I hope the smallest possible proportion, but still some—of the institutions which advertise themselves as massage and surgical treatment homes.
I do not know what the noble Earl who will reply to me will say, but I shall be very much surprised if he says that what I have indicated upon the matter is a hallucination or fad on my part, or that I have exaggerated the facts as they stand. A very little knowledge of what is felt by officials of the Home Office and I imagine certainly by the London Police Force will tell any man that the subject is not one that we can afford to pass by as unimportant or insignificant, or in war time one which can be left alone, in connection with our special conditions of life to-day there are certain points that make it urgent for this matter to be taken in hand with the utmost possible promptitude. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the question at all to-day—I am quite prepared to do so should occasion demand—but I merely want to be assured on the part of the Government that the matter is not failing to receive the attention which the urgency, the need, and the reality of the facts I have mentioned demand.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, nobody could venture for a moment to use any such terms as those of hallucination or fad as applied to the case which the most rev. Primate has brought before your Lordships. He has not, in my judgment, in the least degree exaggerated the seriousness of the case which he has laid before your Lordships. In a few striking sentences he has revealed to us—if revelation was required—the existence of an evil which, masquerading under a false disguise, has been growing of recent years to the dimensions almost of a public scandal. I do not know when the system of these establishments, nominally intended for manicure, massage, and other objects, started. My impression is they are the growth almost entirely of the last ten or fifteen years, but there cannot be a doubt that in recent times they have attained dimensions which must cause serious anxiety to all thinking men.

475
You have only to walk about the streets of London in the neighbourhood of Bond-street or Piccadilly to have your eyes constantly confronted by placards, or boards carried by sandwichmen, or advertisements in shop windows, attracting people to these danger spots; and I quite sympathise with the suggestion so delicately indicated by the most rev. Primate that there is something in the circumstances of the hour, when so many young officers are constantly passing through London, on their way to or from the theatre of war, which renders the lure of these places peculiarly insidious and perilous at the present, time. There is therefore, I think, the strongest possible case in the interests of public morality for some further powers of inspection and control being taken by the authorities than at present exist.
In reply to the Question upon the Paper, therefore, I find no difficulty in saying to the most rev. Primate that the Government will be very glad indeed to see the clauses of the Bill to which he refers passed into law with as little delay as possible. Indeed, the Government may be said to have been more or less behind this Bill. The London County Council consulted the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in drawing it up in the first instance, and the Secretary of State commended the clauses of the Bill to which reference is now being made to the Local Legislative Committee of the House of Commons last year. But the question of giving facilities for the early passage of the Bill into law does not rest in the main with the occupants of this Bench. It is really a matter of the conduct of business in this House. This is not a Public Bill in charge of the Government; it is a Private Bill, the future of which is perhaps more in the hands of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees than of any Minister on this Bench.
In the inquiry which took place before the Local Legislative Committee in the House of Commons it transpired that the borough councils of London took very strong objection to certain features in these particular clauses of the Bill. It was not for a moment that they questioned the seriousness of the evil to which we are referring or that they doubted the propriety of dealing with it with as little delay as possible, but they thought that if further powers were to be given they ought to be conferred upon them, because it would be
476
really an extension of the functions they at present exercise of controlling disorderly houses, brothels, and places of that, sort; and therefore they wanted the existing Acts amended so as to give them, the borough councils, the right of entry into these suspected places in order to obtain evidence in the event of a prosecution being found desirable. On the other hand, the London County Council held the opposite view. They took the view that these duties had better be discharged by a central authority already possessing a staff of inspectors well qualified for the purpose. I need not enter further into the grounds of difference between these authorities, but I may mention that the Committee of the Douse of Commons to which I referred reported generally in favour of the contention of the London County Council.
That is the present position of affairs as regards this Bill. I think I interpret the views of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees rightly in saying that he holds that the borough councils have submitted a case which entitles them to be heard before the Bill is placed upon the Statute Book, and that for that purpose a Committee of your Lordships' House ought to be set up with as little delay as possible. We all know that at this moment of the session it would be exceedingly difficult to obtain a competent Committee to look into the matter, but the Chairman of Committees, I believe, will support me when I say that it is his desire to constitute such a Committee as early as possible in the forthcoming autumn. The borough councils will then be able to state their case before the Committee, and no further delay will ensue. Subject to this condition the Government, I can assure the most rev. Primate, have the warmest sympathy with the object of his Question, and will be only too glad to see this measure pass into law.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words to what the noble Earl has said as illustrating the position in which we find ourselves with regard to this Bill. It is not a 1915 Bill; it is a Bill suspended from 1914, and the delay has been due to reasons quite apart from these particular parts of the Bill—to negotiations in connection with other parts of the Bill which are not now in it. The noble Earl has

477
referred to the difficulty we might have in getting a Committee to sit next week to hear this very important case advanced by the borough councils. The objections show that the majority—sixteen—of the borough' councils desire to be represented before your Lordships' Committee—a larger number than appeared last year before the House of Commons' Committee; and. I am sure that your Lordships would deprecate any hindrance to their right to be heard.
But there is another difficulty which has been placed before me by the borough councils— an objection to the Committee sitting at once. They were, given to understand perfectly bona fide by the County Council on June 30 last that it was only intended to proceed with the unopposed parts of the Bill. That was the intention of the County Council; but the circumstances have altered. I do not think I am giving away any secrets when I say that in my opinion tie, keenness of the Home Office that something should be passed on these lines is responsible for the fact that these two parts remain in the Bill. During the last fortnight the opponents were under the impression fiat the opposed parts of the Bill were not to be proceeded with; therefore they urge very strongly that now, when they 111V busy with assessment work, it would be hard on them if the Committee met next week, instead of in the autumn. That seems to me to be a very cogent reason for not setting up a Committee for next week.
At the same time I entirely concur with the noble Earl that it is very important that the Committee should be (Ailed together immediately we meet after the forthcoming adjournment, and no doubt some of your Lordships will then assist me by serving on the Committee. I should like to see the form of these provisions discussed in private confabulation before the Bill becomes ripe for the Statute Book, and I intend myself to initiate certain discussions. I hope, therefore, that the time we shall spend before the Committee meets will not be wasted. I
478
also hope that the time will be utilised in bringing about certain things that are necessary for alteration in the Bill. For instance, the Bill makes registration necessary of all places where special treatment is given. The actual house of a doctor who is giving, say, radium treatment would have to be registered as a massage establishment, just as much as the places we have in our minds. Obviously such is not the intention. There are five or six other things which require careful I consideration, awl we shall have useful opportunity during August and September of negotiating all those points. Subject to that, I am at one with the Government in hoping that we may not lose this Bill this session, as we might have done last year had it not been postponed.

NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL
To be printed as amended in Committee of the Whole House. (No. 137.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following fourteen Bills received the Royal Assent—

National Registration.

Kilmarnock Gas Order Confirmation.

Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation.

Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage Board.

Prescot Gas.

Spennymoor and Tudhoe Gas.

Skegness Urban District Gas.

Rotherham Corporation.

Chelmsford Corporation Gas.

Lurgan Urban District Council.

Port of London Authority.

Sutton District Water.

Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, &c.).

Northwich Gas.

House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.