Sitting of 13 February 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Land Drainage (Ramsey) Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1914, relating to the Ramsey First Hollow Drainage District," presented by Sir RICHARD WINFREY; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Urban district of Ramsbottom.
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS, 1911 TO 1914
  (PART III. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE) (UNEMPLOYMENT FUND ACCOUNT).
  Copy presented of Account of the Unemployment Fund established pursuant to Section 92 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II.), showing Receipts and Payments during the period 15th July, 1914, to 17th July, 1915, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 18.]
  TREASURY CHEST.
  Account presented for the year 1915–16, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 19.]
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented of Reports of Decisions on Appeals and Applications under Section 67 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and Section 27 of the National Insurance Act, 1913. Part IV. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    CHINA (BRITISH CONCESSION).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now publish the representations made by the British residents of the British concession at Canton, in China, regarding the removal of Germans from that concession?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): I much regret that His Majesty's Government do not see any ground for varying their decision not to publish this document.

    PRESIDENT WILSON'S NOTE (ALLIES' REPLY).
    Mr. ARNOLD WARDasked whether it is intended to publish an official English translation of the Allies' reply to President Wilson's Note?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Allied Reply with a translation is being printed for presentation to Parliament and will shortly be laid, on the Table.

    RUSSIA (SUBJECTS OF MILITARY AGE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government's reply on inquiries made by the British Government concerning Russian subjects of military age in this country has now been received?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir. The Russian Government have expressed their readiness to conclude an agreement with His Majesty's Government on the subject, which is at present being considered by the competent Departments.
    Mr. KING: Will reports from any Member of this House on the subject be considered before the matter is finally settled?
    Sir J. D. REES: Before the Noble Lord replies, may I inquire whether anything is likely to be more unpleasant to the Russian Government than a discussion of this matter in the House of Commons. Do they ever discuss similar matters in which we are concerned?
    An HON. MEMBER: They do!
    Mr. KING: Before a reply is given, may I ask whether private communications, not a public discussion here, from persons well acquainted with this matter, will receive due consideration?
    Lord R. CECIL: Certainly; I hope any communication from any Member of this House to any Minister of the Crown will always receive consideration.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    PRISONERS OF WAR (DAILY RATIONS).
    Major WHELERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the appeal by the Food Controller to the civilian population to limit the weekly consumption per head to two and a half pounds of meat and four pounds of bread, he will consider the desirability of reducing the daily meat ration of prisoners of war from eight ounces to six ounces and the daily bread ration from one and a half pounds to one pound?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing yesterday.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Has nothing been done yet to stop this anomaly?
    Mr. HOPE: Yes, Sir. As was stated yesterday, a Committee representing all the Departments concerned is dealing with the matter.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Has anything been done yet?
    Mr. HOPE: I think not.

    ALIEN ENEMIES (ALEXANDRA PALACE).
    Major NEWMANasked whether arrangements have been made for alien
    416
    enemies interned at the Alexandra Palace and elsewhere to undertake the cultivation of land either in or adjacent to their internment camps?
    Mr. HOPE: It is hoped that the services of all interned alien enemies who are able-bodied will be made use of during the coming season on the land, or for other purposes of prime national importance; but my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that the principle of compulsion is not applied to interned civilians as it is to combatant prisoners.

    SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked (1) whether any steps are being taken to give effect to the recommendation of the Food Prices Committee that the slaughter of all cows, sheep, and pigs with young should be prohibited; and (2) whether, with a view to increasing the supply of milk, he has considered the advisability of strengthening the Order for the maintenance of live stock by prohibiting the slaughter of cows under seven or eight years of age; and whether he proposes to take any action?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The recommendation of the Food Prices Committee and other suggestions for diminishing the slaughter of cows have been the subject of much conference and consideration between the Agricultural Departments and the Food Controller, but so far the objections to any specific step in the direction proposed have been regarded as outweighing the arguments in its support.

    MANURES, SEEDS, AND SEED POTATOES.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that local authorities in urban districts have arranged to supply manures, seeds, and seed potatoes to allotment holders in their districts; is he aware that in many cases these authorities are being pressed as to when these requisites, and especially the seed potatoes, will be available, and what their quality will be; and where inquiries on the subject have been addressed to his Board will he cause a definite reply to be given at the earliest possible moment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): Full instructions were issued to war agricultural committees on

    417
    the 27th of last month as to the arrangements made by the Board for the supply of seed potatoes for small growers. These arrangements should ensure the delivery of good sound seed to any local authorities who have sent in particulars of their requirements, but owing to the short supply it will not be possible to guarantee the supply of any special variety. The Board have not undertaken to supply seeds of other kinds or manures to local authorities, but the Food Controller and the Board are taking all possible steps to secure that sufficient supplies are available.

    FARMERS AND JURY SERVICE.
    The following question stood on the Order Paper: 38. Mr. TURTON, to ask the Attorney-General whether he is prepared to introduce legislation absolving fanners and others engaged in agricultural work from all jury service during the continuance of the War?
    Mr. TURTON: I beg to postpone this question. The Attorney-General is consulting the Home Secretary on the matter.

    WHEAT PURCHASES, INDIA.
    Colonel YATEasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether the Wheat Commission purchased wheat in India at 2s. per quarter in excess of the market price in that country, with the result of upsetting the whole of the Indian wheat market?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): I am informed by the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies that in this, as in other cases, they purchased wheat at the market price.

    FISH.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the hon. Member for Walton, as representing the Food Controller, whether his attention has been called to the fact that quantities of fish are destroyed in dust destructors and also used as manure; and if he will consider the issue of an Order to prevent a repetition of these practices and ensure that all good fish shall be offered for sale as food and not destroyed?
    Captain BATHURST: Fish that becomes unfit for human consumption is no doubt destroyed in the manner indicated in this question. The Food Controller has no
    418
    reason to believe that any fish in good condition is so destroyed, and having regard to the prevailing demand and the high price of fish, it would appear to be improbable, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases, within his knowledge, I will have inquiries made.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that in order to keep up the price of fish a great quantity is destroyed constantly?
    Captain BATHURST: As I have already said, there is no evidence whatever before the Department that any fish that is fit for human consumption is now being destroyed in the manner indicated.
    Mr. WING: Is it not a fact that the fishing trade resent these charges, seeing that such practices do not exist? The price is sufficient to guarantee that the fish is sold, and not wasted.

    SEED POTATOES.
    Major WHELERasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in the interests of a larger cultivation of potatoes this year, he will reduce the present railway charges on seed potatoes by 50 per cent, for the months of February, March, and April.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY Of the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): As at present advised, I hardly think that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is one that can be adopted.

    DESTRUCTION BY GAME.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food Control whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the killing of game by tenant farmers when they are destroying human food?
    Captain BATHURST: I have had no private notice of this question, but the matter has been considered this morning after consultation with the President of the Board of Agriculture, and it has been decided to issue an Order authorising occupiers of agricultural land to have the concurrent right of killing the pheasants on the same lines that they have in respect of ground game.
    Mr. LAMBERT: At what date may the tenants kill pheasants; because now, of course, it is close time, and now is the time they are doing damage?
    Captain BATHURST: We propose to give the tenant farmers this right at once.
    HON. MEMBERS: Until how long?
    Captain BATHURST: Without, at present, any limitation of time.
    Colonel YATE: Are pheasants to be killed during the breeding season?
    Captain BATHURST: Most certainly, if they are eating food which is fit for human or animal consumption.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will this new Order apply to the United Kingdom or only to Great Britain?
    Captain BATHURST: As far as I am aware, it is not proposed to make any exception in the case of Ireland.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: After 1st February the killing of game is illegal. How can an Order of the Board of Agriculture or the Food Controller make legal that which is illegal by Statute?
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller has been advised that he has power to override existing legislation in this respect under the Defence of the Realm Act.

    TEA.
    Mr. FLAVIN(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food Control whether he is aware that within the past three weeks the short price of tea in bond, as sold on the London market, has gone up by over 20 per cent.; whether he is aware that there is no shortage of tea for immediate or near future consumption; and whether he is also aware that several large tea companies and profiteers have taken this unpatriotic action of artificially raising the price of tea, and also of forestalling the Budget, as was done last year, with the result that the masses of the people, especially the poor, who are already heavily burdened in the cost of food, are now further penalised by the increased cost of their tea by over 3d. in the pound weight; and whether he can state what action, if any, has been taken, or will be taken in the matter?
    Captain BATHURST: I understand, on inquiry, that an increase of the nature mentioned in the question has taken place recently. On the information at present before the Food Controller, he knows of no sufficient justification for such an in-
    420
    crease, and he proposes to take immediate steps to investigate the causes of this sudden advance in price.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the hon. Gentleman take such action as will make public these large companies who unpatriotically have bought large quantities of tea on the market and have stored it in their huge warehouses in order to increase the price to the poor people?
    Captain BATHURST: I will certainly take note of the hon. Member's suggestion and convey it to the Food Controller.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that similar allegations on previous occasions on inquiry turned out to be founded on a total misunderstanding?

  BRITISH SOLDIERS (CONVALESCENCE).
  Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the increase to passenger traffic and expense incurred by the sending of British soldiers to Ireland for their period of convalescence; whether he is aware that, owing to the impossibility of their being visited by their relatives, as well as for other reasons, non-Irish soldiers dislike being sent to Irish convalescent camps; and will he say why it is necessary to send them out of their own country?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Command Depot at Ballyvonare. It is necessary to send soldiers who are not of Irish nationality there, as there is not sufficient accommodation available in England or Scotland. It is to be remembered that these soldiers are not patients in hospital.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend not now, after a very long time, make arrangements whereby Scottish soldiers shall, as far as possible, go into Scottish hospitals?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That, Mr. Speaker, does not arise.
  Major NEWMAN: Does not the Under-Secretary realise how disagreeable it is for English soldiers to be sent to the South of Ireland right away from their relatives?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that that is due to the fact that there is not sufficient accommodation in other parts.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the provision of sufficient accommodation; there cannot be much difficulty in doing that?
  Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will say how many English and Scottish soldiers are at present in the convalescent camp at Ballyvonare, county Cork; whether he is aware that this camp is situated in a remote district, some miles distant from the nearest small town of Buttevant, and is provided with no amusements for the inmates except a small cinema theatre; and whether, in view of the dullness of the life and the surroundings, the War Office will convert this convalescent camp into an internment camp for alien enemies or prisoners of war?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There are between 3,000 and 4,000 soldiers belonging to English regiments at Ballyvonare Command Depot, but no Scotsmen, except those who may happen to be serving in English regiments. It is not possible to give effect to my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, as it is necessary to use the Command Depot for its present purpose owing to lack of accommodation in England.
  Major NEWMAN: Is it the fact that all the amusements these men have is the small cinema theatre?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an attested man who has been rejected since August, 1915, and to whom notice has not been sent before 1st September, 1916, calling him up for re-examination, is excepted from the operation of the Military Service Acts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must remind my hon. Friend that the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916, do not apply to attested men whose liability for Military Service accrues from their attestation, and not from the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916. On attestation an attested man passed into the Army, and the fact that he was not accepted for service on medical examination subsequent to attestation, did
    422
    not discharge him from the Army. The written, notice required to be be sent by Section 3 (2) of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2) only applied to men who had offered themselves for enlistment and been rejected since the 14th August, 1915, and did not apply to attested men.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Gager case the Law Courts held that a man who had attested was not liable under the Military Service Acts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am quite aware of the case; but that, of course, is not binding on any other Court. That case was decided upon its own merits.
    Mr. SCOTT: Does the War Office refuse to recognise the validity of the decision of the Law Courts in that case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, we do, because it was an exceptional case.
    Mr. SCOTT: Why has the War Office not appealed? Will the War Office appeal?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will my hon. Friend say whether the undertaking given by Lord Derby that an attested man would be in no worse position than a man to whom the Military Service Acts apply still continues to affect the administration of recruiting?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an attested man who has been rejected as medically unfit on examination is given a discharge; since when has the practice of giving a discharge been discontinued; and what is the reason for its discontinuance?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The matter raised in this question is at present under consideration. As was stated on the 19th December, it is not intended to call up again for military service or for medical re-examination attested men who have, on re-examination under the instructions issued on the 30th October, 1916, been again found unfit for any form of military service.
    Mr. SCOTT: Did not the hon. Gentleman in the reply to which he has referred tell me that these men who are rejected are given a certificate of discharge?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite sure about that. I do not remember.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the manner in which recruiting officers are dealing with exempted men at Seaham Harbour affecting Easington Colliery, New Seaham, and surrounding districts; is he aware that men exempted by the tribunals for agriculture are consequently called up and sent to barracks, as in the case of J. Norman, farmer, of Dalton-le-Dale, who was the only man on a farm of 60 acres; is he aware that this man was exempted by the Easington Colliery Tribunal on the 16th October, 1916, and was called up to appear before the Seaham Harbour recruiting officer on the 18th January, 1917, and sent straight away, without any reason being given for his exemption ceasing; and, seeing that the members of the Easington Colliery Tribunal are asking for the return of this man to civil life, will he say what action he proposes to take to prevent further decisions of this kind by this officer?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no information in the War Office as to the matters which my hon. Friend brings to my notice, but inquiries are being made, and the result will be communicated to him.
    Mr. WING: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if really the tribunals are allowed to give judgments, and when they have done so whether they are respected or not?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, they are.

    RAILWAY SERVANT.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has now had time to consider the representations made to the authorities by the provost and town clerk of Musselburgh, the chairman and the general manager of the North British Railway Company, and the inquiries addressed to the Army Council by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs regarding the enlistment of a certain railway servant?
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is now in a position to give the result of the inquiries which in a letter to the hon. Member for Leith, dated 22nd December last, the War Office stated would be made into the circumstances under which John W. Pratt, a clerk from the North British Railway, was described and treated by the military authorities at Glencorse Barracks
    424
    as a conscript, denied any choice of regiment, and compelled to enter the 77th Training Reserve Battalion of the Royal Scots at Dundee; and whether arrangements have been made, or will be made, to transfer this man into the Royal Garrison Artillery, the Royal Field Artillery, or the Railway Operating Division?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My inquiries into this case are not yet completed, but I will inform my hon. Friends who have put down these questions as soon as possible as to the result.

    LEAVE (RAILWAY DIVISIONS).
    Mr. WARDLEasked under what circumstances the leave which is usually granted to men in the Army who are on draft for overseas has been refused to men in the railway divisions at Bordon and Longmoor camps, many of whom have had no opportunity to arrange their private affairs, and all of whom are naturally anxious to visit their relatives and friends before proceeding overseas; and whether an assurance will now be given that all these men will be allowed some part of, if not all, the leave usually granted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Leave is always given, whenever it is possible to do so. In exceptional cases, however, it is necessary to withhold it, when drafts or units are very urgently required to embark at short notice.

    SOLDIERS TRANSFERRED TO CIVIL EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that men discharged from the Army and transferred to Army Reserve (W) are sent home without any financial support; and, seeing that many of these men are physically unfit to do any work, will he undertake to see that these men are maintained until they are fit and work found for them?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member aware that the treatment of these men is causing grave dissatisfaction in the North of England, and will he undertake to see that these men are not cast upon charity?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot help thinking that some of these men may have been passed into the W Reserve improperly. It is not intended for unfit men, but for men fit to go to the work for which they have been passed into the Reserve. I have asked the hon. Member for Hough-ion-le-Spring (Mr. Wing) to give me instances to inquire into, and if I find this class is being improperly used I will put an end to it.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the hon. Member say whether any men admittedly entitled to a pension if discharged are sent to Army munitions work without any Army pay or pension?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, I do not think so; but there have been cases where men have been passed into the W Reserve who have had a relapse through sickness or something of the kind. In these cases we restore their military status, and take them into military hospitals, and the families draw separation allowances.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Member aware that these men do not receive separation allowances, and employers will not take them into their service on account of the risk they run. The men cannot get their discharge except from the medical boards, many of whom are not competent?
    Mr. FORSTER: Men are taken into the W Reserve in order to go to employment which is waiting for them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are any steps taken to see that employment is available for these men when they are passed into the Reserve?
    Mr. FORSTER: That is what the Reserve was created for.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (PAY).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if ho is aware that bricklayers, carpenters, painters, and plumbers who joined the Royal Engineers and passed the trade test have been, owing to physical unfitness, transferred to the Infantry Works Company of the 13th Devons; that these men are working at their respective trades, as they would be if they had remained in the Engineers, but are not receiving the Engineers' rate of pay; that up to 31st December last they received 2d. per hour working pay plus 1s. per day Army pay, but that since the above date
    426
    they have only received the 1s. per day; and whether he will inquire into this matter with the object of restoring at least the 2d. per hour working pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: When men are physically unfit to carry out the duties for which they were enlisted, and their physical unfitness is not due to military service, they may be transferred to other units where their services can be utilised, receiving the recognised rates of pay in the new unit. Working pay has ceased universally in Infantry Works Companies from 1st January.
    Mr. WILSON: Is the hon. Member aware that many of these men are employed finishing work that contractors have not been able to do on account of not being able to get the men?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of it.

    POET OF LONDON (SHIPPING EXEMPTIONS).
    Mr. HOLTasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he will say why the office staffs of all shipowners and shipbrokers carrying on business in the port of London are, under certain conditions, able to obtain certificates of exemption from military service from the Board of Trade, and for what reason this privilege is limited to the port of London; and whether he will take steps to put all persons doing similar work in other ports in the same position as those in London?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked mc to reply to this question. Port Labour Committees were established to deal with the granting of exemption certificates mainly to manual workers, and the Board of Trade think that the office staffs of shipowners and shipbrokers, like all other clerks, should be dealt with by the local tribunals, to whom representations can be made by their employers. The anomalous position of London is due to the fact that there the Board took over an existing scheme which included the clerical staffs and they felt bound to continue on the lines on which the London committee was already working.
    Mr. HOLT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether the time has not now come in which people carrying on the same business in all the great towns should be put on exactly the same footing?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will certainly consider that.

  LIEUT.-COLONEL R.J. NORRIS.
  Captain BURGOYNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Lieutenant-Colonel R. J. Norris, D.S.O., a retired officer, after voluntarily serving for sixteen months as a draft conducting officer, was, on 15th September last, suddenly reverted to the unemployed list for reporting to the proper authorities smoking on board a transport whilst discharging shells and cordite at a French port where fires and explosions had already occurred and the discourteous treatment of a German officer when embarked as a prisoner of war on board one of His Majesty's transports; and whether, before the decision to revert this officer, reports were called for from all parties concerned; (2) whether the Army Council, in notifying their decision to Colonel Norris, admitted that it was based on a report made by a junior officer, prior to referring the matter to Lieutenant-Colonel Norris, who had no opportunity given him either of refutation or confirmation; and whether, seeing that this method of procedure was publicly denounced at a recent court of inquiry, with the full approval of the Secretary of State, as improper, harsh, and unjust he proposes to take any action; and (3) whether Lieutenant-Colonel Norris has been informed, in reply to an appeal for redress to the Secretary of State for War, that it is regretted it is not possible to assemble a court of inquiry at the present time; what are the reasons for the delay; and what steps he proposes to take with a view to full and immediate justice being done to this gallant officer?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The action of the Department was taken on the recommendation of the Inspector-General of the Lines of Communication. When the decision was conveyed to Colonel Norris, he submitted an appeal which was referred back to the Inspector-General of Communications, but as a result of this officer's reply and after further consideration the Council decided that the previous decision should be upheld. My hon. and gallant Friend will thus realise that full consideration has been given to the matter, and I am afraid I cannot admit the suggestion that Colonel Norris has been treated with injustice or harshness. It is undesirable, in military interests, to hold a Court of Inquiry in such a case as this, as it would involve the withdrawal of various officers from their duties in France.
  Captain BURGOYNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a grave scandal of military injustice lies behind these questions?

  OFFICERS' (SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the-Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is considering a proposal to extend the system of separation allowances to the families of officers; and whether he will been a position to announce a decision at an early date?
  Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Gloucester.

  MILITARY CAMPS.
  Mr. HOLTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that regiments are stationed in camps distant from the district in which they were raised, for instance, the Liverpool Regiment at Pembroke, and that consequently the soldiers have difficulty and expense in seeing their families; and whether he will arrange that regiments should be stationed within moderate railway journey of the district to which they belong?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The location of units must of necessity be governed by military requirements. I would remind my hon. Friend that special concessions to troops proceeding on leave are granted by the issue of free railway warrants.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Subject to military exigencies, will the, hon. Gentleman endeavour to station troops within reasonable distance of the district in which they are raised, so as to enable them to get home? In the case in question the journey is one of ten hours.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the War Office not see its way to change this system, in view of the difficulties of railway travelling?
  Mr. HOLT: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, even if he gives free railway carriage to these troops, they do block the railways?
  Mr. T. WILSON: Is he aware that the soldiers themselves are of opinion that they are deliberately sent to hospitals far away from their homes?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure my hon. Friends that all these considerations are kept in mind, but we do find it impossible to place men near their homes in certain cases.

  OFFICERS' EXPENSES.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many officers in the Army are subjected to severe demands upon them for mess contributions; that those who do not wish to partake of wines are nevertheless compelled to pay their quota towards its cost; and that officers are also put to unnecessary expense in the matter of uniforms and horses, with the result that it will be difficult for officers who have no income beyond their military pay to remain in the Army in times of peace; and whether immediate steps can be taken to require officers to pay for their own wines and to prohibit their consumption at meal times and also to relieve officers of charges for uniforms or for horse-keep?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The policy of the Army Council in this matter has not changed from that defined by my right hon. Friend who was then Under-Secretary of State in answer to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend for the Egremont Division of Cumberland on the 11th November, 1915. I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion that severe demands are made upon officers, as the King's Regulations contain specific instructions to the contrary in paragraphs 1163–1167, and any unnecessary expenditure on horses or uniform is similarly forbidden. To prohibit the consumption of wine at meal times would be to impose on officers a restriction which is not placed upon the general public.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that in times of peace it is practically impossible for a man to get a commission in the Army unless he is in receipt of a private allowance from his friends?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope that wiser counsels will prevail in future.
  Major NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that only on guest nights officers are compelled to contribute towards the general cost of the wines?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that is so.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Are they not compelled to pay a weekly mess contribution to include wines?

  UNQUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office still adheres to its objection to using the skill of experts in manipulative surgery; whether some of the leading exponents of this method of treatment have offered to give their services free to suffering soldiers and their offers have been rejected; whether there is any reason for this rejection beyond the objection of the medical faculty against the recognition of unqualified practitioners; and whether, as these practitioners have cured thousands of cases in which the faculty had been powerless, immediate steps will be taken to make the fullest possible use of the services tendered?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend who was then Under-Secretary of State to the late Sir Arthur Markham on the 28th March last.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the extremely strong and numerous testimonies to the efficacy of this system which are being circulated?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether we may take it that the War Office declines to go into this question further?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, I think you may.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask, in view of that scandal, whether an independent Commission will be appointed, composed of men of high attainments, but not members of the medical profession?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The rule is quite clear. We cannot appoint in the Army Medical Service anybody whose names are not on the medical register.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the relaxation of trade union rules in this sphere as well as in the production of munitions?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Does he mean to say that the Army Medical Department of the War Office does not consider the cases of hundreds of thousands of soldiers who are going through unnecessary suffering simply because of professional prejudice?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure him that nothing of the kind exists. The care and attention and skill bestowed on

  431
  the officers and men of the Army have received from all hands the highest testimonials.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: This is a most important matter, and I ask the indulgence of the House if I put a further question. Is it not admitted by the medical profession, and by all the heads of the medical profession in this country, that they have not received education in manipulative surgery and that great results have been achieved by the men who have got education in this surgery, and why should the country allow the pundits of the War Office to insist on refusing recognition to these men who can alleviate suffering? I give notice that I shall put down another question, and if I do not obtain a satisfactory reply I shall raise the matter 011 the Adjournment.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that ex-Private John Dillson, No. 14,580, 9th Battalion, Royal Dublin Fusiliers, who met with an accident whilst unloading stores at Buttevant, county Cork, is at present being provided for by Poor Law relief; if he will say whether pensions are to be provided for soldiers who meet with accidents whilst on military work; and, if so, when will this man receive a pension to provide for his family of three children?
  Mr. BYRNE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will answer the last part of the question, namely, what steps will be taken to provide pensions for soldiers who meet with accidents whilst on military work?
  Mr. FORSTER: I can only deal with these matters under the existing regulations. I cannot answer as to the details of this case until I have made some inquiries; but if the hon. Gentleman wishes information as to any change in the regulations contemplated by the new Warrant which is under consideration, perhaps he will be good enough to address the question to the Pensions Minister.
  Mr. BYRNE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is honourable or fair that soldiers' dependants should be thrown on Poor Law relief from any local authorities?
  Mr. HOGGE: Does the War Office communicate in these cases with the local war pensions committee in the neighbourhood for help?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes; of course they communicate, and most willingly, with the local committee, but I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that I had not made the inquiries to enable me to answer his question.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACTS.

    SUPPLY OF MATERIALS OF WAR.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an inquiry has been made into the circumstances at tending the raid on the office of Sir Theodore Cooke; and whether the in ventor of the explosive, in developing which Sir Theodore Cooke has been active, has been detained in this country against his will and with no charge being made against him?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I answered that question yesterday.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the War Office come to any decision regarding the nature of the inquiry?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No. I hope we shall come to a decision this afternoon.

    COLONEL ALLETT.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Colonel Allett, who was mentioned in dispatches for his work in the Dublin rising is the same officer who was present at the raid on Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington's house on the 28th April and who, being apparently senior officer to both Major Roxborough and Sir Francis Vane, took a party of soldiers with Captain Colthurst to effect this raid, which has been publicly declared by the Royal Commission to be disgraceful; whether the Secretary of State for War is aware that the raid was without the knowledge of the officer commanding the troops in Portobello and directly in contravention of an agreement made between Sir Francis Vane and Major Roxborough, which was, in effect, that Captain Colthurst should not be allowed outside barracks in command of troops; why has Colonel Allett, the leader, in company with Captain Colthurst of the raiding party on the house of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffing-ton, who had been murdered on the previous day, been mentioned in dispatches,

    433
    whereas Major Sir Francis Vane, who was recommended in dispatches by Colonel Maconachie, C.B., brigadier-general of the 178th brigade, and who was acknowledged by the Royal Commission to be the officer who reported the murders in London, has been left without any mention of his services and without any command; and whether any steps will be taken to remove the impression calculated to be produced under such circumstances that Colonel Allett was the recipient of an honour for his participation in an outrage, and Sir Francis Vane was passed over for bringing to the knowledge of Lord Kitchener the perpetration of murders of which he had been kept in ignorance?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Being a retired officer, reemployed as draft-conducting officer only, Colonel Allett exercised no command, and Accompanied the party on his own initiative. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. Nothing is known of the agreement referred to in the third part. Such an agreement would, I understand, be irregular. Recommendations for mentions in dispatches are dealt with by General Officers Commanding in Chief, And the Army Council are not concerned with recommendations made to these officers by subordinate commanders, nor is it their practice to interfere with the discretion of the General Officer Commanding in Chief in these matters. I cannot accept my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion in the last part of the question, and see no ground for supposing that such an impression will be created.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Do I understand then that the reason why Colonel Allett was mentioned in dispatches was that he was present, an aider and abettor in this raiding party conducted by Colthurst on the house of the man Colthurst murdered?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly not.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to reconcile how it is that Colonel Allett, whose only military service was this, was mentioned in dispatches for distinguished conduct in the field, whereas Sir Francis Vane, who communicated for the first time to Lord Kitchener the fact of this murder, and in whose presence the late Prime Minister's private secretary wrote a telegram at his in stance——
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech.
    Mr. MacNEILL: May I conclude my question. How is it that he has not been mentioned having regard to that service which brought to Lord Kitchener's notice the murder and originated Lord Kitchener's telegram?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The supplementary question is almost as long as the question on the Paper.

  WOOL SUPPLY.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked whether, in view of the dissatisfaction among farmers as to the valuation of wool, he can arrange that the wool shall be valued on delivery, as was previously the case?
  Mr. FORSTER: In making arrangements for the collection of the 1917 clip, every effort will be made to secure that valuation shall be made as soon after delivery as the depleted staffs of the wool merchants will allow.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: Will he arrange that the wool shall be valued on delivery?
  Mr. FORSTER: As far as possible. We are going into the question of what arrangement can be made for taking over the 1917 clip, and all these considerations will be very carefully inquired into.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will he say what the price of the 1917 clip will be?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot say.

  SCOTTISH TEACHERS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland what provision he has been able to make towards providing a war bonus to supplement the salaries of teachers; how many women teachers there are in Scotland earning not more than £75 a year who are receiving no war bonus because the school boards have refused the Government offer; and whether any provision is made for pensioned teachers?
  Mr. MUNRO: School boards and other managers of schools who pay war bonuses to their teachers may claim a special Grant at the rates and on the conditions stated in the Memorandum, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. As the boards are not required to make any intimation of their decision until they

  435
  claim the Grant after the end of March, the information asked for in the second part of the question is not at present available. The answer to the concluding part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Memorandum to which he refers stating the terms of the Government's offer has now been sent to every school board?
  Mr. MUNRO: I think a copy was sent out on the 4th of January to every school board.
  Mr. SCOTT: Some school boards have not received them.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (GIFTS OF LAND).
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his Department have received any gifts of land under the Sailors and Soldiers (Gifts for Land Settlement) Act; and whether he will take steps to make the provisions of the Act more widely known?
  Sir R. WINFREY: The only gift received at present is one of 300 acres in Herefordshire, and I had the pleasure the other day of visiting this estate and accepting this gift on behalf of the Government. It will make five or six excellent small holdings for discharged soldiers. With regard to the latter part of the question, the matter has already been referred to in the Press, but I will see if further publicity cannot be given, with a view to encouraging other landowners to make similar gifts.

  ALLOTMENTS.
  Commander WEDGWOODasked how many allotments have been made in England and Wales to men willing to cultivate suburban building land since powers were given to local authorities to take the land for such purposes?
  Sir R. WINFREY: Up to the present the Board have not asked for Returns, but particulars which have been received in regard to fifty urban areas show that 6,682 plots have actually been provided under the Cultivation of Lands Order, 1916.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with so small a response after two months?
  Sir R. WINFREY: I think it is very good.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Have the local authorities the right to take any building-land or only vacant land? Can they take large areas of building land in urban districts or only vacant land?
  Sir R. WINFREY: They can take all vacant land that is not actually paying rates at the time.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the hon. Member aware that all building land does pay some nominal rate, and therefore the local authority cannot take the land?
  Sir R. WINFREY: All land that is not being used at all does not pay any rates at all, not even agricultural rates.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the hon. Member aware that the bulk of the building land near towns and cities pays a nominal rate as agricultural land, although it is really building land; and will he give the local authorities the right to take the land?
  Sir R. WINFREY: My answer is that that is not so. When any building land is returned in the rate-books as void it does not pay any rates whatever, not even agricultural rates.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Has the Board not got the power to take land even though it is paying rates if it is not being put to the best use in urban areas? Is not that the arrangement?
  Sir R. WINFREY: Only by agreement with the owner.

  GOLD COAST COLONY (PALM- OIL LEASES).
  Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to palm-oil leases in the Gold Coast Colony, whether these leases are now being granted without safeguarding the rights of the native tribes to the soil and to the palm trees by arrangement between the ignorant chief and the white capitalist; and, if so, why the policy of Lord Harcourt has been reversed?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): Ordinance 16 of 1912 which was passed with a view to safeguarding the rights of the natives of the

  437
  Gold Coast in these respects remains in force; and I have not heard that leases are being granted in contravention of its provisions. There is no recent correspondence on the subject.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Sir Kenelm Digby made a report on this question about three years ago, and will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether there has been any change in practice on the Gold Coast since that dispatch was accepted by Lord Harcourt?
  Mr. LONG: I will, of course, make any inquiries that may be necessary, but there has been no change of practice so far as any information which reaches me goes.

  MUNITIONS.

    EAST LONDON EXPLOSION.
    Colonel YATEasked the Minister of Munitions, with regard to the recent explosion in East London, if he will say who was the man responsible for the accumulation of dangerous explosives in the centre of such a thickly populated neighbourhood; and whether it was absoltely necessary that so great an accumulation should be permitted at any one time even if the exigencies of the War required manufacture in that particular place?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): The matter is under the investigation of an expert Committee, whose Report is expected shortly, and, meanwhile, it would not be right of me to deal with the matter. I must not be taken to concur in my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that there was any undue accumulation of explosive material at the factory.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Department not had warnings as to the danger of such accumulations by similar explosions which have occurred in Ayrshire?
    Sir W. EVANS: I think the hon. Member ought to be content that the matter is being investigated.
    Colonel YATE: How does the hon. Gentleman account for the greatness of the explosion in East London if there was no undue accumulation?
    Sir W. EVANS: That is one of the matters which is the subject of investiga-
    438
    tion, and my hon. and gallant Friend must be content to await the Report.
    Colonel YATE: Will the Report be presented?
    Sir W. EVANS: That I cannot say until I have seen the Report.
    Colonel YATE: Then what is the good of my waiting for the Report?

    RAILWAY RATES FOR WORKERS.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that the 50 per cent, increase in the railway fares inflicts hardship on munition workers who are employed at a considerable distance from their homes; and whether he will make arrangements that will enable these work people to return home at week-ends at single fare and a third as they could prior to the increase in the fares?
    Sir W. EVANS: This matter is under the consideration of the Board of Trade, to whom I have made representations on the subject.

    COPPER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that in consequence of the restrictions imposed on the commercial use of copper the price has been enhanced; whether he is aware that simultaneously with the increase in price certain merchants are holding up large stocks with a view to a further rise; whether manufacturers are thereby being driven out of their foreign trade; and whether the Department of Munitions and the Board of Trade will take steps to fix maximum prices or to commandeer stocks?
    Sir W. EVANS: My information does not bear out the suggestions made in the first two parts of the question. Such copper as can be spared is being, and will continue to be, released so as to maintain the export trade of British manufacturers. By Order, dated 1st January, the Minister of Muntions requisitioned all copper not already allocated to manufacturers for munitions or essential trade purposes. The control over the disposal of stocks of copper is therefore complete.

  MARTIAL LAW (IRELAND).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Prime. Minister if he will say on what grounds martial law is still maintained in Ireland?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): It is not accurate to say that martial law is still maintained in Ireland. Martial law was proclaimed for the suppression of an armed rebellion, and since that object was effected its powers have not been in use.
  Mr. DILLON: Oh! Martial law is in force in Ireland to-day, and that is a most extraordinary answer for the right hon. Gentleman to give. I will repeat my question: Is it intended to revoke the Proclamation of martial law under which Ireland lies to-day, and, if it is not intended to revoke it in the near future, can he say on what ground martial law is maintained in that country?
  Mr. DUKE: That is a matter which cannot be dealt with by question and answer. It is capable of debate. I believe the answer I gave perfectly and accurately expresses the state of affairs at the present time.
  Mr. LYNCH: So as to remove this question from official bias, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consent to have it submitted to The Hague Tribunal, or even to a Council of the Allies?

  WAR CABINET SECRETARIAT.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will explain the personnel, work, and cost of the new secretariat which has been established in order to transmit information and instructions to and from the War Council and the various State Departments?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The personnel of the War Cabinet secretariat consists of a secretary and ten assistant secretaries with a clerical staff. The secretary and five of the assistant secretaries previously formed the secretariat of the War Committee and Committee of Imperial Defence. The work of the new secretariat is a development on extended lines of that carried out by the secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The estimated annual cost of the whole secretariat is £13,964, of which £5,289, the estimate for the staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence, is borne on Treasury Vote, and the remainder, the cost of the additional War Cabinet staff, is borne on the Vote of Credit.
  Mr. HOGGE: Are these temporary appointments or ordinary Civil Service appointments? Supposing the War finishes soon, as we all hope it may, what will happen to them?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand they are temporary appointments.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is a secretary or an assistant secretary entitled to make the minutes of the War Cabinet available to the Press?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly not.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Then can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that they were made available to a London daily paper last week?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. J. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to alter the regulations governing the granting of old age pensions, so that where houses granted rent free and coals free given by workmen's organisations, such as the Durham Miners and Employés, that such gifts shall not count against the recipients during the War and six months afterwards; and will he provide that the inmates shall receive the full 5s. per week owing to the increased cost of living in order that the above advantages may not be deducted from their pension?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): The object desired by the hon. Member could not be attained by altering the regulations, but would require an amendment of the law.
  Mr. YEOasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the number of old age pensioners entitled to the full 2s. 6d. promised is so large and the minority ruled out by the Regulations so small, he will consider the advisability of granting the payment of 2s. 6d. to all old age pensioners?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Houghton-le-Spring Division of Durham.
  Mr. HOGGE: Have those people an appeal?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think that is answered in a subsequent question.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that old age pensions committees have in many

  441
  instances resented the manner in which the rules and regulations governing old age pensions have been interpreted by pension officers, and have appealed against their decisions, especially with reference to the additional 2s. 6d., and that time and difficulty could have been avoided by a universal payment of 2s. 6d. to such as are not benefited by other concessions, seeing that every old age pensioner passed an exacting examination previous to his receipt of the pension he now receives; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BALDWIN: In reply to the first part of the question, I may say that no evidence is before the Treasury that pension committees have resented the action of pension officers. The responsibility of deciding whether claimants are entitled to old age pensions or are proper subjects for the grant of additional allowances rests not with the pension officers, but with the pension committees themselves, and where an appeal lies to the Local Government Board it is an appeal not by the Committee, but by the claimant or the officer against the committee's decision. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for the Houghton-le-Spring Division.
  Mr. HOGGE: Have the people who are denied the old age pension an appeal?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I should require notice of that question.
  Mr. WING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a large number of appeals made by Committees against the Pension Officer even under the new regulations?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I had no explanation about that.
  Mr. YEOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether a number of Poor Law authorities approached the Board last year, asking for powers to supplement old age pensions to avoid the coming of pensioners under the ordinary disqualification of the Poor Law; and if such powers were, or will be, given to such as are refused the 2s. 6d. grant, and are compelled to seek the aid of the Poor Law in consequence?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Prior to the decision of the Government last year to make addi-
  442
  tional allowances to old ago pensioners, a number of resolutions on this subject were forwarded to the Local Government Board-by boards of guardians. The Poor Law disqualification could not be removed except by amendment of the Old Age Pensions Acts, and this would be a matter for the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say how many applications have been made by old age pensioners for the additional grant of 2s. 6d. a week, specifying male and female pensioners separately; in how many cases grants of 6d., 1s., 1s. 6d., 2s. and 2s. 6d., respectively, have been made; and the total amount paid in such additional grants up to 1st January, 1917?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The figures up to the end of the year 1916 (the latest date for which figures are available), are as follows:—

  No. of applications received

  669,574

  No. of allowances payable at 2s. 6d.

  457,591

  No. of allowances payable at 2s.

  20,677

  No. of allowances payable at 1s. 6d.

  15,204

  No. of allowances payable at 1s.

  15,305

  No. of allowances payable at 6d.

  5,536

  Separate figures for male and female pensioners are not available. The total amount paid in additional allowances up> to the 1st January, 1917, is about £480,000.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: How much would it cost to make the allowance uniform throughout?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I should require notice of that question.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say how many applications for old age pensions have been refused since the commencement of the War up to 1st January, 1917, giving each year separately.
  Mr. BALDWIN: Figures cannot be given for the actual period since the beginning of the War, but the following figures will, I hope, serve my hon. Friend's purpose.
  The number of applications refused between 31st March, 1914, and 31st December, 1916, were as follows:—

  For the year ended 31st March, 1915

  26,380

  For the year ended 31st March, 1916

  23,698

  For the three quarters ended 31st December, 1916

  17,366

  TREASURY NOTES (NATIONAL EMBLEMS).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked what national emblems have been introduced into the design of the new £1 Treasury notes?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The rose, the thistle, the shamrock and the daffodil appear in the watermark.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they are visible to the naked eye, and in what manner they can be discovered?
  Sir W. ESSEX: To what part of the Kingdom does the daffodil belong?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understood it was regarded as the emblem of one part of this island, but I am not an authority on the subject. As regards the question of my hon. Friend (Mr. M. Scott), they can be seen by the naked eye, for I have seen them myself.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (HOUSE OF COMMONS FACILITIES).
  Mr. WINGasked the Chancellor "of the Exchequer if he will give immediately to the Members of the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing its will in the Division Lobby as to suspending the sale of intoxicating liquors at the bars of this House, seeing that he suggested on 20th April, 1915, that a Motion to impose upon Members in this House precisely the same restrictions which are imposed upon others would have his support; and that the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee on 15th December, 1916, expressed the wish for instructions from this House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: From inquiries which I have made I gather that there is a desire on the part of a considerable number of Members that the House should have an opportunity of deciding whether or not restrictions similar to those in force outside should also be imposed in this House, and if a Motion is put upon the Order Paper an opportunity will be given for its discussion.
  Mr. KING: In view of the intention of the Government to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, can an order be made of such a nature as to give facilities for refreshments when the sittings are very prolonged?

  RAILWAY FACILITIES.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider whether the present difficulties in the railway services would be lessened by the complete withdrawal of first and second-class accommodation, and also Pullman cars, on all lines, and the use of one class only, third-class, on all railway services during the period of the War?
  Mr. ROBERTS: A large number of Pullman cars has already been withdrawn from service, and I doubt whether the withdrawal of all first and second-class carriages would help the situation. I am, however, bringing the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the notice of the Railway Executive Committee.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board-of Trade if he is aware that many commercial travellers are allowed a fixed sum for travelling expenses and also that many travellers pay their own expenses, and that in these cases the 50 per cent, increase in railway fares is equivalent to a charge which in every case is in excess of the amount paid as Income Tax by these men and is a source of hardship to them; and if he can see his way to remit the 50 per cent, increase in the case of commercial travellers?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given yesterday to the questions asked on this subject by the hon. Members for the Houghton-le-Spring and Harborough Divisions.
  Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the constant stoppage of the coal pits in Durham, especially in New Seaham and New Silksworth, owing to want of transport facilities; whether he is aware that the greater part of this output is for London, where it is badly needed; and if he will arrange railway facilities if shipping is scarce?
  Mr. ROBERTS: It is the fact that transport difficulties have recently occasioned interruptions of working in certain districts, including Durham. The existing pressure on the railways makes it a matter of the greatest difficulty to transfer to them any additional coastwise traffic, but the question to what extent deliveries to the London gasworks can be increased by this means is receiving attention.

  CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the grants made by the Civil Liabilities Committee being only payable quarterly causes hardship to persons whose rents are payable weekly; whether he can arrange for grants to be paid weekly in such cases through the statutory committee, or whether he proposes to take any other action?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The cases in which the quarterly payment of grants causes hardship are not numerous, but the suggestion that in such cases grants might be made weekly through the Local Pensions Committees has been receiving consideration, and I am hopeful that an arrangement may be made.
  Mr. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, and presumably other Members, have heard of very many cases is which great hardship is caused?
  Mr. HOGGE: Why could not the payments be made weekly with the ordinary ring paper?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: There would be great difficulty in carrying out that, but I am endeavouring to make arrangements on the subject.

  TRAMPS.
  Major HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that eighty-one tramps, most of them quite able to work, passed through the tramp wards of the Bridgnorth Workhouse during last month; and, as most of them were without registration cards, whether he can take any steps to prevent these people from living on the country whilst refusing to do anything for its benefit?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My Noble Friend has been informed by the board of guardians that during the month of January sixty-one men between forty-two and sixty-five years of age passed through the tramp wards of the Bridgnorth Union Workhouse, and that of these fifty were probably able to work. It is possible that some of these men were, travelling in search of work. As I have previously indicated, the best means of dealing with any vagrants who are capable of useful work would probably be under the
  446
  Government scheme for National Service, and my Noble Friend is in communication with the National Service Department on the subject.

  IRISH PRISONERS (LEWES).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Irish prisoners at Lewes are still forced to wear convict garb; if he will issue instructions for them to wear their own civilian clothes and allow them an improved dietary scale; and if he will say whether the time has arrived for their release?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The prisoners wear prison dress as required by Statutory Rule 23. They nee on diet E, the highest given in prison. It is a very liberal diet, and no complaint has been received from any of them either as to its quantity or quality. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of allowing these prisoners to wear their own clothes?
  Sir G. CAVE: I should want notice of that question.
  Mr. BYRNE: It is on the Paper.

  SOCIAL EVILS.
  Sir H. CRAIKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the evils caused to the Army by the increasing incentives to vice now prevalent, particularly in certain localities near to this House, and to the small penalties inflicted upon keepers of disorderly houses; and whether he is prepared to take prompt steps to diminish these evils by more stringent regulations?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am fully alive to the evils referred to by my hon. Friend. There are many difficulties in the way of further action by the police, but I am about to introduce legislation giving increased powers to magistrates which will, I hope, have a beneficial effect. The question of penalties for keeping brothels will be dealt with in the Bill.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can

  447
  state, in regard to this country and the various countries of Europe, the proportion amongst the pupils of elementary schools who afterwards complete a university course; and whether a scheme will be prepared to improve in all respects the teaching in the elementary schools and also to establish great national universities to which access will be facilitated to all young scholars who have shown unusual ability in the preparatory schools?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I am unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. I am fully alive to the need for further improvement in the elementary schools, and for facilitating access to the universities, and proposals for these purposes, among others, are under consideration.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the first part of the question, and if it is because he is unaware of the facts he will take care to acquaint himself with them?
  Mr. LYNCHasked the President of the Board of Education, whether he is preparing a scheme for recasting the system of national education; whether in the establishment of the scheme he will be guided by considerations of the increase possible of the efficiency of the nation, intellectual and moral; whether such a purpose will control the successive steps from elementary education to the highest training of the universities; whether the scheme will be submitted to the criticism of this House before final adoption; and whether he can state when the first draft will be completed?
  Mr. FISHER: I have been doing my best in the short time since I entered upon my office to study the problems involved in a comprehensive scheme for the development of the national system of education from the elementary schools to the universities. The House will, I hope, have full opportunity of criticising my proposals, and as they will inevitably involve expenditure they are dependent on the approval of the House.
  Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when they will be likely to be presented for the consideration of the House?
  Mr. FISHER: I am afraid I can give no information yet upon that point.
  Colonel YATE: In this new scheme of national education, will the right hon. Gentleman give full consideration to the necessity for physical education as well as mental education?
  Mr. FISHER: I will not lose sight of that consideration.
  Mr. FERENSasked the President of the Board of Education what additional duties have been-imposed upon local education authorities by law during the past ten years, and what amount of special new grant has been placed at the disposal of local education authorities accordingly?
  Mr. FISHER: The only provisions in any Education Acts which impose new duties on local education authorities in the last ten years are those contained in Section 13 (1) (b) of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, and in the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1914. The grant paid to local education authorities in respect of expenditure under the first Act incurred in the exercise of their powers-of medical treatment, as well as in the performance of their duty of medical inspection was £196,571 in 1915–16, and is-estimated at £195,500 in 1916–17. The second Act makes the obligation imposed on the authority conditional, on the provision of Parliamentary Grants equal to-half the cost.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (MARKET GARDENS).
  Commander WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Education how many elementary schools in England and Wales are now supplied with land which the school children can cultivate for the production of market garden produce; and what steps he has taken to increase such production?
  Mr. FISHER: I regret that I am unable to state the number of school gardens in connection with public elementary schools in England and Wales at the present time, the number of such gardens in 1913–14, the latest year for which information is available, was 3,189. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Circulars (944 and 979) which were issued by the Board in March, 1916, and January, 1917, and of which I am sending him copies.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (OCCUPATION BY MILITARY).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education how many elementary schools containing how many places were occupied by the military during the month of January, 1917; and whether adequate provision has been made to supply education to the scholars displaced?
  Mr. FISHER: On the 31st January, 1917, 237 public elementary schools, with accommodation for 191,995 children, were being occupied by the military: of these three schools with accommodation for 929 children were taken into occupation during the month of January. Provision, which can be regarded as reasonably adequate in the circumstances, has been made for the children displaced in all cases, except that of one small department.
  Mr. KING: Is it considered adequate accommodation when you have two schools playing a Box and Cox arrangement in one school building on one day?
  Mr. FISHER: I should imagine the provision would be regarded as inadequate in that case.

  NAVAL OFFICERS (LUNG TROUBLE).
  Mr. BRUNNERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether in the case of naval officers who are sent into hospital suffering from lung trouble, contracted on service, if special treatment is required they have to provide it at their own expense; whether they have to give an undertaking to indemnify the Admiralty Against all claims; and whether, if at the expiration of ninety-one days they are not absolutely cured, they are immediately invalided out of the Service?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Edward Carson): Naval officers who are admitted into hospital with pulmonary tuberculosis contracted on service, are treated in a naval hospital at the expense of the Admiralty unless they wish to be treated in an outside institution, when they have to undertake their own care and treatment and the expense of such treatment. They are not invalided after ninety-one days' treatment, but at the expiration of this period their full pay -ceases and they are put on half pay.
  450
  These Regulations have recently been brought to my notice and, in my opinion, are not satisfactory; and the question of an alteration in the Regulations affecting the care and maintenance of these cases is now before the Board.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend also at the same time take notice that men who are in that position lose all their pay at the end of the ninety-one days?
  Sir E. CARSON: Certainly.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL GRANTS (IRELAND).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any proposals for an increased Grant to the industrial schools of Ireland have yet been made; if many of the schools are unable to purchase the necessaries of life for the boys and girls in their charge; if the sum of 2s. per head is required to meet the increase in the cost of food for these schools; and what proposals will be made?
  Mr. DUKE: The Treasury have consented to increase the capitation Grant for reformatory and industrial schools in Ireland. For the current year an additional grant of 6d. a week will be paid for each child in a reformatory or industrial school towards whose maintenance the local authority is prepared to contribute a similar amount.
  Mr. BYRNE: Having regard to the conditions at the present time, does the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair to expect them to put additional taxation on the ratepayers of the city? Would not the Treasury pay it?

  NEW WAR LOAN.
  Sir W. ESSEX(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the rumours circulating in certain quarters that the Government has decided to extend the date for receiving applications to the new War Loan from the 17th February to the 1st March or some other forward date have any foundation in fact?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received suggestions that the date for the closing of the list should be postponed, but I do not think it would be desirable to do so, and it will close on Friday.

  Laud Values (Record).
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention, has been directed to the pledge given on 4th March, 1914, by the then Prime Minister as to the keeping of a record of the annual values as adopted for rating purposes, with certain other particulars, as regards lands of which the purchase is effected or facilitated out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the statement made on 18th July, 1916, by the then Secretary to the Treasury, that in conformity with this pledge such a record had been kept in respect of all such lands so purchased both before and during the War, and to the promise given on 16th November, 1916, by the then Minister of Munitions to direct the attention of the amalgamated branch that had then been appointed for the consideration of questions relating to land held by the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions, including negotiations for purchase, to the pledge given on 14th March, 1914; if he will say whether this pledge will be regarded as binding by the present Government; and whether the practice of keeping these records of particulars in all such cases will continue to be followed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The record referred to is being kept by the Departments concerned.

  South-Eastern and Chatham Railways (Staff Pension Fund).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the South-Eastern and Chatham Railways Managing Committee has obtained exemption from an actual valuation of the staff pension fund; that this exemption was granted by the Registrar of Friendly Societies without the knowledge or consent of the members of the fund or of their representatives on the fund committee; that the chairman of the railways managing committee, Mr. Cosmo Bonsor, stated, in reply to a question at the last annual meeting of the members of the fund, that there had not been a valuation and never would be; and whether, in view of the fact that the Departmental Committee which was appointed by the Board of Trade in May, 1908, to inquire into the constitution, rules, administration, and financial position of the railway superannuation funds, after giving special consideration to the question of actuarial valuations and specifically considering the case of the
  452
  South-Eastern and Chatham Railways fund, stated that, having regard to the statutory nature of railway undertakings, and to the fact that membership (in these funds) is in many cases compulsory, and to the magnitude of the funds, and to the deficiencies which investigation has revealed, it was desirable that statements of accounts and balance sheets should be prepared annually, and quinquennial valuations obtained for all the funds, whether guaranteed or not, and that these should be laid before the members and furnished on application to all persons interested, and that, if steps were not taken to obtain such valuations, the Board of Trade should be empowered to take such such action as under the circumstances they might consider necessary, he will take such action as will result in the unanimous recommendations of the Departmental Committee with respect to-actuarial valuations being carried out?
  Mr. ROBERTS: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the liabilities of the fund in question are a charge on the revenue of the joint undertaking of the South-Eastern and London Chatham and Dover Railways, having priority over the fixed charges of the undertaking. They are, therefore, fully covered, and from the point of view of the members of the fund actuarial valuations of the fund would not seem necessary. The question whether periodical valuations should or should not be made is, however, one for the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who, I understand, has not, in view of the consideration to which I have referred, considered it necessary to require the managing committee I of the railway company to have a periodical valuation of the fund.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  The Right Hon. Sir Albert Henry Stanley, for the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask the Leader of the House a question about public business? He is going to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night. How far does he propose to go with the Orders on the Notice Paper, because I observe that undoubtedly the Supplementary Estimates are of a very extraordinary character. They raise very great and wide questions, and will lead to a considerable discussion. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how late he intends to ask the House to sit?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I do not intend at all that the House should sit late. The Eleven o'clock Rule will be suspended only with the idea that we may be very near to the conclusion of a Vote towards eleven o'clock, and it might be worth while going on a short time to finish it.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Shall we take the last two Orders?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. I beg to move: "That Government Business, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is worth while, as he does not intend to proceed at any late hour to-night, to begin so early in the Session to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule? I have always strongly objected to the suspension of the Rule unless there has been very urgent and strong grounds for it. Towards the end of the Session it may be necessary in order to enable business to be transacted before the House rises. I am not quite certain what we did a year or two ago, but without exception, if it was done, then it is certainly a novel proceeding to begin to suspend the Rule in the second week in which the House has met. The Address has been voted in two days, quite a new experience. It has generally taken at least a week, and sometimes more. There has not been the slightest sign of
  462
  obstruction in any quarter of the House. Everyone, as far as I know, has come here with a desire to assist the Government and to enable it to carry on the business which is necessary to win the War. Under these circumstances, with all humility, I say to my right hon. Friend, that it is a little discourteous to the House immediatey after the first week to take such steps as necessitate the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. I am quite convinced that any legislation which takes place after eleven o'clock is bad. People do not know what is going on, especially at the present moment when it is difficult to get home, and I very earnestly appeal to my right hon. Friend not to press this Motion. I am sure the House is only too anxious to allow everything to go through which is reasonable should be taken, and I appeal to him to withdraw the Motion.
  Mr. DILLON: In all humility I beg to differ absolutely from the right hon. Baronet. During the existence of the late Government on several occasions I rose to protest against the dilatory and outrageous way in which the House was treated. Some of us come from a distance. The right hon. Baronet has a home in London and does not care a straw how long the House sits, or how slowly it does its business, but those who come from 500 or 600 miles away and have to leave our homes are anxious to get through the business, and I think the Government is absolutely right in suspending the Rule to-night, because it has put upon the Notice Paper business which will inevitably provoke very considerable discussion. The right hon. Baronet is absolutely right in saying there has been no sign of obstruction. There never has been any sign of obstruction since the War broke out, and I do not believe any question of obstruction will ever arise as long as the War is in duration, but that is no reason why vitally important business should not be fairly discussed, and I hope the spirit in which the Government has made this Motion will govern their proceedings as regards the business of the House throughout the Session, and that they will not keep us here sitting sometimes for two hours three times a week, as we did last year, but that when the House is called together they will set to work to get through the necessary business and then allow the House to adjourn, which is the best way to allow the Government

  463
  to attend to its multitudinous duties, which appear to increase at an intolerable pace every day, and which they can better discharge when the House is not in Session.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In all humility I should like to ask the right hon. Baronet not to press his appeal to me. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) has quite correctly explained the situation. The Motion is put down with no idea whatever that the House intends to obstruct the Government in what we are doing. It is put down simply as a matter of convenience for the House itself. It would, I think, be a great pity if we had had a long discussion on the Vote, which at eleven o'clock was nearly completed, but that we should have to close and begin all over again. I would also say this: My right hon. Friend sa3rs he does not think any legislation is any good after eleven o'clock. I doubt very much whether he thinks any legislation is good before eleven o'clock. In any case what the Government desires is to do what the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) wished us to do. It is to get out the business as quickly as we can, without imposing any undue restriction on the freedom of the House in regard to discussion. The spirit in which I have put down the Motion is for the convenience of the House, and I am convinced that the great majority of Members think the course I have adopted is not unreasonable.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. LYNCH: Before this Motion passes I would Ike to say a word or two. If the Debate continues, will the Government promise that there will remain on the Front Bench someone competent to entertain the sense of the Debate or even to answer questions? Yesterday we had a most important Debate. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement, and he was replied to by a leading member of the Opposition. After that display, or shortly afterwards, he disappeared from the House. I believe the House will agree that some of the most useless and hollow contributions to the Debate are precisely those that come from the Front Benches, mainly because they are marked by insincerity, and there is not a corresponding amount of ability to make up for that defect. On the other hand, certain Members desire to speak with some sense of reality and some sense of proportion, and
  464
  they enter into the very pith of the subject. There was nobody on that Front Bench to hear what fell from them, and I do not know to this hour whether any of those remarks have been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's cognisance. Some of the remarks were directed to the Prime Minister, who has adopted the wise course of not visiting the House at all. I say the wise course, because during my short sojourn here I have noticed that the reputation of those right hon. Gentlemen who come to the House seldomest stands highest, they being taken at their face value. I believe some of those who have now fallen might have retained their reputation to the end if they had not committed the imprudence of coming to the House. Before I sit down I would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. There are certain Members of this House who have really something to say. Will he either remain himself, or, if that be too great a tax on his patience, will he have some trusty and intelligent lieutenant left here?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not away from the House or its precincts yesterday except for an hour, and during most of the time I was going backwards and forwards.
  Mr. LYNCH: You were not here when I was speaking.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member makes an appeal to me coupled with a request with which it is obviously impossible for me to comply. He has asked that there should be someone on this bench competent to deal with such a speech as his, and at the same time he has informed us that there is no one on either Front Bench who is in that position. All that I can say is that we shall do our best.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Government Business, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though, opposed.

WAR PENSIONS BILL.
The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the administrative expenses of the Statutory Committee and of local and district committees under

465
the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915; and for certain other purposes connected with pensions and allowances."
I rather think that the notice of this measure last week has excited some expectations which I am not in a position to fulfil. Many hon. Gentlemen have been expecting that I should on this occasion fulfil a pledge made by my predecessor in office in regard to the scale of pensions. I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to say anything further about that to-day than that I hope to introduce the Warrant Bill in the course of a very few days. The Bill which I now seek to introduce is one for the purpose of rectifying certain defects in the law in regard to the administration of pensions, and it may be divided into three parts. There is, first of all, the part relating to the expenditure of the committees; there is, secondly, the part relating to the setting up of more committees; and there is, thirdly, the part relating to the release of certain voluntary funds or the release of the trustees of those funds in regard to their disbursements. Let me say a very few words on each of these three heads. First of all, with regard to the expenditure of the local committees: It will be remembered that when the Naval and Military Pensions Act of 1915 was passed provision was made with regard to the constitution of those committees that they should embody labour representatives. The Statutory Committee in the exercise of its discretion insisted upon at least one-fifth of those committees consisting of Labour representatives. A difficulty has now arisen in regard to the payment of the expenses of those men, especially in the county areas, and, as a matter of fact, we cannot get men because they are poor and cannot travel to and from the committee meetings, much less forfeit their pay during that time. We seek power in this Bill to pay them what is called beneficial time. If a man loses wages, we refund those wages up to a limit of one shilling per hour for time lost, and pay him third-class railway fare. The question of the administrative expenses of the committees is a much larger matter, and it was the subject I might almost say of a bargain between the Association of County Councils' and the Treasury last year. Upon 20th July last year the Treasury and the Association of County Councils agreed upon the payment of half and half. This Bill embodies that principle. It seeks
466
to take power to impose upon the district committees an obligation to pay half of their administrative expenses, the other half to be provided by moneys voted by Parliament. It is safeguarded by the fact that an estimate must be approved by the Local Government Board before the half of the Government is paid.
I now come to the second item which has raised a controversy, and I am sorry to say rather a bitter and personal controversy, and that is in regard to the local committees. When the Act which I have mentioned was passed, it was provided that each county borough and each borough of over 50,000 inhabitants as well as each county should have its own local committee, and that smaller boroughs of between 50,000 and 20,000 inhabitants should have their committee if the Statutory Committee found that exceptional circumstances justified the setting up of such a committee. There are 169 of such small boroughs, and 160 have applied for local committees. The Statutory Committee have found special circumstances in fifty-eight cases out of 160. I believe the Statutory Committee have rather stretched their conscience in regard to some of those fifty-eight boroughs, and they are now in the position of conscientious objectors to setting up any more local committees for boroughs of between 20,000 and 50,000 inhabitants. Still there is an insistent demand on the part of the local bodies in question that they should have their own local committees to deal with their own cases of supplementation of pensions and generally look after the welfare of the soldiers' dependants, and in this Bill we have hit upon a scheme which I think ought to satisfy both sides. We are not going to wrench a town willy-nilly out of a district without consulting the county council. That would not be right, but we are making a provision that the Minister of Pensions may, upon application being made by a small borough of under 50,000 and above 20,000 inhabitants, and after consultation with the county council in question, set up a local committee for that borough.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: Does that include-urban districts?
Mr. BARNES: Yes, urban districts with a population of over 20,000. The local committee will not have full power; they will have power with regard to recommendations about the supplementation of allowances and everything except treat-

467
ment and training. We think the training is a matter which ought to be attended to over a larger area. The county council is the technical education authority, and we think that it ought, so far as possible, to be the authority for dealing with the training of disabled men. Therefore, if the Minister of Pensions sees fit to set up a local committee for one of these small towns, that committee will be armed with powers other than those of training. After it is set up, the county committee may, however, give it such further powers as in its wisdom may seem proper, and, as a matter of fact, that small area may form part of a general system of training inside that particular county.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will there be two Grants for emigration purposes?
Mr. BARNES: I suppose so if it came within the province of training.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No, outside training.
Mr. BARNES: No. That is the scheme whereby we propose to relieve the second difficulty about these small boroughs who desire to look after their own people, and who, I suppose, are better able to look after their own people than the county authority, except in regard to the training of the men. Let me come to the third point, the release of certain funds or the trustees of funds which have been raised for certain specific purposes during the time of the War. It is characteristic of our people that they have contributed a great deal of voluntary money for the relief of distress. In the early days of the War vast sums of money were raised to meet certain specific cases of soldiers or sailors or the dependants of soldiers and sailors in distress. Since that time the State has made, or is about to make, provision for certain of these objects for which the money has been gathered together. There are certain funds throughout the country in the hands of trustees, and the trustees are in this difficulty, that they do not know what to do with the money and will be glad to be able to devote it, instead of to the specific objects for which it was raised, to some other specific objects still for the benefit of the soldiers or sailors or the dependants of soldiers or sailors. We therefore take power under this Bill, after consultation with the Charity Commissioners and after having regard to the interests and
468
wishes of the subscribers, which we are also compelled to take into account, to get relief for those trustees in such a way as to get the money which is now held up and lying idle applied for the benefit of our fighting men and their dependants. These are the three points of the Bill which I now seek to introduce. It would be unfair to press it with regard to time, because the local authorities will be asked to spend some money under the terms of the Bill, and it is right that they should have ample opportunity of understanding its details and making their wishes known. I therefore seek the First Reading only to-day, and propose to let the Bill remain in that stage for some two or three weeks, after which the Second Reading will be taken.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barnes, Mr. Munro, Mr. Duke, Mr. Hayes Fisher, and Colonel Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 4.]

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SURVEYS OF UNITED KINGDOM.—Class I.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,370, 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, 1917, for the Survey of the United Kingdom and for minor services connected therewith."
  Mr. ASHLEY: I desire to ask a question. I presume that this refers to a survey of the United Kingdom, and means ordnance map surveys and other things, and I think that when we are at war and spending such huge sums of money is not a time to spend a great amount on the ordnance survey of the United Kingdom, and is not the time to increase the expenditure by over £5,000. It is stated that a larger staff than was anticipated has been maintained, and some explanation is needed as to why such increased sum is required for these surveys.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would like to know how many men of military age are employed in this Department? I would also like to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to footnote H, that there has been a deficiency on the sales of £6,950. As the sales were only estimated to bring in £22,000, this deficiency represents a very large precentage, and it seems to show an extraordinary want of knowledge, when these sales were not going on in the usual way, that it was thought necessary to increase the staff. One would have thought, when the sales were decreasing, and it was evident that the public did not care much about buying these ordnance maps, that it would have been wiser to go on the old lines and not increase the staff.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): I may first draw attention to the fact that this Estimate has been very much reduced in comparison with previous years. In 1915–16 it amounted to £160,000. Last year it was reduced to £56,000, so that we are spending now only one-third of what used to be spent on this Department. The increase of £5,420 is due mainly to the necessity of keeping ample staffs on local work in order to meet the various heavy war requirements. This work is very heavy, amounting to 430,000 maps, which have been required on the average per month on the Western front. It was paid for, no doubt, out of the Vote of Credit, but it is necessary that we should keep an ample staff in order to deal with this matter.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This Vote is for surveys in the United Kingdom, and I do not know what war requirements are involved.
  Sir R. WINFREY: That is quite as the hon. Baronet says, but there are certain works of ordnance survey which cannot be neglected. The deficiency is mainly due to the falling off in the sale of ordnance maps. So great a falling off was not anticipated. The chief cause is that large numbers of map buyers were not wanting maps because they were on service or they were unable to travel, and also because of the stoppage of domestic legislation in regard 1o which large numbers of maps were formerly sold. I cannot at the moment answer the question as to the number of men of military age, but I will inquire into it and see that an explanation is given.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I think that the answer of the hon. Gentleman is not satisfactory. Surveys of the United Kingdom have nothing to do with war maps in France or anywhere else outside the United Kingdom. Therefore, I think that the explanation given must be one that has been furnished to the hon. Gentleman. The point I want to make out is that here we have the ordnance survey of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly true, as has been pointed out, that the money is only one-third of what it was in 1915–16. The money spent that year was ridiculously large. As I endeavoured to point out last year in this House, money was wasted in every direction, but I am not convinced, by the hon. Gentleman's explanation that it is necessary to spend £56,000 on surveys of the United Kingdom this year.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: May I suggest that probably these maps are required by the military authorities for the defence of the United Kingdom, and that is why this amount is required?
  Sir R. WINFREY Sir R. WINFREY indicated assent.
  Mr. HOGGE: I do not mind this Department supplying any maps for the purpose of defence, or anything of that sort, but if it has supplied, as I think my hon. Friend says, 430,000 maps to other Departments, were those supplied for money, or does this Department supply maps to other Departments free of charge? If that is so, obviously there is a large drain made upon the resources of this Department for those maps, and their cost ought to be credited to this Department.
  Sir R. WINFREY: Those maps are supplied and they are paid for out of the Vote of Credit. We have to keep the staff and pay the staff to provide these maps and do the necessary work.
  Mr. HOGGE: If they are paid for out of the Vote of Credit, does this Department get as much as it should get for them?
  Sir R. WINFREY: Yes; but we have to keep a staff employed and to pay that staff.
  Mr. PRINGLE: This Supplementary Estimate suffers from the vice inherent in all Supplementary Estimates—an absolute want of detail. If you turn up the original Estimate you find given the exact number of the staff which it is intended to retain for the year. You find, under "Civil

  471
  Assistants," 1,274, which was a reduction of 425 as compared with the previous year, and that in regard to other assistants the number is reduced from 250 to 100. It would have been a very simple matter for the Department, in compiling this Supplementary Estimate, simply to state the numbers they had found necessary to retain, and, that being done, it would have been perfectly easy for hon. Members to see whether the number was reasonable or not. As it is, we do not know what the number is, we do not know the nature of the service for which these particular men are required, whether they are skilled men of a special type in their department, or are merely labourers who might be got anywhere to do the work. I do not think that that is treating the Committee fairly to offer us an Estimate which gives practically no information.
  Mr. DILLON: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that these maps were supplied for the Western front. We are entitled to know whether they are sold at a loss, and, if not, should not the fact that a large number of extra maps is supplied tend to reduce the estimate? The explanation given is that the deficiency is due mainly to the decreased sale of ordinary maps. If that is so, is there another deficiency for the increased sale of extraordinary maps? The two things appear to be absolutely inconsistent. Are these maps, maps of the War area, are they made by our surveyors? Surely no country in the world is better mapped than France. There are no more skilled map-makers than the French, and there was no necessity to send over men to work at map making in France. I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the maps were supplied for the Western front. If not, what was the necessity for this extra production of maps, especially in view of the fact that, as we are told, the decreased sales of maps are the chief cause of the deficiency? Throughout the whole of this Supplementary Estimate the Government are employing what, in my opinion, is a very vicious principle, and a totally new one. In all these Supplementary Estimates first the accounts are kept in the vaguest manner as between the Vote of Credit, and these Estimates. The footnotes of the other Estimates say such and such an amount is borne on the Vote of Credit, but it is not shown how much. Of course, the portion that is transferred to the Vote
  472
  of Credit does not appear on the face of the Estimate, nor a full statement of the extra charges. I think one of the most important principles that ought to be observed, whether in supplementary or ordinary Estimates, ought to be that the fullest information is given of the whole of the charges of the services with which we are called upon to deal. If I look through the Paper I note that there is hardly a single one of them in regard to which that information is contained. Since the War broke out the financial work of this House has gone absolutely to smash. I do not for a moment say that you could maintain the same strict control and system of accounts in war-time as in peace time, but what I do say is this, that there is a tendency on the part of Ministers to let things go more loosely than is at all necessary, and certain forms which have been the immemorial practice of the House, ought to be adhered to in so far as is consistent with the necessities of the public service. I hope later that we shall have some explanation why, in these supplemental Estimates, the very simple form to which I have referred has been departed from—namely, that of giving on the face of the Estimates the whole of the expenditure of the services with which we are called upon to deal, together with adequate explanations.
  Sir C. HENRY: May I ask whether this sum which is required is due to increased remuneration of the staff?
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Estimate does not say so.
  Sir C. HENRY: I know that it does not, but can the hon. Gentleman inform us what was the rate of wages paid in 1916 and what is the rate paid at the present time. It may be that there has been an increase of remuneration because of the rise in the prices of food and the increased cost of living For myself, I think that may account to a considerable extent for the increased sum of money required.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us precisely whether the Ordnance Survey work is being carried on at present as it was in pre-war days, or whether it has been reduced, and whether the establishment is now kept up of draughtsmen and others as it was? There is no information in the Paper as to what the Department is actually doing, and I think the whole House would desire to understand how matters are.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that there is an explanation given in the footnote to the Estimate as to why a larger staff is necessary. This Vote is for services in the United Kingdom, and the explanation of the hon. Baronet opposite is not in accordance with the official explanation in this Paper, and I really think that we are entitled to some further explanations on this point.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): The explanation of the item £5,420, is, I gather, threefold. In the first place, the Estimates for the year 1916 for the services in this Department, as in others, were rigorously cut down, in expectation of diminution of staff, which was not completely carried out. More than that, it was found necessary to expedite the work of completing the Ordnance Survey. Those are the two principal causes, and I mention them in the order of their importance. A third element, however, was that in consequence of the abnormal demand for maps and plans for the Army, the Ordnance Survey staff had to be employed more and more, by way of a Reserve, to facilitate that work.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Surely, if the work of the Ordnance Survey staff was largely for Army matters, as a matter of book-keeping it ought to go to the War Office. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was necessary to go on with the Ordnance Survey for the United Kingdom. Why was it necessary? If it was for military purposes, and not for civilian purposes, then it was defenceless to spend any of that money.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can I get an answer to a very simple question? When a Department like this lends men to another Department, and does work for the War Office, then ought it not to be paid for that work? Can anybody on the Front Bench tell us? If not, what is the use of a Government? It seems to me perfectly simple that this Department produced maps for the War Office that are to be paid for out of the Vote of Credit, and, if that be so, why is not the money shown on the Estimates of the Department that has sold these maps? If this Department lent its men to the War Office, then the War Office should pay their salaries while they were working for the War Office, and such amount payable in salaries should appear here. As the Leader of the House himself cannot answer this question, I hope, before we come to the other Supple-
  474
  mentary Estimates, he will send the Whips or somebody to get someone who can answer.
  Mr. DILLON: I rather think it is desirable to know, if this Department has been called upon to supply extra maps for the use of the War Office, whether that Department is paying for those maps or not. I presume the War Office did pay. Of course, under the usual practice, we ought to have that sum included under the Appropriation-in-Aid, but, instead of that, we find that the Appropriation-in-Aid is £5,950. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the reason is that this Supplementary Estimate is required because the Department had a great deal more to do and more maps to produce than was anticipated. What has become of those maps? Here, in the footnote, we find that the deficiency in the Appropriation-in-Aid is mainly due to the decrease for the ordnance survey maps. The question resolves itself into a very simple one—did the War Office pay for the extra maps and the extra work required or did it not? I say it is not creditable to the Secretary to the Treasury, who prepares the Supplementary Estimates, that he did not state the fact on the face of the Estimates. The House is really entitled to know that fact. If the hon. Member gets up and states that the War Office paid nothing, and insisted on getting the maps for nothing, it is as broad as it is long; but it is bad book-keeping, and against the practice of the House and the practice of the Treasury. Unless he tells us whether the War Office paid for the maps or not, the thing is enshrouded in mystery.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I listened with great attention to the explanation of the Solicitor-General, but I am afraid he made matters even worse than they were, because his explanation amounts to this, and it really is a very important point: These are Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, and the hon. and learned Gentleman says this increased Grant is owing to the fact that the Civil Service has done work for the Army. We have a Vote of Credit for carrying on the War, and are we to understand that the Vote of Credit for carrying on the War, and the money voted for the Civil Service also, are used for carrying it on? Can he tell the House of Commons that not only the money of the Vote of Credit, but money

  475
  voted for Civil Service purposes, was used for the Army? That was the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I really think that someone who really knows the facts ought to give us some explanation, so that the matter may be cleared up.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: The House will, of course, have much sympathy with an hon. Member who, for the first time, has to attempt to explain an Estimate which does not come under his own control and for which he has no responsibility. I think in this case the Committee might well ask that a fuller explanation should be given on this Vote on Report. Such an explanation is due to it. As far as I can make out from what has been said, the new maps which have been made have been paid for. The Appropriations-in-Aid which were expected would have been for maps which were drawn from stock—ordinary maps used in connection with the sales of great properties, extensions of boroughs, and various other matters that come into the Bills laid before Parliament. That would have been work which would have been done without the expenditure being exceeded at the present moment. It appears to be likely that where this extra staff has been required has been not so much to do work directly for other Departments as that it has been found necessary to keep up a larger ordinary staff in order that it might constitute a reserve from which the staff is provided for emergency calls which may be made upon it. I have no doubt a great deal of work has been done, for other Departments, and that that work has been paid for.
  Mr. DILLON: No.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: That work has been paid for. Where the House has not been fairly treated is in not having this thing properly explained, but we have got as far as we can, and now we should insist on a proper explanation being given of this Vote on the Report stage. Although I do not wish to depreciate the financial control of this House, there are other matters more important to come forward in the next Estimate, and if we can have the pledge I have suggested I am sure the Committee will be glad to receive it.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There are some points which have been raised in this discussion about which I am not very clear, and the Committee, I know, will
  476
  not expect that I should be familiar with these things. But I should like to make a claim on the indulgence of the Committee, and to remind it that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is now outside the House of Commons. It may be thought that this is not a good plan, and it certainly is calculated to make my position more difficult in the House. But the arrangement has been made because we believe the best work the Financial Secretary can undertake at the present moment is to attend to the control of expenditure. My hon. Friend near me the hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) has undertaken to represent the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in this House, and I am quite sure that he will do it very efficiently. We have all gone through a similar experience to this in ordinary times in Debates on the Estimates when the Minister in charge has been unable to answer a simple question. But I have been trying to find out, as far as I can from the information available, what the position in this matter really is. The Estimate for this purpose was cut down at the beginning of the War to so low a level that it was found afterwards it had been reduced too much and an additional sum had to be obtained to enable the work to be carried through. The reason for the additional expenditure has been given by the Solicitor-General, who informed the Committee that it was-found necessary to expedite the survey in certain parts of the country, and the Committee will easily understand how circumstances may have arisen to make it necessary for some information to be obtained in this respect even in regard to our own country in connection with the War. But the total sum involved is very small. The explanation is that it has been necessary to expedite the public service and that the Estimate originally framed having been cut down too low, this Supplementary Estimate has consequently been brought forward. But I will undertake that when the result comes up on the Report stage there shall be someone here in possession of information which will enable an answer to be given to the questions that have been put, and with that I hope the Committee will be satisfied.
  Mr. DILLON: Nobody will quarrel with the speech to which we have just listened from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I must say, as a very old Member of the House, that, in my opinion, a more extraordinary act has never been com-

  477
  mitted by a Government than to appoint the Secretary to the Treasury, of all officials, from outside this House. Surely, if there is one official of the Government who ought to be in this House—and I speak with a very long experience of the practice of this House, when I say his presence is essentially necessary to the proper discharge of the functions of this House—it is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That is the case in ordinary times, and how much more important is it in times such as these, times when the Leader of the House has also assumed the functions of Chancellor of the Exchequer, besides other heavy responsibilities, and ought not, therefore, to be expected to give time to these detail matters! If it were deemed desirable to reinforce the Treasury by appointing a skilful financier in these times, surely he should be a subordinate to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who certainly ought to be in this House. I must, with all respect—and I speak as a man who is determined so far as my own personal action goes in the House to give the new Government every possible chance of fair play—protest against this procedure. I say the Government are not giving themselves a chance of fair play. This is part of an arrangement by which it is announced to the whole public of Great Britain that the least important part of the Constitution of this country is the House of Commons, and that anyone can answer it on questions affecting so important a part of the machinery of government as the Treasury. The Secretary to the Treasury is really the most important and responsible official of the Government, and yet he is not to be in this House at all! In the short experience we have had in watching the working of the new machinery we have run up against one or two illustrations of how the system works. We are told that the hon. Member who is going to act on behalf of the Treasury in this House will do it most efficiently, and no doubt, in so far as ability is concerned, no one could possibly do it better. But we have had an example to-day of the difficulties that are bound to arise where a man who is not in control of a Department, for which he is only acting as the mouthpiece of someone outside, cannot possibly have that close knowledge of the working of the Department which is required more particularly from the Secretary to the Treasury than from any other Department. While I am certain that this House desires to give this
  478
  new and most audacious and daring experiment in government a fair chance, I respectfully beg to warn the Leader of the House that if he really wants to get a fair chance for the Government he must change this arrangement, and his first, step should be to at once proceed to appoint a Secretary to the Treasury to-be in this House. He is the official upon whom one has to put pressure in order to keep down expenditure, and in these times, when we are called upon to vote vast and unheard-of sums of money, we say there should be in this House a responsible man who can answer any questions that may be out. There are other matters concerning the machinery of government which will come up on other Votes, but I do assure the House and the Leader of the House, in all good faith, that while I have a sincere desire to give the Government fair play, they cannot hope to succeed if they persist in this arrangement.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is the first occasion on which an Estimate has been brought before the House of Commons without the Financial Secretary to the Treasury being a Member of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech just now, dealt not only with the Estimate which is before us, but also with the general question of principle raised by the situation. I should for my own part desire to take the earliest opportunity of supporting whole-heartedly what has just fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). Of all members of the Government the one who above all others ought to be in the House of Commons, able to take part in its discussions, and able to defend the Votes himself and not through a deputy, it is the Secretary to the Treasury. We know the Government has appointed a most able man as Secretary to the Treasury. I myself have reason to know the good work he did at the Ministry of Munitions, and I am sure too, that every one of us will feel confident that the work which will be done at the Treasury by the hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin), who has been appointed a junior Lord of the Treasury and is to represent the Secretary to the Treasury here will command the confidence of the whole House, for we all recognise his ability, his industry and his facility of speech. No better appointment could have been made for the post. But the

  479
  House of Commons ought not to be content that the Estimates should be presented by a deputy Secretary to the Treasury, and, although we shall do our best to facilitate the hon. Member's task, still I think this occasion ought not to be allowed to pass without a protest being made in this House against the establishment of a system which I feel sure in its operation will not be found to work satis-torily.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I should like to say a few words in confirmation of the protest made by my right hon. Friend against the absence of the Secretary to the Treasury from this House. Our whole function—the paramount function of this House—is control over the finances of the country, and the Secretary to the Treasury, who is responsible for the preparation of the Estimates, should be here to expound them. I defy contradiction when I say that never since the office of Secretary to the Treasury was established has a Secretary to the Treasury been absent from the Treasury Bench of the House of Commons. That official has been described by many constitutional writers as the Minister most responsible outside the Cabinet, and in the last Administration, in fact, the Secretary to the Treasury was absolutely a Cabinet Minister. It is essentially and eminently a House of Commons position. But now we are to have a substitute for him! What has occurred to-day shows how very material is the presence here of the responsible financial official. I think he is more necessary in this House than even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, because he is possessed of a knowledge of detail which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by reason of the multifarious character of his duties, cannot be expected to have. I can only say that this business is unconstitutional, unheard of, and an outrage to Parliament. It suggests that this Committee does not desire to keep control over money matters, and does not concern itself about them.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  WAR CABINET.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,075, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st ay of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the War Cabinet."
  Mr. MacNEILL: I am sorry no explanation of this item should be given by the Leader of the House of Commons. Why is that?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: An explanation will be given.
  Mr. MacNEILL: I shall listen with the greatest respect to any statement which may be made. But let me say this: Everyone of us knows that the War is on, and we want to finish it as soon as we can, but advantage ought not to be taken of the War to enter on a course of transactions which is utterly subversive of all constitutional practice. Take the case of this Vote. How is it legitimate to present a Vote for a War Cabinet? There never was such a thing. The word "Cabinet" has been unheard of. It has never been recognised in Parliamentary proceedings. A Cabinet is a body completely unknown to the law, and how can we vote money in reference to Cabinets of which we know nothing? To prove that this is not merely some little trick or fad of my own, I would like to remind the Committee that the records of the House of Commons show that on a certain occasion when a body of Members proceeded to the Bar of the House of Lords and there was considerable hustling a Committee was appointed, and in that Committee there were some recommendations from Cabinet Ministers. The expression "Cabinet Ministers" was taken exception to on the ground that such a thing as a Cabinet Minister was unknown to law. The meaning of the word is possibly "Ministers without portfolios." But that is scarcely ever heard of except in connection with small Continental Legislatures, and the Minister without a portfolio is very much like a schoolboy without his satchel or a briefless barrister without his bag.
  One of these two gentlemen to whom it is proposed to vote a salary is Lord Milner. I want to say this, that this is an unparalled appointment and there is no precedent to be found in the whole history of Parliament for it. Ministers have been occasionally appointed or allowed to sit when they have been in a Cabinet before, but they have served in the Cabinet under such circumstances without fees, although not without portfolios. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the whole Constitution there is a precedent for any gentleman being appointed to the Cabinet for the first time without previous Cabinet experience. We

  481
  do know that when the Duke of Wellington was at the zenith of his fame an arrangement was made for him to join the Cabinet. But objection was immediately taken to his doing so on the ground that he had never been a Cabinet Minister before, and that it would not be right for a gentleman without Cabinet experience thus to come into the Cabinet. What occurred was that the nobleman who then held the office of Lord President resigned his post and the Puke of Wellington took his place.
  But Lord Milner comes in without ever having had any Cabinet experience and a salary is to be provided for him. He is doing no ostensible work for his salary. Usually salaries are voted by the House of Commons in return for some distinct and definite work. But these two gentlemen to whom a salary is being voted under this Estimate have no distinct places; one comes into the Cabinet for the first time and without office, and he is to get a salary of £5,000 a year, although he has no specinc place to which he is attached. Such a thing never has occurred before. Again and again ex-Cabinet Ministers have accepted office, sometimes at the request of the Prime Minister, on other occasions at the request of the Crown, or in deference to a definite public demand, but in no single case have they ever accepted a halfpenny of money for filling the office. Yet here in war-time, when we are being asked to curtail our expenses and when we are urging the poor to eat less food, we ore proposing to vote £5,000 a year to a great nobleman who has never done a hand's turn without being well paid for it and who has come into the Cabinet without office. Is that not a parody of constitutional government? It will be said he is a very responsible man and a member of a very responsible Cabinet of five. The last time we experimented with a Cabinet of five, the effort was not a very promising one——
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member is going a little beyond the scope of a Supply discussion. It is not for us here to discuss the constitution of the Cabinet. He is, of course, perfectly within his right in discussing whether or not the Ministers referred to here should be voted salaries, but he is rather going beyond that.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order——
  Mr. MacNEILL: I quite accept the Chairman's ruling.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But this is my point of Order. I wish to draw attention to the fact that this is a new subhead. It refers to an institution which hitherto has been unknown in this country, namely, the War Cabinet. The rule in Debates on Supplementary Estimates, when a new subhead is in review, is to allow a discussion to take place upon it when it appears for the first time.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have not taken objection on the ground of this being a Supplementary Estimate, and I have no intention to restricting the discussion in that way, but the hon. and learned Member, in dealing with the constitutional point, was approaching the question in too wide, a fashion and was not relating to these Ministers without portfolios being paid salaries.
  Mr. MacNEILL: I am grateful to the Chairman for having allowed me to say some not unconstitutional, perhaps, but irrelevant things. I will now politically embrace Lord Milner and pass on to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson), who also stands here as a Minister without a portfolio, but in quite a different way from Lord Milner, he being a Member of the House of Commons. I should like to put this conundrum to the Solicitor-General, who, since he has become a member of this Administration, has been so busy breaking up the Constitution that he probably does not remember what it was before he began that process. I rather think that this office of £5,000 a year for the Member for the Barnard Castle Division makes his position in the House of Commons rather difficult, no matter what modification there may be of the Places Act, which has been dealt with two or three times in Parliament and which, I think, the learned Solicitor-General will agree applies clearly to places under the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman has no place under the Crown; lie is a Privy Councillor, and he is voted a sum of money for nothing, so far as we know. You cannot, because there is a war, upset every constitutional principle. Such a thing was never heard of for fifty years before, the introducing of two Ministers to the Cabinet, without portfolios, without having some observations and some discussion about it. No Minister was ever before appointed to a seat

  483
  in the Cabinet under such circumstances. There is no legal means of giving a salary, and there is no legal means by which the House of Commons can discuss that salary. If I wished, on the Estimates, to raise a discussion on the salary of Lord Milner, I could not do it. There is no method by which we could attack Lord Milner before Parliament because he has no office. There are certain offices held by certain Gentlemen, who discharge other duties that do not come within those offices. Those other duties cannot be made subject to Parliamentary criticism. The Prime Minister himself could not be subject to any criticism whatever, except the criticism that appertains to him as being a nominal official of the Treasury; but Lord Milner can get £5,000 a year and be subject to no criticism whatever. I simply say these things, because in reality all constitutional doctrine has been subverted, all ideas of constitutional propriety, all ideas with reference to this House being the great controller of expenditure have gone, and here we see this topsy-turvy legislation immortalised by such a transaction as this. It seems as if some gentleman had taken a sponge and rubbed out the whole slate of the Constitution, and substituted, apparently, a thing that is insulting to the House of Commons, derogatory to its powers, and insulting and derogatory to ourselves.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I only wish to ask one question or raise one point before the right hon. Gentleman replies. Do we understand that these Ministers are pooling their salaries in the same way as the old Ministers did? It has been so announced in the public Press, and I take it, as there has been no denial, that it is so. Of course, if after Ministers receive their money they choose to divide it amongst themselves, that is a matter for themselves and not for us. What, however, I do object to is that we are now being asked to devote £5,000 each to two Ministers when we know perfectly well that they are not going to receive it, and that they are going to divide it with other Ministers. The arrangement may be a good one or it may be a bad one. That I am not discussing for the moment. But it is a perfect farce to come to the House of Commons and ask us to Vote £5,000 to one Gentleman, £3,000 to another and £1,500 to another when we know perfectly well that these Gentlemen will not take possession of that money. How can we,
  484
  who represent the people, and who are primarily responsible for the public purse, vote money for those whom we know perfectly well will not get it? It is a perfectly simple question that I put. Whether, as I say, the pooling of salaries is a good or a bad arrangement, I do not know, and it is beside the point; but it is perfect hypocrisy to come to the House of Commons and ask for two £5,000 to be voted when these Gentlemen are not going to receive the money, but which is to be put into a common pool! It may be necessary when the country is in a state of war to create precedents. If so let us do it openly. If it is necessary that such should be done, put your cards on the table, and the House of Commons will do what is necessary.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I am sure the Committee will have listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Donegal, because we all admit that he is an authority on the law and precedents in these matters, but I think he entirely forgets that this case is different to all precedents.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Therefore spend more money!
  Mr. ROBERTS: It has arisen from the fact of a small Cabinet being appointed with two or three Gentlemen without portfolios in order that the war should be prosecuted to its fullest extent. The late Cabinet was too large. [Laughter.] Well, that was the general opinion. It was too large for business. The present small Cabinet was, therefore, appointed, and it was necessary for the prosecution of the war to have two or three Gentlemen there without portfolio to concentrate their whole energy upon the prosecution of the war. Surely this House is not going to assume a shabby position and say that these Gentlemen are to sit there without money. Why should they not have the money if they are devoting the whole of their time to the prosecution of the War, just as the hon. Gentlemen sitting on the bench below me who are devoting their time to the work? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Donegal has quite mistaken the position as to why this Vote is necessary. I sincerely hope that the Committee will not take a shabby view to-day, and refuse to give these Gentlemen the salaries due to them.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has once more trotted out the excuse which has been so

  485
  often brought forward throughout this war, for every absurd propostion we have entertained—we are at war! It is out of all precedent, therefore we must do something unprecedented, silly, and absurd! What is this Vote? This is a Vote for a War Cabinet. We are voting for two Ministers the balance of their salaries for the current financial year at the rate of £5,000 a year. Why should we be called upon to do so? Because we are at war! But I understood it was necessary further to economise when we were at war! It is not the first time we have had a Minister without portfolio. The late Cabinet, which it is now the fashion to decry, had a Minister without portfolio—Lord Lansdowne. He took no money. That must have been why he was discarded, because he is the one Unionist Member who has been discarded. The only possible reason for his being discarded seems to be that he received no money. Under the new regime we have two Ministers without portfolios. They must have salaries. We know perfectly well that in former days there were offices in this country without any Departmental duties. Those offices were in existence, and were filled in the time of the late Government. For example, for the greater part of the late Government's tenure of office the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster was attached to the Financial Secretaryship to the Treasury. It was well known that the Chancellor of the Duchy had no Departmental duties. Before that he had the duties of Chairman of the Insurance Commissioners. Thereby you had saving. There is another office whose holder is known as the Lord Privy Seal. He appears in all his glory in this Government. Why was it not possible to use that office? There is the Paymaster-General, who now adorns the Front Bench, and who represents so efficiently amongst us the Nonconformist conscience. He might also have been taken. These are three existing offices which might have been utilised, and the House thus have been saved the necessity of voting this sum for Ministers without portfolio. Surely at a time when economy is so necessary such an expedient as I have just suggested might have suggested itself to the Government. We all know that it has not been the case.
  There was a very illuminating article in a newspaper the Sunday before this Government was formed. The writer told
  486
  us ail about this matter. He was speculating as to whether the present Prime Minister would be able to form a Government, and he reminded his readers of the old saying of the late Mr. Labouchere, "that a man can always form a Government when he has the liver in his pocket." The Prime Minister had the liver in his coat-tail pocket.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Rare and refreshing fruit!
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is not for these people that this money is being voted. We all know that there is a pool in this Government, as there was in the last. I thought it an unfortunate departure in the case of the last Government, but at least the last Government did not increase the available dividend. That is the difference between them and this Government. This Government actually makes a new sub-head in the Supplementary Vote in order to increase the dividend amongst themselves. At a time when the country is being appealed to for sacrifices for the War Loan, and everybody is being called upon to make sacrifices, we have here the example—a new sub-head in the Estimates in order to increase the amount divisible between the Members of the Government! It is a most unfortunate example. It is an example which is not excusable by the special pleading of the hon. Member who last spoke, that we are at war. Considering we are at war, that is all the more reason why we should not have an exception like this. There is another matter. We have been told that this is going to be the most efficient body that has ever governed this country. We know it is to devote itself entirely from day to day, from hour to hour, constantly sitting at No. 10, Downing Street, to the prosecution of the War. Every minute or so the First Sea Lord, a member of the Army Council, or somebody else rushes headlong in to get a decision right on the nail. It is done on the principle, "Do it now." But that is not the whole duty of the Government of this country. There are all the Civil Departments. There are not only the Civil Departments we had in peace. There is all the new bureaucracy which has sprung up like Jonah's gourd, which grew up in the night. The result is that, following the formation of the new Government, the question arises as to how these bodies are to be correlated and co-ordinated. There was this morning a very powerful article in a newspaper,

  487
  with which I seldom agree, dealing with this very point. It showed that the question of the correlation of these various Departments which deal with domestic administration is entirely left out of count. I do not think we can conduct the War successfully under these conditions. I think we ought, when for the first time we have this sub-head in the Estimates of the War Cabinet, to have some fuller explanation.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is quite obvious that the subject we are discussing to-day raises the whole question of the existence and the methods of the present Government. I do not, however, suppose the House will consider this to be a good opportunity to enter upon anything in the nature of a defence which would be more appropriate to a vote of confidence in the principles on which this Government has been formed. Under those circumstances I would do my best to defend, if defence were needed, the system under which the Government is carried on. In the meantime I shall deal with not quite so wide a matter. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down took up a somewhat similar attitude to the late Government as he has done on the present occasion. We may, at all events, praise him for his perfect impartiality. It seems to me that he is going to show the same spirit in regard to the existing Government as he showed in respect to the late one. He is, in both cases no doubt, doing what seems to him best in the interests of the country. With regard to the late Cabinet, I was a member of it, and I was as responsible for it as I am for the present one, and I am, therefore, not likely myself to go out of my way to attack a Government of which I myself was a member. As regards this Vote, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Donegal indulged in a constitutional argument which I had some difficulty in following. The main purpose of his argument seemed to be, so far as I could see, to suggest that nobody ought to be a Cabinet Minister unless he had been a Cabinet Minister previously.
  Mr. MacNEILL: My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that I said the present position was contrary to precedent. I cited the case of the great Duke of Wellington against anyone being admitted into the Cabinet without—to use the hateful expression—portfolio, who
  488
  had not been a Cabinet Minister before, and in charge of one of the great Departments of State. Of course, the Duke of Wellington was nowhere as compared with the great and illustrious Milner.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That may be what my hon. Friend meant. That is not what he said, as the House knows. The real point is the Vote which is down for the salaries of the two Gentlemen. I will deal first with the question raised by my hon. Friend opposite—that is the question of pooling the salaries. I know very well that it is very unpopular in many quarters of the House, perhaps with the majority of Members. But I take precisely the same view in regard to that which' was taken by the late Prime Minister. The House of Commons is entitled to vote to the holder of a particular office or to a man who is doing a particular work a salary which it thinks adequate and suitable for the work he is doing. After that salary has been received I do not think it is the business of the House of Commons, or anybody else, to ask what private arrangements are made by those who receive it. I should like to say further in regard to this matter that personally I think it is a good arrangement under present conditions. I believe the system of salaries in regard to these offices is not what it ought to be. I think it probable when the War is over the better plan would be to have a smaller Cabinet with something more of equality of salaries—amongst all those who are Cabinet Ministers. I think in one case at least—that of the Prime Minister—a higher salary than is given to the other members of the Government ought to be received. I do not think that this is the time to make changes of that kind. I am perfectly certain that at the time of the formation of the late Government, of which I was a member—and it is true of this one—that we ought to be free to select the best men for particular offices without considering the question of whether one salary is a little more or a little less. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Pringle) and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Swift MacNeill) spoke of giving salaries to these two gentlemen as a departure from the principle of economy. I do not agree at all in that respect; I do not agree in the least. I think in time of war, or any other time, a man who is doing work for the State should be paid by the State adequately for the work he is doing, and whether or not he takes the

  489
  salary, or what use he makes of it, is his business, and the first duty, in my opinion, of the House of Commons in time of war or any other time, is to give to those who are doing the nation's work adequate remuneration for the work they are doing. That is my view. It may be said—indeed, it was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. MacNeill)—that Lord Milner and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) are doing nothing.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I said nothing of the kind.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He does not know what he does say.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Oh, does he not? I said they might be doing work, but that they had no offices whereby they could be held responsible to Parliament for the salary they drew. That is what I said, and I say so still, and I ask my right hon. Friend now to give me even one case in all history in which a man has been placed in the Cabinet with no office and drawing a salary of £5,000 or £l,000 a year.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is rather a different point. I think the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, with that fluency which characterises him, used expressions which, perhaps, he does not now remember. My recollection is that he did say that we were asked to pay Lord Milner for, as far as he could judge, doing nothing.
  Mr. MacNEILL: No official work.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That raises really, as I say, the whole question of the way in which this Government is carried on. I do not think it is the desire of the House—I should be guided in that by the views of hon. Members of the House—that we should go into that general question, which involves really the question of confidence or no confidence in the Government; but I think I am justified in saying that after the experience of a Government on ordinary lines and a Cabinet carried on under the present arrangement, the view that there is no co-ordination in the one case and that there is in the other is, in my belief, a mistake. If the House will consider what different conditions there are during the War and in ordinary times, they will see that it was quite impossible for a Cabinet meeting on an average once a week, which was as often as it could meet,
  490
  to attempt to co-ordinate the work of different Departments. The new arrangement may be good or it may be bad. All I ask is that the House and the country should judge it by its results and give it a chance of showing whether it is a good or a bad method, but in my belief the system of the present Government, which my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Pringle) rather satirically spoke of as involving individuals rushing into Downing Street and out of it, which is in practice only a continuation of the system which must prevail in war-time of trying to get the Prime Minister to co-ordinate, the system of this small Cabinet to which authority is delegated is a system which if properly worked will get as much co-ordination, I am sure, as is possible.
  As regards these votes, no one will deny that if these men are suitable for the posts they are entitled to salaries. I need not remind the House that it would be quite possible, as these are temporary posts, to pay them out of the Vote of Credit without putting down a special Vote. I did not think that was right. I think the House should have the opportunity of seeing exactly what we are doing. I am quite sure that anyone who approves of this Government and the constitution of it will not hesitate to pass this Vote giving the salaries which we now ask. In regard to salaries, I should like to say something else. I said that in my opinion it is the duty of this House to give an adequate salary to men doing work for the nation. I think that is right. It is the business of the men who receive that salary to decide for themselves what use they will make of it. It so happens that a certain number of the members who are working in this Government have considered that they would rather not take a salary, and I think it would be right—although I have not discussed it with them—I think it would be only fair that I should tell the House who these Ministers are. No salary is drawn by the Lord Privy Seal, by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, by the Chairman of the Air Board, by the Shipping Controller or by the Food Controller, and my hon. Friend who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller felt that he would not like to take a salary. The money which they do not draw comes back to the State. In addition to that, the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords has decided not to draw his salary. The Gentlemen who have taken that course are taking it,

  491
  I believe, in precisely the same spirit in which, in connection with this War Loan, I have received I do not know how many donations to the State of money, to be expended absolutely for the use of the State. These Gentlemen are giving their money in that way. It is to their credit if they can afford it, but I hope nobody will consider—I may say I am drawing my own salary—I hope that no one will consider, because a certain number of us have felt that that is one way in which they could help the State, that any obligation rested on the others to take the same course.
  This also I would add: The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) spoke of this as being unprecedented, and everything he put down to the War. That is perfectly true. The War is unprecedented itself. We have got to do the best we can. We may be right or wrong, and the last Government or this Government may make mistakes of many kinds; but of one thing I am sure, and I shall be surprised if the House of Commons does not agree with me, that at a time like this we ought not to be too much bound by precedent, and we ought to take the methods which those responsible think best for carrying on the War at a time like the present. I quite admit that I have not dealt at all adequately, and do not intend to deal, with the big questions involved. I do not think this is a suitable opportunity for raising that subject.
  An HON. MEMBER: When can we have an opportunity?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It could be given tomorrow if you wish. A discussion of such a big subject means a vote of want of confidence in the Government.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No!
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not want to press my right hon. Friend for an explanation of the working of the present experiment, but I am sure he will see that the House would like to know how the experiment is working without any direct vote of confidence being involved. No doubt he will find a suitable occasion for letting us know how the machinery is working without expecting us to challenge the whole system.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite recognise what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I think I was right in saying that an attack, for instance, on this Cabinet of
  492
  five is obviously an attack on the system of the present Government. It is one of the vital factors on which this Government is formed. If the House of Commons declared that they disapproved of the War Cabinet, that would be an end of this Government. We would not alter the arrangement, for we consider it vital. I would like to say further that there were a great many interruptions at different times, but they never came in a form which would enable me to reply about the absence of the Prime Minister. If the system on which the Government is carried on is to be challenged, that is precisely one of the occasions on which I think the Prime Minister ought to be here to defend what is in fact the system on which he proposes to carry on the Government. I think that would be reasonable, but I would like, since I have mentioned the subject, to say also in regard to that that it is vital, in our estimation, to the whole system on which we propose to carry on the Government. I am not here as the deputy of the Prime Minister in the ordinary sense of the word. When he asked me to join the Government he asked me to join as Leader of the House of Commons, and it is in that capacity that I come to the House. I know perfectly well that anyone who attempts to lead the House of Commons who is not the Prime Minister will find it much more difficult than if he was, but I am perfectly certain of this, that in the way in which we are attempting to carry on the business, where we are having Cabinet meetings at least once every day, it would be utterly impossible for one man to attempt to direct the War and at the same time to attempt to direct the House of Commons. It is, therefore, an essential part of our policy, and I hope it will be found to work. That is all I wish to say except with the indulgence of the House——
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind saying whether he can—say on some early occasion—give the House information as to how co-ordination is being attained under the present system? We quite recognise, all of us who have been in office, that the entire machinery has had to be revised. A new method altogether has been adopted. Can the right hon. Gentleman not choose some early occasion for telling the House in a friendly spirit, not in a challenging spirit, how the system of co-ordination is being attained?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall be glad to do that, and I will make the time as far as possible to suit the convenience of my right hon. Friend opposite. I wish only in conclusion to say a word about the Supplementary Estimates. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mi. Dillon) dealt largely with the fact that the Financial Secretary is not a Member of the House of Commons. I quite admit that that is not only an unusual course, but I believe it has never before happened. When the Prime Minister appointed Sir Samuel Lever as Financial Secretary he did it because he was thought to be the best man for the post. That was the sole reason. It was not then decided whether or not he would be a Member of the House of Commons, and it is quite possible even yet, if it were found necessary, that arrangements might be made for him to become a Member, but I wish the House of Commons not to be under a mistake as to the arrangements, which I hope will be found not to work so badly. My hon. Friend (Mr. Baldwin) is not here simply as the mouthpiece of the Financial Secretary. He is working almost as Joint Financial Secretary. He does not come here merely to say what he is told to say. He has experience in the Treasury of all the work that is done, and I suppose that if he is competent he will do it just as well as if he were appointed Joint Financial Secretary. In any case I am sure I am not asking too much to ask the House to give the system a little trial, and see whether or not it will work better than the previous system.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Who will present the Civil Service Estimates? It has been the practice for the Financial Secretary to prepare the Civil Service Estimates, and to present them to the House and to defend them from the criticism of hon. Members. On whom will that duty now fall?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: At present it is intended to fall on my hon. Friend with such assistance as I and others can give him.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We shall all agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is not a convenient occasion on which to enter on the large questions of principle which arise from the present form of the Government machinery. In the first place, and this reason is conclusive, it has been
  494
  ruled from the Chair that it would be out of order to embark upon such a wide discussion on this occasion. In the second place, I think most of us will consider that it is too soon yet to judge how the present arrangements are working, and although we should be glad of some suitable occasion to receive from the right hon. Gentleman an intimation as to the methods that have been adopted, I doubt whether there would be any desire throughout the House at this early stage to embark upon a discussion of the arrangements that have been recently set up. If there is to be a War Cabinet as now constituted, containing Members without departmental functions, we should probably all of us agree that in spite of the absence of ministerial functions, those members of the War Cabinet ought to be provided with salaries, and salaries upon the full Ministerial scale. Further, the right hon. Gentleman has clearly taken the proper legitimate course in putting these new salaries upon the Estimates and asking the House formally and definitely to approve of them. A legitimate ground of criticism was, I think, stated by the hon. Member for Lanark, who pointed out that it ought to have been possible to have conferred upon those Members who is was desired should serve in the War Cabinet without Departmental functions some of the sinecure offices which have been maintained as part of our Constitution for that very purpose. The present Government is not yet quite complete, and I believe the Solicitor-General for Ireland has not been appointed, but when he has been appointed the Government will consist of no fewer than eighty-one members, which is the largest number for any Administration either in this or any other country. In this House there are no fewer than fifty-five hon. Members who have Ministerial posts, and if on any particular occasion they all attended they would fill not one, but three Treasury Benches. I would go on to say that in the formation of the present Government the number of Members of the House of Commons who have places in the Administration has been increased by no less than one-third. This has been partly due to the creation of fresh Departments of State. The great increase in the functions of the Government consequent upon war developments has necessitated the creation of these new Departments, and I have no desire whatever to challenge or criticise their formation. Nevertheless, they have resulted in

  495
  the appointment of a very considerable number of additional Ministers, and for that very reason, I think, every effort should have been made to avoid the multiplicity of offices in other directions, and we should combine the sinecure offices of State with duties such as those of the members of the War Cabinet, who are now termed Ministers without portfolio. Lord Curzon holds the office of Lord President of the Council, and I do not see why the other members of the War Cabinet should not hold such offices as Lord Privy Seal, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster-General, or Chief Commissioner of Works, the duties of which are light.
  It is not merly a question of salaries, because we are told that the Lord Privy is not to draw a salary, but it is a question of the number of Members of the two Houses attached to the Administration, which ought to be kept within as close bounds as circumstances allow. The Paymaster-General has not usually had a salary, and it seems to me an instance of muzzling the ox that treads out the corn. There is no reason why one Member should be appointed Paymaster-General and another Minister without portfolio, and it world have been more appropriate to confer the Paymaster-General upon that member of the Government who is now termed "Minister without portfolio." The hon Member for Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill), from his wealth of constitutional law, has challenged the present system on the ground of lack of precedent. With regard to the use of the term "Cabinet," that word first appeared in the year 1900 in official Parliamentary Papers, and, whether it has been used previously or not, I think it is a good thing that it should be used. It is a great mistake, in my view, out of deference to bygone practices, not to allow our nomenclature to square with the facts. The Cabinet is a reality, or at any rate it has been hitherto. It is an actual thing, and it is mere constitutional pedantry to pretend that it does not exist because it rests on no Statute, or to endeavour to keep the word "Cabinet" out of official papers and State documents. I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that no one has held a sinecure office without having previously been a Cabinet Minister. I had the honour of entering the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy
  496
  without having been previously at the head of a great State Department. That is an office which does not entail very arduous duties on the incumbent.
  I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that precedents are unimportant things in these days and these times. Precedent-mongering is not statesmanship, and if we have to set a new precedent in these exceptional times, by all means let us do it. The real ground of serious and valid criticism against the arrangement contained in the Supplementary Estimates is that further posts have been created under the title of Ministers without portfolio, instead of using the sinecure offices, which have in the past been retained precisely to meet a set of circumstances, such as that which has arisen at the present time.
  Mr. HOLT: I hope we are going to receive some explanation as to why these two Ministers without portfolio were created when we had the sinecure offices ready at hand for that purpose. We ought to be told what the occupants of those sinecure offices are now supposed to be doing. Dealing with the question of the expense, the Chancellor of the Duchy is now drawing a salary. I have a great deal of personal respect for the right hon. Gentleman who now holds that office, but I do not think it is defensible at a time like this that any person should be Chancellor of the Duchy and confine himself to the Departmental duties which in that office are almost nominal. I understand that the late Government combined the functions of Secretary to the Treasury with that of the Chancellor of the Duchy, and I presume that only one salary was paid. The salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster might be saved. While we all appreciate the handsome way in which some right hon. Gentlemen have not drawn their salaries, I wish to say that I think it is a very undesirable thing that rich men should occupy those positions and not take their salaries, because that is putting the poorer men who may succeed them in a very unfair position. I have always taken my salary as a Member of Parliament, and it is not fair when we are all working together that some people should appear to be very generous, when those who are doing precisely the same work cannot put themselves into the same position. There are plenty of other ways of getting rid of your money.

  497
  With regard to the amount of the pay, I agree that £5,000 is not a scrap too much for the men who are doing the work of the War Cabinet. Incidentally, however, Lord Curzon is doing this work for £2,000, while his four associates are being paid £5,000. That is not really fair. Of course, we all know that these Ministers are not going to get the money, and, therefore, the whole argument that they are worth £5,000 a year is absolutely unsound. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Ministers are entitled to pool their salaries, and to say that it is nobody's business but their own what they do with their own money. Within certain limitations that is quite true, but it is not true with regard to pooled salaries. Does anyone believe that anybody responsible for carrying on a large business would have a system of pooling the whole of the salaries? What is a Government? A Government is a body of men who are pledged to act together and manage the country in a certain spirit, and it is not a satisfactory state of things that individual members of that Government should be making subventions to other members of the Government. If it is thought desirable that all the members of the Government should be paid the same salary, why not come to Parliament and say so straight out, because there would be no difficulty in doing that. If they want to pool the salaries, why not ask for a lump sum to divide amongst themselves. Whatever is done ought to be on the record of Parliament, and should be approved by Parliament. I do not believe for a moment that Parliament would ever sanction paying some of the minor Ministers in the pool something like £4,000 a year, and if Parliament would not care to do it, it is not right to do behind the scenes what you would not do openly.
  In connection with the question of salaries, I would like to suggest another method of economy. It is only quite recently that the salaries of the President of the Local Government Board and the President of the Board of Trade were raised to £5,000, and that was done at a time when those officers were members of the Cabinet with a full share of responsibility for the government of the country. If those Ministers are now going to be put in a discredited or subsidiary position to the War Cabinet, I do not see why they should be paid more than the President of the Board of Agriculture, the
  498
  Food Controller, the Shipping Controller, or the President of the Board of Education. I do not think there is any real reason why the salaries of those two offices should have been increased when you have diminished the importance of those offices. I do not know whether we are going to divide against this Vote or not, but before it comes before the House again, as it must do for next year, I hope we shall have a much more satisfactory position with regard to Ministerial salaries, and that this House will be asked to vote the precise sums the Minister should take.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOGGE: I have listened to this discussion from the beginning, and, while I recognise that perhaps this is an inconvenient time to raise the larger issue, still the private Members of this House are always in the position that if we surrender this opportunity of making our criticisms, we may not get the other opportunity which has been promised. I do not feel, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt, that if this War Cabinet were upset that that would be the end of the present Government. I do not think we are likely to have any such luck as to get rid of it so easily. I do not believe in the present system. I think it is constitutionally bad, not so much in regard to what the War Cabinet may be doing, as to what the other unattached Ministers may be doing. The Cabinet is supposed to be responsible to this House, not only for policy, but for administration, and I take it that the War Cabinet confines itself entirely to the prosecution of the War. As the House knows, there have been appointed to various other Departments which are not directly concerned with the War other Ministers who are designated as Cabinet Ministers. I have yet to learn to what Cabinet these unattached Ministers belong, and how far what they are doing represents the considered views of the Prime Minister as the head of this supposed War Cabinet. I think we are entitled to a great deal more information than we are getting. A great deal has been made of the point, and it has never been answered, although it has been put by various speakers, as to why other men who are in posts which are sinecures are not doing other work. Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us, for instance, what the Chancellor of the Duchy is doing? The Chancellor of the Duchy is getting, I suppose, £3,000 as his share of the pool. I believe the last pool was

  499
  bigger. The late President of the Ginger Group in this House is now in receipt of £3,000 for doing nothing as Chancellor of the Duchy. His name looks well in the list that has been gathered round the Prime Minister, but we have no indication of the work that he is doing. He used to be a great authority on the breeding of horses when he was a private Member, and we always valued his judgment on that subject. We suggested before he went into the Government, that, as the Government had bought a racing stud, and we were now breeding horses, that his great services might be used in that direction. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is using the Chancellor of the Duchy in connection with the racing stud which belongs to all of us who are present here this afternoon. We do not know. What we do know is that he is doing nothing. Earlier in the discussion on the Estimates the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he could not say what the Chancellor of the Duchy is doing. I do not know whether he is going to be forced to admit that again.
  An HON. MEMBER: He is making magistrates!
  Mr. HOGGE: Making magistrates! We have heard that story before. More questions have been put about the making of magistrates than about any other political question I have ever heard discussed, and if he is doing it as badly as we thought previous Chancellors of the Duchy did it, according to their politics, then he cannot be doing it well. That is very obvious. I would like to know, also, what the Lord Privy Seal is doing. If I remember rightly, he was in the Royal Army Medical Corps and was brought back from the front to take up a certain post. I think he ought never to have gone to the front. It was a great waste that the selected intelligence of the organisation side of the Unionist party should have been allowed to go away to that work, and not have been put upon some competent war work in this country. He was brought back, and in the last Government he was President of the Board of Agriculture for a few weeks. He is now Lord Privy Seal, but he is not drawing a salary which would increase the pool for the other members who are drawing salary. What is he doing? What is his job? Is he on war work, or is he connected with any of the Departments which are being set up, or which may be set up, or is
  500
  he looking after the timbering of the roof of Westminster Hall, in which he was GO interested when he was a Member of this House? These are the kind of questions that this House is entitled to have answered. I could go through the whole list of Ministers who are not only drawing salaries, but are having provided for them elaborate offices, at elaborate cost, in the centre of the City of London, and who are being surrounded by large staffs, the cost of which we cannot get at. I would like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the footnote on page 4 of the Estimates, which says:
  "The salaries of the staff of the War Cabinet are paid out of the Vote of Credit."
  That is an easy way of covering up, perhaps, a very large expenditure. There are five members of this War Cabinet. I believe that the War Cabinet originally ran its work with one secretary, who took a copy of the Minutes, and that he was assisted by three or four other secretaries who had not the same access to the official minutes as the chief secretary. Now I understand that each Minister who has gone to this Cabinet has appointed another secretary. Are they paid salaries, and are there attached to them other junior secretaries to do the work? Where are they housed? I heard the other day, for instance, I do not know whether it is true—the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to correct me if I am wrong—that Lord Milner has got a suite of offices in the Hôtel Métropole or the Hotel Victoria. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can put us right with regard to that. Is that the headquarters of the War Cabinet, or is it only Lord Milner's private office, and has Lord Milner a staff there, which he is able to increase to any extent, if and when he likes? If Lord Milner is there, where is Lord Curzon? And where is the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson)? We all know that the least expensive member of the War Cabinet is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A sentry-box is very cheap as a place of accommodation, and there is not much room in it for any extras, such as you may have in these other offices. Where really is the habitat of this War Cabinet? Are we going to be told what other expenses this country is going to be asked to pay for a division of this kind, which separates the Cabinet into two parts? I do not believe as an outsider, and as one who have never believed in any or either of the Coalition Governments,

  501
  that the War is being prosecuted any more vigorously because of this new arrangement. As a matter of fact, this new arrangement has taken a very great deal away from the power of the House of Commons, because it has put upon the Front Opposition Bench men who were in the old Government, and who were associated with the Government in a great many things that were done, and therefore cannot criticise it with any great strength. It has piled up on this side of the House fifty-five members of the Government, who are entitled to sit here and to vote with the Government every time they go to a Division. Every vacancy which has occurred in the country has been filled by the co-option of somebody who will toe the line of the Coalition Government that is in power. The average new Member who has come into this House since we have had a Coalition Government has been a Coalition man pure and simple.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather wide of the subject before the House.
  Mr. HOGGE: These changes, at any rate, have got together a support for an arrangement of this sort which does not tend to the best kind of discussion. What I want to know, and what I insist upon knowing, if it can be told before we pass this Vote, is how much more are we committed to in this asterisk line at the bottom of the page. These War Ministers carry with them a staff. We know that that staff has been increased. We know that there was a staff before the War Cabinet was created, and that that staff was carrying on the business of any decision that required to be come to in the War Cabinet. Let us know what that note amounts to. I think we are entitled to know, and I think this House ought to keep its hand upon the extension of these offices. If hon. Members would look at the almanack for 1917 and compare it with the one for 1916—if they care to measure it they can even get the extra length of it—they will find the extension of any number of offices, any number of Government secretaries, and any number of new secretaries that are upon that list, all on the pretence that that goes to win the War. I cannot believe it, when the average man who is winning the War is paid 1s. 8d. a day in the Navy and 1s. in the Army.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I think the House must have come to the conclusion some time since that very wide issues are raised by this Vote, and possibly it might be convenient for the House if a full-dress Debate were to take place at a later date. I think the House is agreed that it would be scarcely fair to the Government to traverse the whole of their policy in regard to the constitution of the Government, when it has only been in existence a very few weeks. Coming down to the very narrow issues that have been raised, I would like to say a few words about the question of Ministers pooling their salaries. I remember very well when this question was raised in the House during the existence of the late Coalition, my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister expressed himself in terms of warning on the disposition on the part of some Members to inquire what Ministers do with their salaries. My own feeling is that when the State pays a Minister a salary, it has no earthly right to ask, nor has the House of Commons the right to ask, what he does with the money.
  Mr. HOLT: Does my hon. Friend mean to say that if the House of Commons discovers that that particular Member had made arrangements with five other Members of Parliament to pool salaries, they would not be entitled to object to it?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: In point of fact, Ministers, or any other Members of this House, if they do not choose to make it public, can do anything they like with their salaries at the present moment, and I think it is an impertinence on the part of this House to inquire what a Minister does with his salary. There is another point in connection with this matter that was referred to by the Leader of the House. I was very sorry to hear him read a list of Ministers who have announced to the Government that they will not receive their salaries. That is a practice against which I think this House and every Government ought to set its face with the utmost sternness. If I had time to turn up the reference I should be able to quote to the House some very notable remarks in that connection of the famous Edmund Burke, who went so far as to say, when this question was raised in his time, that the Government should insist upon a Minister receiving his salary, so that for obvious reasons there could be no invidious distinction between one Minister and another. It is not a point of patriotism whether a man can afford to do with-

  503
  out salary and announces to the Government that he is not going to receive it. On the other hand, it is an act of considerable indelicacy which may involve great hardship to a man to whom a Ministerial salary is a consideration, and, if I may venture to say so, the same thing applies equally to the receipt or non-receipt of a salary as a Member of Parliament. When a question is raised as to Ministers without portfolio I confess I share the dislike of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) to the use of that term. But, after all, we must not be too pedantic about it. It is all to the advantage of the Government of this country that at the present juncture there should be Ministers without portfolio. I myself have long held the view, so ably expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, that these sinecure positions which are still extant should be occupied by the most important men in the Ministry. It would have been quite possible, as he stated, and as my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench stated, to reserve those appointments for the most important members of the present Government.
  I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present. I should be disposed to make the prophecy in his case that he may find it necessary before the Government has run its course much longer to occupy a sinecure office. I do not know how it is possible for him to combine the duties of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, membership of the War Cabinet, and Leader of the House. I should like to see him myself occupying one of those dignified positions in the Government carrying with it no official duty, and which, under present circumstances, could not possibly be regarded as involving any decline in Ministerial rank. I may be permitted to say this, since so much has been said about the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I think it is a great pity that the present Financial Secretary has not got a seat in this House. I have had some experience of the Treasury, not in an official capacity, and I see no reason why the duties of that office should not be expressed in this House with equal authority and equally to the satisfaction of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Worcestershire (Mr. Stanley Baldwin), who is
  504
  a man who enjoys the respect of this House and for whom we have a great regard and a high estimate of his ability. He is at present a Junior Lord of the Treasury, and if it is found impossible for the present Financial Secretary to be a member I do not see why we should not be satisfied with the discharge of those duties by my hon. Friend sitting opposite.
  Mr. DILLON: I desire to protest against the challenge which was thrown across the House by the Leader of the House, in which he intimated that any criticism such as took place, I think perfectly fairly, in the course of this Debate, would be treated by the Government as a vote of no confidence. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is a very unwise way of dealing with this question, and it is a sign not of strength but of weakness. This new system is bound to have angles and there must be-some creaking and some trouble, and the only way in which you can test it fairly is by such Debates as are taking place to-night in the House of Commons to find out how the new system is working. If we are to be met on every occasion on which this new system is being fairly and honestly tested without any desire—at least I speak now for myself—to make any special attack on the present system, which I honestly desire to work out as an experiment, a very great experiment, then I say that the Government will undoubtedly make upon the House of Commons, and upon the country outside, the impression that their system is a failure, and that they are afraid to test it openly, if the moment any difficulty arises they instantly say, "Do you propose to move a vote of censure; if so, we are ready to meet it." That is not the language or the attitude of men who have confidence in their new arrangement.
  I wish, first of all, to support strongly the view which was put forward just now by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) and to dissent from the answer made by the last speaker. I cannot accept the view that it is no business of the House of Commons as to whether a pooling arrangement should continue or not. I speak with a free conscience on this matter because at the moment it was originally announced I protested against it as a most undesirable departure from the practice of this House. It is idle for men to get up and defend such an arrangement on the ground that you have

  505
  no right, once you have voted a salary to a Minister, to inquire what is done with that salary. That, of course, is true, if it be that the Minister is receiving his salary and can dispose of it in his own free will. Everybody knows that he does not dispose of it of his own free will, and that he enters one amongst a body who have agreed to an arrangement to which he is compelled to submit, whether he likes it or not. What would be the position of a Minister who, having got the salary, said, "I will not pool." Could he for a single moment maintain such an attitude, and would not his position under such circumstances be impossible and intolerable? Therefore, I say it is deceiving the House of Commons and ourselves if we seek to justify this system, by comparing it with the action of a mail who, having his income or salary, or whatever it may be, does exactly with it whatever he chooses himself to do.
  The true parallel was put by the hon. Member for Hexham. What would be said if a great employer, the head of a great firm, selected a certain number of individuals, and having taken full note of their duties, found out that there was a secret combine behind his back by which irresistible pressure was brought to bear on men to whom he gave, say, £5,000, as being worth that sum, to pool the amount and divide it amongst those who were not justified, in the opinion of that employer, in receiving that large amount. After all, a Minister is an honourable servant of the country and the House of Commons, and it is to my mind an outrageous thing to come forward to that Table to ask us to vote a salary for a Minister, when we are informed beforehand that that money is not going to the Minister to whom we vote it, but to some mysterious pool, the conditions of which we are not informed. Let me ask the Leader of the House, is not the House of Commons entitled to know of the conditions of this pool? Is it a blind pool to which we are contributing? Is it a fact that the salaries of £10,000 raise the level of the whole pool? How much money comes out of the pool to each of the Ministers opposite? Is that really the way of doing the business of the House of Commons? We are asked in the face of the country to vote £5,000 each to two men. I am altogether for high salaries. We ought to get the best men in the country, and the salaries ought to be fixed on that basis. It is not that I grudge the salary. I do not. These two
  506
  offices, although there are no portfolios, are very important at the present crisis. The reason I protest is because we really do not know what we are voting, and we are asked to vote this money blind. In the old Cabinet we were informed that the pool extended only to the members of the Cabinet, barring out the Prime Minister.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The Law Officers were brought into the pool.
  Mr. DILLON: As they say in America, there was in the case of the Law Officers a rake off. They were not completely in the pool. The whole system I think is most discreditable, and we are entitled to know now, is the pool extended to the whole eighty-two, or is it confined to the five Cabinet Ministers? What I want to know is, what are the principles of the pool now? Does the Leader of the House really deliberately say that we are to vote this money under the impression that we are giving £5,000 to these two men when we know we are not giving the £5,000, and when we do not know who is to get the money? I think the Chancellor ought to tell us frankly what is the principle of the pool, and who is entitled, and by what title any man is entitled to a share in that pool. Is it the Prime Minister who settles it, or is it the War Cabinet, or, if not, who settles it, because I cannot understand what distinction you can make once you go outside the membership of the Cabinet, and where you can draw the line, unless you take the whole eighty-two, and then the share would be extremely small.
  There is one other point on the face of the Estimate to which I take, as an old stickler for form—a rather melancholy position to occupy now—the gravest possible exception, and that is the point mentioned just now that the salaries of the staff of the War Cabinet are paid out of the Vote of Credit. I say that that is a monstrous thing, absolutely monstrous. When in the long history of wars—and this is not the first war carried on by England—was it an arrangement that the salaries of the staff of the Cabinet should be paid in this way. This is a new staff. There never was such a thing as a staff for a Cabinet before. It is a wholly new departure, and we know nothing of the size of the staff or of their salaries. In the whole annals of Parliament such a system never occurred as to start a great new bureaucracy or bureau with an unknown number of officials who may conceal in-

  507
  creases to any extent behind our backs, and whose salaries or conditions or numbers are not on the face of the Estimate and are to be paid out of the untold millions which we voted under the impression that we were voting for the Army and Navy and Munitions and the conduct of the War. Could anyone imagine, when we were passing the Vote of Credit amounting to thousands of millions that we were voting part of the Civil Service of the country. It is a perfectly monstrous thing, because you chose to call your Cabinet now a War Cabinet that therefore you are entitled to dip your hand into the money voted for the conduct of the War and to finance to any extent what is strictly a part of the Civil Service out of War Loan. The reason why I dwell so strongly on this matter is that this kind of spirit spreads like an infectious disease and grows rapidly. Once officials get it into their heads that this House has given up all notion of inquiry into these financial matters, then the natural tendency of human nature—and I suppose we would all do it if we were officials—is to conceal and to put in this kind of way any expenditure which they think might lead to unpleasant debate. Therefore if this Vote is passed you will find that the expenses of the administration of this country will progress by leaps and bounds until we have some new group of Members—I do not know what to call it, certainly not a "ginger" group, but some fresh group which will grow up and which will demand an investigation into the intolerable multiplication of officials, offices, and bureaux in this country. For that reason the matter to which I have alluded is one of considerable consequence. I also say, although I may not have so much support in this, that I take great exception to the whole arrangement for pooling the salaries of Ministers.
  We were told by an hon. Member opposite that the new Cabinet arrangement is out of all precedent. That is admitted. He also said that the present circumstances were out of all precedent. I deny that absolutely. It is quite true that we are carrying on a very terrible war and that the existence of the country is at stake, but is the War in any respects more terrible than were the Napoleonic Wars, when the Government of the day was in greater difficulties, when the country was for years threatened with invasion, and when Eng-
  508
  land was brought to a position of very much greater danger than she has occupied during the present War? Therefore it is quite untrue to say that the present condition of affairs is without precedent. On the contrary, we have a precedent extending over many years. If we consult, what was done by Ministers in those days, when, remember, the country was not the democratic country it is now, but when it was governed, comparatively speaking, by an oligarchy of rich men, I venture to say we shall find that neither Pitt nor Castlereagh, nor any of the great men, who were then the leaders of what was looked upon or what became a very reactionary Government, would have attempted to do some of the things we now have to face. The present Cabinet was appointed with a desire of carrying on the War in a more vigorous fashion, and with a view to bringing about greater coordination among all the Departments for that purpose. I was no lover of the late Government. I denounced the principle from the outset, because I disliked it. Members of the new Government might remember that we on these benches, who have had a very long experience in this House of the working of Governments, prophesied that that Government would not produce the national unity it was set up specially to produce. When I hear men talking about the enormous results which this Government has already produced, I cannot help remembering that a year and a half ago, when the Coalition Government was formed, I heard the same language used—national unity, and the whole machine working with a most superb co-ordination! I denounced the principle of the late Government, but from us, the Irish party, it received full fair play; indeed, many of our countrymen think it received too much fair play, and we have to take the consequence. We stated our view, and let the machine go on. Did the Debate the other day go to show that we have in the present Government as yet attained that absolute co-ordination and smooth working of all the Departments? I do not think that was made very manifest when we were debating the other day the working of the food control machinery. I pass from that because we shall have an opportunity on another occasion of discussing that more fully. So far as this House is concerned, it is the duty of the House and the interest of the people demands it, that, without attacking the Government or

  509
  doing anything to impede its work, we should ask for information and endeavour to find out what are the principles upon which this new machine is working and this great experiment is being conducted, and whether it promises to work as smoothly and successfully as those who started it hoped for it.
  Mr. T. WILSON: Everyone who believes in economy ought to protest against the extravagant expenditure of public money that is proposed in this Estimate. From figures given by the hon. Member who has just sat down, it appears that there are something like fifty-five Members of this House in the Government. It is a danger to the House and to the country to have too many Members in receipt of official salaries. I speak as one who hears what the working men say in connection with the Government, and who knows fully what their views are. We have had the War Savings Committee appealing to the country to save and invest money. We have had the Government appealing to the country to save and invest money. Speakers have been going through the towns and villages of the United Kingdom, urging the people to save money and lend it to the Government. What will the people say at these meetings when they are pressed to put their savings into the War Loan? They will say that the Government ought to set a better example than they are doing, and that they ought to economise in the working of Parliament. They will point out that for twelve months the Government have been taking men from their businesses, that in many instances those businesses have been ruined, that men making £5,000 a year have been compelled to give up their business and position to go into the Army. The Government ought to recognise, when the working men and business men of the country are called upon to make sacrifices such as I have described, that Members of this House ought to be prepared to make sacrifices as well.
  I should like to say a word in regard to the position of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Speaking not as a business man, but from the point of view of an outsider, it does reflect on the business capacity of men in this House. I should like to put this question to the Leader of the House or his representative: There are rumours about that the reason why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not in the House is that he is an American
  510
  citizen. I should like the right hon. Gentleman either to confirm or to dispel that rumour. It is a matter that would have some effect in regard to people investing in the War Loan. It takes very little to-prevent ordinary men putting their money into the War Loan. These are questions which have been put to me at meetings I have addressed, and after a meeting has been held men have spoken to me privately, and have protested against the extravagant expenditure that is going on, not only in connection with the Army and Navy, but in all the Government Departments. They say that with a smaller Cabinet the subordinate Members of the Government should receive less salaries than they are getting. I am very glad to have an opportunity of saying a word against this extravagant expenditure in connection with the Government of the country. I am only expressing my own view, not the views of the party with which I am connected, and I am not speaking on their behalf. It is high time that an end was put to "chloroforming" of Members of Parliament.
  Mr. LOUGH: A remark was dropped by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), to which I should like to revert if the matter is not settled by the statement of the Leader of the House. It has been said that the House of Commons is entitled to a full explanation of the proposal to pay these salaries, but that this is not a convenient opportunity to give the explanation. Personally, I should think that this is a very good opportunity.
  Mr. HOGGE: So do I.
  Mr. LOUGH: Before we part with the money we ought to hear what the Government have to say. I would appeal to hon. Members on the understanding we have entered into with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, so far as I can make out, was ratified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman), that we ought not to press the matter on this occasion. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here. I understood him to say that at an early date convenient to my right hon. Friend and other Members of the Opposition, this matter would be fully gone into.
  Mr. HOGGE: Do it now.
  Mr. LOUGH: I understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin) agrees that that is so. On that understanding, and that

  511
  alone, I would join with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in not pressing for an explanation to-night.
  Mr. HOGGE: Join the Coalition!
  Mr. LOUGH: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with the matter, said that this would be a question of a vote of censure. Not at all! In a perfectly friendly way the Committee might get all that we suggest it is entitled to—namely, a full explanation of this new expenditure. I appeal to my hon. Friend and others not to press the matter any further to-night. I should like to state the interest I personally take in this question. I have long thought that the greatest danger to which this House is exposed was the growth in the size of the Cabinet. A year before the War I, with some of my Friends, took part in getting together a Committee on Procedure, before which I and other Members put our views with regard to the danger involved to the House of Commons in the growth in size of the Government. Let me in a sentence show how rapidly this has taken place. In 1880 there were only eleven members of the Cabinet. All great constitutional Ministers up to that time held that the Cabinet should not exceed that number. I might quote Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, and other great authorities. In 1886 the number became sixteen, and it was afterwards increased to twenty-four. No one said it was too small a Government. I received the statement as to the new Cabinet with joy, and said that the principles for which I had been struggling were going to be carried into effect. But although we have a small Cabinet of only five, I think the House ought to notice in connection with this Vote that this small Cabinet is more or less of a deception—I moan from the constitutional point of view. There are more Ministers than ever. I make out that there are thirty-four Ministers in the position of the old Cabinet Minister. We have heard to-night that there are no fewer than eighty-one Ministers altogether, and fifty-five in this House. But the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministers have not been mentioned. That doubles the number. We have fifty-five Ministers, and probably fifty Parliamentary Secretaries. I think every one of them is entitled to appoint a secretary, and probably he has one. If the House wants to know the significance of this, let them look at the present Government.
  512
  There are over a score of members of the present Government who ascended to their high position by being Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister. It is the first step, practically, to membership of the Government, and the independence of a Member of Parliament is gone the moment he becomes a Minister and takes his salary, or, worse still, becomes Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister. My hon. Friends shake their heads, but that is because they are in the swim. [Interruption.] I was never a Parliamentary Secretary. There is nothing offensive in it. A great many Members are very proud of the position.
  I only call attention to it from one point of view. It means that if there are fifty-five, and, say, about fifty secretaries, there are a hundred pledged and bound men constantly in the House of Commons. How can they be independent? The only way we can raise this question is when the number of Ministers is being increased. Here we have two new appointments tonight, objectionable for all these reasons which have been stated, and to-morrow we shall have a new Secretary appointed. The House of Commons ought to look with grave suspicion upon this growth in this body of men. It is a serious danger to the Members of the House of Commons. This House no longer retains the control over administration or legislation in this country which it had, and if you ask what is the reason why this control has been weakened and shaken more than anything else, it is the growth in the size of the Administration. You have eighty-one men. They have deprived the House of Commons of control over finance. They dip their hands as they please into the public Treasury—not for any personal purpose, but they spend what they please. They make what appointments they like. Look at the way they have put down this Vote—that in future it is to be taken out of the Vote of Credit. Why out of the Vote of Credit? Because the House of Commons will not be able to control it. The liberties of this House are in serious danger, and I am only speaking what everyone throughout our constituencies thinks at present. I am speaking for my own Constituency, and I am sure every Member who heirs me will say the same of his. There they think we have control of everything. As a matter of fact when we come here we find we have control of nothing. They take what money they please; they appoint what Ministers they

  513
  like; and look at the claim we had made this afternoon, that the law about the shooting of pheasants, which it is admitted it will be contrary to Statute law to alter, may be altered at the bidding of one of these new Ministers. Every day there is a fresh encroachment on the rights of the House of Commons. It seems to me this continual growth in the size of the Administration is a perpetual threat to the House of Commons and the constitutional rights of the people whom we represent here.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am simply rising to make an appeal to the House to come to a decision. It is quite obvious that we shall not come to an agreement.
  Mr. LOUGH: Is it quite understood that the explanation which was promised in reply to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman)—you promised that at an early date convenient to yourself and to him you would give a constitutional explanation or defence of the Cabinet, perhaps with the Prime Minister present.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I said I would be guided in that matter by the wishes of the House, and, to a considerable extent, by the wishes of that bench. It is obvious that the question, if it is gone into adequately, raises the whole position of the Government. If the House wishes I and other members of the Government will be perfectly ready to have a discussion. I do not regard it as a vote of censure. It is quite right to have the whole subject discussed whenever there is a general desire and at a suitable time. We have a great deal of business to do to-night, and I hope we may come to a decision. My right hon. Friend, whose eloquence carried him away, and me, too, somewhat astonished me in regard to one sentence. He said all these Gentlemen who are connected with the Ministry have sold their independence.
  Mr. LOUGH: In a House of Commons sense.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has had some experience of being a member of a Government, but if that is equally true of Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers, they do not attach much value to their independence, for they have sold it for a very small price indeed. I hope the House will now give us the Vote.
  Sir W. ESSEX: Under this pooling arrangement, how is the Income Tax assessed? Supposing, for instance, £5,000 posts are allocated, we will say, to the righ hon. Baronet (Sir A. Mond) in one case and to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson) in the other, there comes in a different ratio of Income Tax, with its disturbing calculation as against one Member's wealth and the other's relative poverty?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a very interesting question, but it seems to me that it should be put at Question Time to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his representative. It does not appear to me to rise specifically on the present Vote.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Ought it not to be put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is not a Member of the House?
  Mr. DILLON: Surely the House of Commons is entitled to ask before it votes large sums of money where the money is going? That is the question the hon. Member was asking.
  The CHAIRMAN: If that is the case, I did not quite apprehend the question. So far that question has been asked several times, and no objection has been taken.
  Sir W. ESSEX: I am sorry my 'prentice hand has rather muddled the House. I was endeavouring to make clear that the House is entitled, as I think, to ask this question as to the "whereness" of this money. I want to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer constantly keeps his eye on this Income Tax question as affecting these sums which are now put down as a gross sum. I want further to enter my protest against the snobbish practice which has grown up lately of rich men coming into the Cabinet, whose presence we all gladly welcome, advertising broadly and boldly that they are taking their duty without a salary. It is a reflection upon the poor men of the Government, who are not in many cases the least worthy. I hope the Prime Minister or his courteous representative, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will once and for all repudiate that. I should like the House to go further, and insist that a man who takes the duty must accept it as inseparable from his salary. If he likes to give it to a church or hospital afterwards, that is another matter; but in these democratic days it is hardly less than a piece of snobbery, because he can only do it by being

  515
  a rich man, to profess his scornful refusal of the salary attaching to his office. It is wellnigh an impertinence.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The point about Income Tax is a new one to me, and I think it is quite right that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should have notice of it. It does not divert some revenue which the State would otherwise get. I shall look into it. I hope nothing I have to say will prolong the Debate, but I do not think what my hon. Friend has just said is quite fair. I take the view myself that when I am doing work of this kind, on the whole, the State should pay a salary; but, on the other hand, I can assure him that lie is wrong in thinking that all those who have refused salaries are rich men. It so happens that some have thought that at a time like this they ought to hand back their salaries to the State. They may have taken a wrong view, but I cannot see that we have any right to take exception to a man giving money back to the State instead of giving it to a church. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is on the Votes!"] I am not sure about that, but it comes to the same thing. Ministers who do not take their salaries have intimated to us that they prefer to give the money to the State. My hon. Friend may be right in saying it is a bad precedent, but I am sure he is wrong in saying that those who have done it are rich men. I know some who are not rich men, and are not doing it from any feeling of snobbery.
  Mr. DILLON: In that event they ought not to get their names read out in the House.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That was done really without consulting them. I thought it was only right that it should be done.
  Sir C. HENRY: Will their salaries be in the forthcoming Estimate?
  7.0.P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Last summer a special Vote was put down for the Lord President of the Council (Lord Curzon), and it then turned out that he was not going to take his salary, and, consequently, the Vote was never put to the House. Are we to understand that in the case of the other Ministers who are not now taking their salaries that procedure is to be followed, namely, that the Vote is simply to drop out and consequently that this House will not have the constitutional opportunity, which is usually available, of expressing
  516
  its opinion upon the administration of the office? It is a very considerable constitutional point. I do not object to any Minister who thinks it right to refuse his salary, but I certainly object, and I believe nearly every man in the House objects, to the advertisement of it. I believe most of the men who have done this are rich men. Lord Curzon we know is rich. He has done a great deal of work. There is not much credit in a man in his position refusing £2,000 a year. There are other men in the same position, but this is a Vote which is absolutely unnecessary. It would have been rendered unnecessary if this Government had taken the course pursued by its predecessors of using the sinecure offices at present in existence for the purpose of these members of the War Cabinet. Had they done that this money would not have been required. It is simply because they have multiplied offices in older to provide for men for whom there was special reason for making provision. That is the only reason. It is not for the effective prosecution of the War. Everybody knows that there was no need to have a separate Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It has not been defended to-day. We have not had a word from the Treasury Bench on that matter. I say, in view of that, it is asking far too much of the House of Commons to vote these sums for these two men, and if anybody else will divide against it I will certainly go into the Lobby with them.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Perhaps I might make an appeal to the Solicitor-General. I asked him a specific question, but he has not replied to it. I will not ask him to reply to it now, but I will ask him and the Attorney-General to consider what is the constitutional position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson). He is the recipient of money from the Crown under a vote of the House of Commons, but he is not the occupant of a place under the Crown. I need not say that I am not raising this question through any unkindly feeling towards the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the greatest personal regard, but I think his position is clearly distinguished and that he does not come under the Provision of Places Act. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider that question.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): Certainly.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  BOABD OF TRADE.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £41,709, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
  Sir C. HENRY: I would like to ask my hon. Friend for some explanation of this amount. I would especially ask when the obligation was entered into and the date from which interest to the corporation first became payable.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): I will certainly respond to the Appeal that has been made by my hon. Friend and will endeavour to give him the information which he desires. This is the amount of the subsidy paid in November last to the British Italian Corporation, Limited, under an agreement dated 8th June, 1916, the object of which is to promote closer commercial and financial relations between Great Britain and Italy. The maximum amount of the subsidy payable for a period of ten years under clause 1 of the agreement is 5 per cent, on a paid-up capital of £1,000,000. That is £50,000. The sum of £41,709 represents 5 per cent. on the capital certified to have been paid up on 30th November, 1916, namely, £834,180. Having regard to the fact that this question was discussed at some length in the latter part of the Session, I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied.
  Sir C. HENRY: According to what my hon. Friend has said, it is a prepayment of interest. The payment is not made when the year is completed.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I am thankful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us this financial information, but as it is now some two or three months since the last debate upon this subject I think before we pass this Vote he ought to tell us something of what this corporation has done. We are asked to pay this additional sum of money, which is 5 per cent, up to November, 1916, but we are not given one word of explanation as to what this corporation has been
  518
  doing since the last discussion. I would therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to amplify his statement, and to tell us what this corporation has been doing in the meantime.
  Major NEWMAN: This corporation is apparently only half of the project. The British Italian Corporation, Limited, with a capital of one million pounds, was registered on the 20th July with nine directors, of whom six were to be British and three Italian. I should like to know, in the first place, if the sixth British director has been appointed. Originally only five were appointed. Has the sixth been appointed subsequently? There was in addition a subsidiary company to be formed, under the title of the Compagnia Italo Britannica with a capital of 10,000,000 lire (£400,000), one half of which was to be taken by the British-Italian Corporation, Limited, and the other half by the Credito Italiano and their friends. On this subsidiary company there were to be nine directors, six of whom were to be Italian and three British. The two companies were to work together in close collaboration, and arrangements had been made in which their interests, as far as possible, would be indentified, except that the subsidy of the British Government would naturally remain for the benefit of the British company exclusively. We know that the Italian corporation has been formed and has got to work, and the taxpayer of this country has been calied upon to make his first additional contribution of £41,709, but I would like to know something about the other sister company. I take it that these two banks are to foster trade between the two countries. It is an admirable idea, but it is an innovation in our habits of banking in this country, though one which I know the House approved of when the matter was brought forward, and we do not know how far the thing has gone, and what work the Italian Corporation has been able to do in the short time it has been formed. We do not know if this sister company has been formed yet, or whether it has got to work. I should be very pleased if the hon. Member could give us a little more light on that point.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I am afraid that I am unable to give the information sought for. As a matter of fact, this company was only formed recently, and the agreement was entered into in June last year. Therefore, the amount which now appears

  519
  on the Supplementary Estimate practically represents the first year's subsidy, which is guaranteed in this agreement. The subsidy is for ten years, and the intention is to place next year's subsidy on the Estimates, thus affording the Committee a full opportunity of discussing the whole matter. We are hopeful of then being in a position to give some information to the House, thereby allowing the Committee properly to discuss the whole matter, but at present I think it will be seen that the operations of the company have been of such short duration that there is little or nothing to report at this stage. When the matter does appear on the Estimates in the forthcoming year we are hopeful that we shall be able to place some information before the House which will allow us to discuss the matter adequately. With regard to the appointment of the sixth director, I confess that I am not in possession of that information, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will address a question to me in the ordinary way I will endeavour to ascertain for him. With regard to the Italian company, I understand that, like its British counterpart, it is in course of formation, and that it is getting into operation. We hope to have a report to submit to the House with regard to it as well as with regard to the British company.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I do not think the hon. Member has given the House all the information to which it is entitled. This is the first occasion on which we have been called upon to pay this sum, and we might have been told, for instance, how far they have succeeded in getting the whole of the capital they propose to get. I understand it is proposed to get £1,000,000. You have not got £1,000,000.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I thought I announced that the £41,907 represents 5 per cent, on the capital paid up, which amounts to £834,180.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: Does the hon. Member mean that £1,000,000 of capital has been subscribed, but that only £834,000 has been paid up? If they have got their capital, that is a fact satisfactory to us, but if they have attempted to get £1,000,000 and have only got £834,000 that is an indication that the thing wants carrying further than at present. We ought to know how far the business has pro-
  520
  gressed, whether they have opened any branch in Italy, and what the arrangements are here. The House is entitled to further information. It does not like to press Ministers who are only just taking these things up, but it is right that it should see that these things are properly prepared when such large demands are made upon us, especially in a case like this, where a grant is first made. Of course, we know that it will be done next year and every year for the next ten years, and each-year we shall require a review of it. It is a new experiment which will have to be watched extremely jealously. I do not in the slightest oppose it; in fact, from what I have heard it is a very satisfactory arrangement. I am speaking of it as an arrangement between the two countries, without entering into the question whether it is a good thing for the Government of this country to start in the banking business. I know that the effect produced in Northern Italy has been good, but I think the House ought to have more information before it is asked to vote this first instalment.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I was very disappointed with the answer of the hon. Gentleman. He comes down and asks the House to Vote £41,000 for a certain Anglo-Italian company, and he gives one or two brief financial details, but when I get up and ask him what the company has done he gives us no information. This has not happened on one Vote alone. It has happened on every single Vote this afternoon. It happened on the first Vote. There was no information given and no attempt to give information. There was a long discussion, but there was no information: given regarding the pooling of Ministers' salaries. It is the same on this third Vote. It is perfectly true that Ministers have-only lately taken up their posts, but it is not treating the House of Commons and the individual Members of the House of Commons in a way they are entitled to be treated, and I object to being asked to vote these sums of money without any information being given on the part of Ministers. A Member, coming down to the House of Commons, is supposed to sit here and vote for anything which the Government put forward, and he has to do it because he wants to do whatever the Government in power desires, and absolutely no information is given to him.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My recollection is that the original Vote, authorising the

  521
  Government to pay an annual subsidy of 5 per cent, upon the capital for ten years, was passed last December as a War obligation. That is only two months ago. I understood from the hon. Gentleman that the company was started last June, which is about seven and a half months ago, and about £800,000 was called up. Five per cent, on that would be about the sum which we are asked to vote now—that is, the amount for a year—but the company has not been in existence for a year, for the Bill was only voted about two months ago. It seems to me that when we are asked to vote money for this purpose we should vote for only 5 per cent, upon the capital for the months during which the company has been in existence.
  Sir C. HENRY: I think that the right hon. Baronet is correct. As I understand from my hon. Friend, the capital was only paid up in November. Is it part of the agreement with the Italian Bank that the interest is to be paid in advance, as seems to be done by this Supplementary Estimate? I would ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) to enlighten the Committee on this, because I think that he was in charge of the Department when it opened the negotiations?
  Mr. PRINGLE: The late President of the Board of Trade would know all about this. When we had the War obligations before us I made the utmost endeavour to elicit information both from the Home Secretary and the hon. Gentleman who now represents the Board of Trade. But on that occasion they pleaded that they were new to their job, and scarcely knew the inside of their offices, that this was done by their predecessors, and that I should apply to them. Here is an occasion on which a Vote has to be taken in pursuance of the obligations which were then sanctioned. We are told that there is an additional sum required. As to how this sum has accrued and in respect of what obligations it is payable, no light is thrown except that it is a war obligation that is to run for the next ten years. We are told that the agreement is dated the 8th of June, 1915. Obviously, if that is so, the capital could not have been subscribed at that date. Apparently the large part of the capital was not subscribed until November last. I do not know how the sum of £41,000 has accrued
  522
  as interest on capital which was only subscribed in November last, or for how long a period we are providing in this supplemental Estimate. I have some difficulty in calculating while on my feet, but it seems to me a large sum for a short period up to the 31st March. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the sum subscribed is £800,000, and consequently the amount mentioned here is the amount payable. He cannot tell us anything about the operations of this corporation. Has it actually gone into business? Has it done anything to encourage trade between this country and Italy? I do not know whether anything has been done or not. Has this interest to be paid irrespective of whether the corporation has done anything or not? On all these points there is complete silence. Here we are left in the same position as in the first Estimate. Nobody seems to know anything, and there seems to be nobody in the House who can prompt Members. The Solicitor-General has made a speech of considerable length, but he merely stated a number of generalities with his usual facility and lucidity. What we want in this case is detail. Apparently the new Government has a soul above detail. Possibly the result of having a War Cabinet is to impress upon subordinates of the Government that they can treat detail as a matter of absolutely no consequence. I hope that the Committee of this House, in the course of these Supplementary Estimates and of the main Estimates of this Session, will show that they do not share that view.
  Major NEWMAN: I find in the OFFICIAL REPOHT of the 31st of July that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, answering a question put, I think, by an hon. Member for a Liverpool Division, said that a British company, under the title of the British-Italian Corporation, Limited, with a capital of £1,000,000, was registered on the 20th of July, and "there will be no public issue, the capital having been subscribed privately, chiefly among bankers." In that event the interest on that amount would run from that time. I do not know how the figures, £3,060 and £41,000, are brought in, but I would suggest to the hon. Member for Norwich that perhaps, we have got here the directors' fees included. I do not suppose that they are working for nothing. Has the bank made any profit in the interval? I would like to know exactly what capital has been subscribed and when it was subscribed. We have had a

  523
  date in November mentioned several times already, but here we have it that the capital was subscribed in July.
  Mr. HOGGE: On page 5 of this Estimate I see that the original Estimate for this purpose is represented by a short dash. The revised Estimate is also represented by a short dash of equal length with the original, and the additional sum required is given as £41,000. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that, so as to help to clear up the financial muddle into which we are getting to-day? To ask for an additional sum of £41,000 and not to show the revised Estimate or the original Estimate and to ask us to believe that is about as much as asking us to believe that this Cabinet is as indispensable as the last. I hope that somebody will tell us what this British-Italian Corporation has done. I understand that, when the War broke out, large financial and industrial interests, particularly in the north of Italy, were in the hands of Germans, and one reason why Italy did not come sooner into the War was that the Germans had so great a grip upon the industrial North. This corporation, with a fairly respectable capital, upon which the British Parliament representing British taxpayers have to grant certain interest, has been set up and given certain privileges. What has it done? Has it got hold of the trade in Italy, that was being promoted by the Germans, for instance? Have any Italian firms, through Italian and British banks, been put into contact with British firms, and have any prospective and potential business alliances been created between any Italian business firm and any British business firm? We are entitled to know that, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Blackpool insists on that.
  Surely, when a company presents a balance-sheet, it tells what it has done with its money! This balance-sheet does not tell us how much money was there originally or when it was revised. It only tells us that we have got to make up the difference by collecting it from British taxpayers. The hon. Member in charge of this particular Estimate is a Labour Member. I think I remember the hon. Gentleman when below the Gangway, in the good old days, delivering speeches with the same voice as that with which he now answers questions as to the exploitation of the capital of the people by capitalists. He is now in charge of a capitalist undertaking, and can give us no
  524
  explanation. I begin to wonder how far you can trust the financial purity of even Labour Members when you put them on that Front Bench. I really think that it is due to the Labour party, which he represents in the Government, that he should clear his character with regard to this particular corporation, and tell us what this-corporation has done for the money which we have provided.
  Mr. ASHLEY: We must recognise that the Government do not understand this. Estimate, and that there is not much use in the Committee going on; but I give warning that it will be raised again on the Report stage, when I hope that additional information will be given to the House.
  Mr. FIELD: This seems to be a most extraordinary document, because under the original Estimate there is no figure, and under the revised Estimate there is no-figure, and under "additional sum required" we have £41,700. Then we have the total original Estimate as £401,720. If this kind of a document was presented by a business man, say in a bankrupt concern, or anything of that kind, I think that the Judge would be likely to put that man into a lunatic asylum. I have been here a good many years, and I have never seen a Supplementary Estimate of that character before, and I think that we ought never have one again. We are asked to vote without any information. It is just carrying out the behests of the Government. Things are brought forward and we must vote, like a lot of children in a school. I believe that there is a branch of the Board of Trade in Ireland controlled from England. I do not know how it is done in Parliament so far as my inquiries have gone. I became a Member of this House twenty-five years ago, and apparently the Board of Trade gives no more information now than before, and affords no statistics or particulars. I do hope that such an Estimate as this will not be presented to the House again, and that the House will resent such a ridiculous document being brought before it asking us to vote £401,000 without any information whatever.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I can assure the House that I am willing to give it any information I possess, and if I do not give it, the reason is that I do not possess it. Nevertheless, I will endeavour to make clear what the purpose is. It apparently is thought that this sum is a pay-

  525
  ment of interest, covering a certain period, whereas, what the agreement contemplates, is the payment of 5 per cent, by a given date, not as interest, but as a subsidy in the form of interest, for a given period. I am not responsible for the terms of the agreement which was entered into, as I have stated, in the middle of last year. The subject was really fully discussed towards the end of December. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] It was fully discussed towards the end of December, and I certainly did not contemplate that the matter would require a great deal of discussion now. I think the subject will be understood if we disabuse our minds of the idea that this payment is regarded as interest for a particular period, and the terms of the agreement contemplate the payment of the subsidy on the principle of 5 per cent, on the capital paid up by the 30th November of this year. I think that will be accepted as an explanation to-night. That is the agreement which was entered into, and it is not a matter for discussion now. It was discussed by the House of Commons on the War Obligations Bill in November last, and by the adoption of the Bill, the terms of the agreement were accepted by the House. The further question is, whether I am able to give some information respecting the operation of the British-Italian Company, or of the Italian company. I confess that in the present state of the operations of those companies I am not in a position to do so. I have stated that it is the intention to place this matter on the Estimate year by year, thereby affording the Minister in charge an opportunity of making the statement as to the operations of the companies in the event of the Committee demanding such an explanation. I hope I have succeeded in making the point clear. I think the confusion has evidently arisen from this payment having been regarded as interest and not as a subsidy.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman, who says that there is a difference between a subsidy and the annual payment of interest. It does not matter whether you make the annual payment of interest as interest, or as a subsidy; it is 5 per cent., and there is really no difference between the two. What I want to know is whether this sum covers the period of the whole year and when that year expires. If the year does not expire until after the 31st March, how can you
  526
  vote the money that is to be paid after the 31st March, and when does it terminate? Surely the company only began operations three or four months ago, and having only raised this capital three or four months ago, they cannot expect to get a subsidy of £40,000 in that period. The subsidy is to be calculated per annum and is only to be 5 per cent. I am afraid the explanation is by no manner of means clear. With regard to the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the matter was fully discussed in December, I am afraid that I must differ from him. The matter was intended to be fully discussed when it was brought forward by the late Government, and I myself intended to raise the question, because I felt it was a mistaken policy and ought not to be done. It was my intention to raise the question when the late Government brought the matter forward, but I forget now what happened; at any rate, it did not come before the House, and when it did come before us there was a new Government and naturally one did not wish to embarrass it; one was quite aware that the new Government could not be attacked for the mistakes of the late Government. But surely whoever has now charge of these matters ought to have found out for himself during the last two or three months what the charge was for, and to what we had committed ourselves. It seems to me nobody knows. All they have done is to adopt the policy of the late Government without ever affording any explanation to the House. As to what period this sum covers, whether the money has been found and at what period, and, if so, when that period expired.
  Sir C. HENRY: I have always maintained that the mistake that the late Government made was to put this transaction in the War Obligations Bill. I thought it was a transaction which ought to be put in a separate Bill, which would have contained the terms of the agreement, and so would have been disclosed to the House. Members would then have been afforded an opportunity of investigating the terms, and if this information had been brought to their knowledge discussion at the present time would not have occurred. But even to-day we do not know the terms of the agreement which was entered upon, and we have never had a proper explanation of them given to us. I was always under the impression that £50,000 was guaranteed to the subscribers of a £1,000,000 here in

  527
  London as interest on the capital. Now we are told that it is a subsidy, and I hope my hon. Friend later will be in a position to give us an explanation of all the facts.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I could scarcely follow the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. Are we to understand that this sum of money is to secure 5 per cent, on the capital of this corporation irrespective of any return of profit they may make themselves, or is this House to vote 5 per cent, on the capital of the company without regard to any percentage of profit they are making? Is this subsidy to secure to this corporation 5 per cent, on the capital irrespective of their activities, and irrespective of whether they are making 20 to 30 per cent, profit? Are we still, in such circumstances, to go on paying this subsidy of 5 per cent.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It seems to me that the situation is not yet clear. The hon. Gentleman has told us that is a payment ment for a certain period, but he has not told us when the date arrives. I think he ought to have given us that information, and how long a period this payment covers. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that a discussion took place on this subject on the War Obligations Bill, and we were told then that we would have an opportunity for further discussion of this matter when the Estimates came on, that in each year in which the guarantee was payable a sum would be voted on the Estimates, and the House of Commons would have an opportunity of investigating the operations of the company and ascertaining whether it was fulfilling the expectations of its promoters. We have endeavoured to ascertain what has been done, and we have received absolutely no information; we have not been told the date at which this sum accrued, nor why it is to be paid, or how long a period is covered.
  Colonel YATE: The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench is not responsible. Will he tell us who is responsible?
  Major NEWMAN: May I point out that in regard to this matter, as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the British Government agreed to contribute to the company by way of subsidy during
  528
  each year—that is ten years after incorporation—the annual sum of £50,000, the equivalent of 5 per cent. The company was registered, he told us, on the 20th July. I take it, therefore, that what we have to do is to pay 5 per cent, on the 20th July on whatever capital is called up by the company.
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): There appears to be a muddle where no muddle is necessary. As to the agreement made in the time of the late Government, I confess frankly that I have not read it. I have been engaged in my present work just fourteen days, and I have not been able to look into all these questions for which other Departments are responsible, but I hope to do so by and by. In this discussion we have got into confusion as to whether this sum is calculated as if it were interest. But it is really a subsidy payable once a year, and payable from 1916 for ten years. That is provided for in the agreement that was drawn up, by paying 5 per cent, on the capital paid up on the 30th November, with a maximum amount of a million. It is calculated on the capital stated for last November, and you get the figure in the Estimate, and that figure is for the year 1916, not for any financial year as we understand it in this Committee. Therefore, a sum calculated in the manner which I have described will appear in the Estimates for the next nine years. There is nothing really in the point made by my hon. Friends in regard to the original or the revised Estimate.
  Mr. PRINGLE: There ought to be a figure in the revised Estimate.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would be quite willing to accept the far greater experience and judgment of my hon. Friend on a matter of that kind. The Committee is probably aware that the terms of the agreement are covered by the War Obligations Act, which provides that this money shall be paid out of moneys voted by Parliament, or, if those moneys be insufficient, shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund. It was thought right to present the Estimate this year, and it is proposed that that Estimate shall be provided in future years. It is only fair to remember that if the Estimate were not passed the obligation would have to be honoured because there is power to honour it by making payment out of the Consolidated

  529
  Fund under the Act. I feel very strongly it is desirable we should know the details and contents of the deed that was drawn up in connection with this company. All I can say upon this is, that I hope the Committee will see that until the end of the War period, which we all trust will not now be long deferred, it is not desirable to publish details, because it is not this country alone that is involved, but we have as partners in this business, our Allies. As soon as this necessity for a period of secrecy has passed, the Government will be only too pleased to make public the terms of the agreement, and the House will have a full opportunity of discussing them. I hope the Committee will feel I have done the best I could under the circumstances to describe the position, and that the Committee will be content to allow the Vote to pass.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his explanation. I understood him to say the payment has nothing to do with the financial year, but that it is voted for 1916. The company was started, I believe, on the 30th November.
  Mr. BALDWIN: What I said was that the sum that is payable is a subsidy calculated as interest on the capital as it stood on the 30th November last year.
  Sir F. BANBURY: When was the company started?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I cannot say.
  An HON MEMBER: In July.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the company was founded in July, 1916, and if we are to take each year standing by itself, and are to give them a subsidy of either £50,000 or 5 per cent, calculated on the amount of money called up, if that is smaller, and if the amount called up is £800,000, the subsidy due being therefore £40,000 odd, and if they are to have the same subsidy in 1917 the position is this: That for the six months we are asked to give them double what they are entitled to, whereas they only ought to receive a subsidy of 2½ per cent., seeing that they have only been in existence six months.
  Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend is assuming that they are having interest whereas they are having a subsidy which has been calculated in the manner I have described. If the arrangement had been that the company were to have 5 per cent.
  530
  a year my hon. Friend's point would hold perfectly good, but it is not quite in that position. It is a subsidy, the amount of which is to be 5 per cent, on the capital got.
  Sir F. BANBURY: But, surely, it was to be an annual subsidy, and in that case you cannot make it a bi-annual subsidy. You cannot say the company shall have an annual subsidy of £50,000, and then interpret that by saying it shall be payable for six months. Suppose you engage a new secretary for the Food Control Department, at a salary of £2,500 a year, and supposing he was engaged last July. The six months will have elapsed, but you will not pay him £2,500 for that six months. You will only give him £1,250. I submit that the same principle applies to everything, and I am certain no one would like to pay as much for six months' working as for a whole year's working. No doubt the company would be very glad to receive it, and if we pass this Vote we shall be giving the company double what, I maintain, they are entitled to.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: If I understand the explanation of the hon. Member for Bewdley correctly, my right hon. Friend is not quite correct in his assumption. There are ten subsidies to be given to this company. This is one of them, and we thus get quit of one-tenth of our obligation. We are paying them 5 per cent, on the capital, as it stood in November, and there will be no further sum due to them until another November comes round, when we shall have to give them 5 per cent, on account of £1,000,000, if they have got it, or on so much as they have got. We are not paying them in advance, and we are only getting rid of our liability for one year. It depends on the details of the agreement, I imagine, whether we are to wait till the year has finished before payment is made. But, seeing that the payment is to be calculated on the capital as it stood in November, I think the money might reasonably be voted now.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  BOARD OF CONTROL, ENGLAND.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,800, 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, 1917, for

  531
  the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England."
  Mr. HOGGE: There are one or two items on this Vote as to which I desire to ask information. If my hon. Friend will look at paragraph (l), at the bottom of the page, he will find a reference to new buildings and alterations. It is stated that building has been accelerated in order to provide accommodation for soldier patients. I presume the Home Secretary is in charge of this Vote, and I wish to ask him, in view of the fact that there has been a great deal of concern with regard to where soldiers subject to a particular form of disease are to be placed— and I take it that these are hostels for soldiers who have lost their reason through causes due to the War—I should like to ask the number of these men and the treatment which it is proposed to apply to them? Also if they are cases which can in any way be cured or whether the buildings are meant for men deemed to be beyond cure?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The item referred to by my hon. Friend is a sum of £1,300, an excess estimate for the provision of new buildings at Bath-side, an institution for men mentally defective. The War Office have been pressing for buildings in which to accommodate soldiers who are suffering in this way, and the work was consequently accelerated so that the buildings might be available at the earliest possible moment. There are a number of men who require special treatment in these institutions by doctors who are familiar with the complaint. Therefore, the Board of Control have endeavoured to accelerate the provision of buildings as much as possible.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are these men still soldiers or have they now become civilians?
  Sir G. CAVE: Of course they are soldiers, and remain so in most cases. But there are some who must be discharged from the Army.
  Mr. ASHLEY: If in many cases the inmates of these institutions are soldiers under the War Office, there ought to be some contribution from that Department to this Vote. Here we have, again, the same vicious principle; we are asked to
  532
  vote under the heading of the Board of Control money which is being used for soldiers under the War Office. That cannot be right.
  Sir G. CAVE: But this money is for buildings which will remain the property of the Board of Control.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Still, they are used by soldiers, and the money, therefore, should be found by the War Office. It may be it is only a case of bookkeeping, but I do submit that one Department of the State ought not to use buildings belonging to another Department without making some payment, and something of that kind ought to appear in this Vote.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: There is another point which demands explanation. The larger part of the additional sum required (£6,000) arises under head (C)—Contributions towards the Expenses of Local Authorities. In the footnote we are told that these contributions arise under Section 47 of the Act, and are given towards, expenses incurred by local authorities in carrying out obligatory duties imposed upon them by Parliament. I notice that these duties are very wide. I do not propose to go into the whole of these general powers, but in view of the very substantial increase in the total of the Estimate as originally framed, an increase representing one-fifth of the amount, I think we are entitled to some explanation as to the causes which have brought it about. Doubtless the matter has been largely in the hands of local authorities, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has not complete control, but I think under Section 47 of the Act he has certain powers of supervision and veto:
  "There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament such sums as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, recommend towards the expenses,"
  and so on. So you have here conditions to be laid down by the Secretary of State, and you have Treasury approval. I assume both of these conditions have been fulfilled in this instance, and, as they have been fulfilled, it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to give a short explanation of how this very large increase has occurred.
  Sir G. CAVE: I will give the explanation at once: It is simply this: When the Estimate was framed, some time ago, we had to act, of course, on the figures given to us

  533
  by the local authorities. Now, in many cases, they had not completed their schemes, because they were considering them. They had not arrived at a figure, or they had arrived at a figure which turned out to be wrong. That is the whole explanation of this sum of £6,000. I will just add this in answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley). He surely does not want us to charge the War Office sixty pounds or a hundred pounds for the use of this institution; and if he did want that, it would not be at all fair to do it, because, if the hon. Member will look at his Paper, so far from making a loss by lending this institution, we have made a very large profit. The amount realised by the sale of stock, etc., in that property is no less than £3,500. That is Appropriation-in-Aid, but that goes to reduce the total excess of £7,300. So that the only sum we have to ask the House to sanction is the balance.
  Question pat, and agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSION.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £l,300, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commissioners."
  Mr. BALDWIN: This is a very small Vote, but I rather gather from the feeling of the Committee to-day that they like to have small Votes explained as well as large ones, and I will see if I can give an explanation which is satisfactory to those who are listening to me. This Vote of the Public Works Loan Commission before the War was a token Vote, because the fees that used to be received for the work done in issuing these loans used to pay for the expenses of the office; but during the continuance of the War, not only has the issue of these loans been considerably lessened, but there has been a slowing down in the request for instalments on account of loans that have been previously granted. Under those circumstances, even the reduced amount that was expected to be received from fees was not reached, and we find that we have to make a supplementary provision this year to meet the expenses of the administration of this office. But I think that the Committee will feel less indisposed to meet this very modest Vote when I tell
  534
  them that out of a staff of about forty, fifteen members are on military service, that the solicitor and other members of the staff are giving either whole time or part time service in other Departments where help is badly needed, and that, although the Committee may think that with a reduced volume of fresh business it may be possible still further to cut down, the staff, I should like to remind them that there is a very large number of open accounts for loans that have already been granted, that annual repayments are made up to a considerable sum, and that in our opinion it would be impossible to reduce the staff to a less figure than that at which it stands to-day.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SECRET SERVICE.—Class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £120,000, 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, 1917, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  Mr. ASHLEY: I naturally do not ask for information as to how the Secret Service money is used, for the very simple reason that I should not get any reply, and quite rightly so. Whatever one might do in time of peace, it is obvious in time of war that Secret Service money must be secret from everybody except the heads of Departments who have to disburse the expenses of the Secret Service agents; but I do think it is a perfectly legitimate question to put to the Government as to what check is imposed upon the expenditure of this very large sum. We are not told, and quite rightly, as to how this money is being spent, but I think we are at least entitled to know that every check is put upon wasteful expenditure of this very large sum. It is obvious that it is an expenditure which lends itself to extravagance. An agent is sent abroad, or someone is being watched, or a hundred and one things, and the agent sends in his bill for expenses. What I would ask the Government is, what steps are being taken, now that this Secret Service is not confined to the Foreign Office, as in the past, but goes into the War Office, Admiralty, and other Departments, to see that the money is being properly spent? Will the accounts be brought before the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Will they

  535
  be passed by him? Will the Public Accounts Committee have any opportunity of investigating those accounts? In each of these big Departments is there an officer one of whose special duties is to check the expenditure, and see that it is properly disbursed? I ask that point of the Government because I do not think on the Vote of Credit last year we received any explanation.
  Mr. FIELD: I would like to support the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I think we are entitled to the information he has asked. I should like to emphasise that our Secret Service is not at all as efficient as it might be, and it might be stirred up a little.
  Mr. PRINGLE: There is another aspect of this question to which I should like to direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman. I have never taken any part in any discussion before on the Secret Service, but under present conditions I think there is the best right to believe there has been a considerable extension of the duties of the Secret Service. In the past the Secret Service, so far as war is concerned, has been totally devoted to our enemies abroad, in order to find out what can be found oat about them, and to counteract their efforts in this country, and, of course, everybody was anxious that the most ample funds should be at the disposal of our secret agents for these purposes. But now the scope of the Secret Service has been very much widened. We find there are spies spying upon people in this country, and it may be necessary to do so. At the same time I think it very desirable that this House should know to what extent money is being expended for that purpose. It is not only the spy but also the agent-provocateur. I know that an agent-provocateur has been on the Clyde, and I know that a strike occurred on the Clyde owing to the influence of two men who have disappeared, nobody knows where. These instances are occurring. We find that a week ago a new Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act appeared in the "Gazette," stating that a policeman would be entitled to be present at any private meeting. Are the costs of the policemen or detectives atttending those meetings to come out of the Secret Service Fund? I think we are entitled to some information on these points.
  The reason I ask is, that the original entry this year was £200,000. The amount
  536
  that was found in 1915–16 was £150,000. On the original Estimate there was an increase of £50,000, which made it £200,000. Then we had a Supplementary Estimate on 17th July, 1916, which brought it up to £500,000, and now we have a further revised Estimate bringing it up to £620,000, which more than trebles the original Estimate. Four times the amount actually spent last year is now being spent. Personally I have no objections to everything being done to counteract the machinations of the enemy. I think everybody will agree about that, but it is a very different question when you set your secret agents to spy upon your own people in this country. It may be that there are misguided men, and I believe there are misguided men in this country who have taken a perverse view of the War, who have held meetings to discuss the War from their point of view, and who have made foolish speeches. But why on earth should we spend Secret Service money on spying out these people and ascertaining the silly and absurd things they have said? After all, everybody knows that the actual influence which these people exert is negligible—absolutely negligible. I desire, in view of this large increase in the amount voted, to ascertain whether any proportion is being expended upon this absolutely new service of spying upon the people of this country.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question is, "That——
  Mr. HOGGE: Surely we are to have an answer?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would first of all answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool in regard to the accounts—a point which I think is quite a legitimate one. Excessive expenditure is guarded against by the responsible Minister signing a voucher for the amount, as was recommended some time ago by the Public Accounts Committee. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, it was a little beside the mark, which is somewhat unusual for him. This is the Secret Service Vote, and, as has been said in previous years by those who have stood before me in this place, it might have been taken from the Vote of Credit or brought up in some other way. Whichever Government has been in power, however, the policy, ever since the War began, has been to keep the matter before the eyes of the Committee by putting

  537
  down comparatively small Votes and asking for them at frequent intervals. Although the Committee, by the mere fact of voting money for secret service, abrogates any right to inquire what that service is, yet it is just as well that attention should be called to the fact whenever the Vote for this particular service is being sanctioned. For instance, in 1915–16, there was an original Estimate of £150,000, a Supplementary Estimate of £200,000, and a third Supplementary Estimate of £50,000, making a total for the year of £400,000. In the same way in the current financial year we have made three bites at the cherry, and the total is £620,000. It is inevitable as the War goes on that this figure should rise, as it has risen during the last twelve months. In respect of the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member, I am sorry I am unable to give him any more definite reply. I have, as he has doubtless, carefully read the previous Debates and the addresses of previous occupants of the position I now hold. They have always resolutely refused to give an answer at the time to any specific question as to whether or not a given purpose is paid for out of this Vote. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should note police action or service in his own constituency or anywhere else, and bring up the question in some form or other on the Home Office Vote.
  Mr. HOGGE: We cannot do that.
  Mr. ANDERSON: The question of the administration of the police, outside London at any rate, could not be discussed in this House because the administration of the local or provincial police is not in the hands of the Home Office at all. It is not responsible for the action of the police. There is only one point I wish to raise, and it is the same point raised by my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Lanarkshire. Whether or not it can be discussed now, it is a matter of very great importance, and takes in the whole conception that we have hitherto had of the civic freedom of this country. The question is as to whether there is at present going on a gradual extension of the powers of Government agents and Government spies in regard, not to grave matters of international policy, but in regard to home matters. There has been a constant anxiety in regard to recent troubles on the Clyde. One has felt as if in these troubles there were Government agents—that Govern-
  538
  ment agents were amongst those who made some of the most ridiculous speeches inside the meetings. If that were so it would become a very serious matter indeed. We have very strongly resented in every country the idea of the agent-provocateur being used to incite people to wrong ways. I am quite sure this is a matter which will be very greatly and very strongly resented and resisted so far as our own country is concerned. I do not know how much you have included in this Vote. I suppose one can get no-information. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Certainly I have no desire to-ask any questions which would be against public interest or public policy. Matters have come up and have been openly discussed, such as subsidies that are paid to demonstrations. I have never been quite sure where the money, such as the £3,000 that was paid in connection with the demonstration on the Embankment, conies from—out of which particular fund it comes. All that we are concerned about now is that there shall not be an undue extension of the powers of spying at home. I believe there is some danger of that. It is a matter which will have to be kept before the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S OFFICE, IRELAND.—Class 2.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £250, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc."
  Mr. FIELD: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill in what way is this sum of £250 used for the registration of business names?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Registrar-General of Ireland (Sir William Thompson) has undertaken to carry on the registry established under the Act of Parliament passed at the end of last year, and this is a provision for the additional expenditure before March 31st. A great deal of the work is being done by officers in the course of their duty, but there must be some necessary increase in the clerical work, especially at a time like this, and in conjunction with office arrangements

  539
  there will be some charges. The £250 is estimated partly for clerical work and partly for office expenses. In view of the existence of the new Department that will not be considered excessive.
  Mr. FIELD: I simply wanted the information. I was not criticising. I wanted to know whether the Registrar-General for Ireland was carrying out the Act of Parliament in relation to the registration of business names.
  Mr. DUKE: That is so.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  COUNTY COURTS.—Class III.
  Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £13,366, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts."

  POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALKS.—Class III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,191, 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, 1917, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant-Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, Repayments to the Metropolitan Police Fund, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and Expenses in connection with Special Constables and the Police Reserve."
  Mr. HOGGE: Surely we ought to have some little explanation of this Estimate. I believe there is an interesting incident connected with it, for, if I remember rightly, it concerns Tonypandy. I should think the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs will be able to tell us exactly about these sums of £273 and £918. If I remember rightly, there was a long conflict between the local authorities and the Government as to who should pay this money. I believe my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Office was not then in office and actually led the rioting on that occasion and urged them not to pay this money, and I think he ought to get up and defend his position now, sitting on the Front Bench, in favour of us paying this money to a small nationality such as
  540
  he so worthily represents. At any rate, I do not think we ought to allow this to pass without knowing whether Wales has won and the Government has again been left.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My hon. Friend is always interesting and sometimes exceedingly amusing, but on this occasion be is not quite correct in his facts. So far as I am personally concerned, I had nothing to do with the incident that has given rise to this Vote. Shortly, this Estimate is intended to provide for the repayment to the Metropolitan Police Fund of certain expenses which were incurred by the body of the Metropolitan Police which was engaged in Glamorganshire during that calamitous struggle at Tonypandy. The incidence of these expenses was the subject of a law action. The colliery companies who had housed and fed these men brought an action against the Standing Joint Committee of the county to endeavour to compel them to bear the expense, but the Court held that the Standing Joint Committee was not responsible on the ground that, as the Metropolitan Police Force were sent by the Home Secretary, not at the request of the county authority, the expenses incurred ought to be borne by the Exchequer. That is the short story.
  Mr. HOGGE: It was a long story.
  Mr. BRACE: It is a short story on this Vote, and it is because the Exchequer is responsible according to the finding of the Court that we have to come here with this Supplementary Estimate to ask for power to refund to the Metropolitan Police Fund. I do not know whether it is necessary to go further into the details, but I think I have explained sufficiently to the Committee the bearings which this demand has upon the Exchequer.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  LAW CHARGES AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND.—Class III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £344, 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, 1917, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."
  Mr. ASHLEY: I most strongly object to this Vote, and I will tell the Committee why. If the Committee will do me the honour of looking at the bottom of the Paper, they will see that the £344 is the
  "amount required to meet the sum recommended for disallowance by the Public Accounts Committee in their first Report, 1916,in respect of the maintenance of certain Crown witnesses, which it is not proposed to recover from the officers concerned. Of a total expenditure of £550 7s. 8d., £207 0s. 11d. has been authorised as properly payable, leaving £343 6s. 9d. to be made good."
  Here we have a matter of principle. Here is a charge which the Public Accounts Committee say ought not to be borne by the public and ought to be borne by certain individuals. Some unknown person in the Government recommends that only £344 of this amount should be made good by the public. What is the use of having the Public Accounts Committee at all if their recommendations are going to be overridden by some Government official—I presume it is a permanent official—in this way? We might just as well have no Comptroller and Auditor-General or no Public Accounts Committee at all. At present the Public Accounts Committee is of very little use, and it always reports on things that are dead and gone. This is a matter of principle. The Public Accounts Committee have recommended that certain charges should not be borne by the public, and here the Government comes and asks us to override the Committee. May I ask hon. Members to bear with me while I read the Report of the Public Accounts Committee for 1916, and I think, after they have heard it, they will agree that the Public Accounts Committee are perfectly correct, and that we should not in any circumstances agree to this Vote. In their first Report for 1916 the Public Accounts Committee, who, we all know, are extremely painstaking and do their best to get at the bottom of things under extremely difficult circumstances, say:
  "The Comptroller and Auditor-General drew attention to the following facts."
  That means to say that not only is the Public Accounts Committee overridden by this Vote, but the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is put there to see that there is no extravagance. The Report reads:
  "The Comptroller and Auditor-General drew attention to the fact that the Treasury had declined to give covering sanction for an expenditure of £550 7s. 8d. (being the cost incurred on behalf of five Crown witnesses in a certain trial) on account of the excessive scale of the payments made, having regard to the class
  542
  of persons to which the witnesses belonged, and that, therefore, he was unable to report that this sum was properly chargeable against the Vote."
  Here is what happened:
  "It appears that the charges were first incurred ill the month of July, 15, and lasted until December, but although the Irish Office was aware in August that this expenditure was being incurred, it was not until the beginning of November that a newly appointed Accounting Officer for the Vote drew the attention of the Attorney-General for Ireland to the extravagant rate of the allowances with a view to a reduction being effected."
  Now this is the most extraordinary part of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee:
  "The Attorney-General informed him that he had decided not to proceed with the case, so that the expenditure would shortly cease, but that in the meantime the present arrangements must continue, and this was accepted by the Accounting Officer without further action. In view, however, of the decision arrived at in 1889 on a somewhat similar case, that Treasury sanction should be sought for exceptional expenditure of this kind, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, when these charges were brought under his audit, requested the Accounting Officer to obtain the covering approval of the Treasury. This was then applied for, but refused on the grounds that the Treasury were dissatisfied with the excessive scales of payments and with the delay in bringing the matter to their notice. Your Committee, after taking evidence, are of opinion that the scale of payment was extravagantly high, and regret the delay in referring the matter to the Treasury. They, therefore, disallow any amounts beyond those authorised by the Treasury."
  The Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee recommended that a certain sum should not be paid by the public and that it should be borne by the individuals who sanctioned this high rate of payment. We are now voting Supplementary Estimates, and the Government come down and override those expressly put there to safeguard expenditure. There may be a very good explanation, and the Chief Secretary may be able to say that the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee think that this is the best course to take. I suggest, however, that the wisest thing to do is that we should have some explanation of this Vote.
  Mr. SCANLAN: It is a most serious thing for the representatives of Irish Government to support a Vote of this kind, and I think the House should divide upon it. It is objectionable upon all the grounds stated by the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley). It is a most serious thing to ask this Committee to pass a Vote sanctioning the payment out of public funds of a sum of money which the Public Accounts Committee deliberately after hearing evidence have surcharged against the officers responsible in Ireland. My hon. Friend is thoroughly justified not only in calling the attention of the Chief

  543
  Secretary to this matter but in pointing this out as a point of principle of the very first importance. This is a Vote for law charges and criminal prosecutions in Ireland, and in addition to the serious objections raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, I strongly object to this Vote on another ground—namely, the improper way in which criminal prosecutions are being conducted at; the present time in Ireland and to which this Vote applies. We have had in Ireland during the recent past recourse to a method of prosecutions which is most repugnant to the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member has noted but apparently has forgotten that this is a Supplementary Estimate and must be confined to the particular items in it and not to the general question of prosecutions in Ireland.
  Mr. SCANLAN: On the question of the detention of witnesses for prosecutions I think we are entitled to discuss the conduct of the prosecution and the methods of prosecuting.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On page 12 of this Report we see the reason given for asking for this sum set out in detail, and it is only in connection with that item that debate can arise.
  Mr. SCANLAN: It is still implying that the items making up the £550 comprise the cost of prosecution, and under that I submit that we are entitled to complain to the Committee of the way in which criminal prosecutions are being conducted in Ireland at the present time.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the general point, and the hon. Member must confine himself to the item with which the Supplementary Estimate is concerned.
  Mr. SCANLAN: There is a series of items making up this sum, and the first is £340. What is if? I merely ask in a rhetorical way, and I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, you will not blame me for calling your attention to this, in order to put my point. The Estimate says, "amount required to meet the sum recommended for disallowance by the Public Accounts Committee in their first Report, 1916, in respect of the maintenance of certain Crown witnesses, which it is not proposed to recover from the officers concerned."
  544
  This surely is in connection with prosecutions in Ireland.
  Mr. DUKE: On a question of Order. I wish to point out that the hon. Member for Blackpool stated what this matter is. This item is to meet the disallowance of certain expenses in one prosecution, on the ground that the scale sanctioned was an excessive scale, and there was no-Treasury sanction for that scale. Therefore it became irregular for the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Blackpool, and I submit that that alone is the question before the Committee.
  Mr. SCANLAN: On that point I accept the ruling of the Chair coupled with the explanation of the Chief Secretary, although in the terms in which this Supplementary Vote is asked for I think it is clear that the conduct of the prosecution by officers who took upon themselves to make charges which the Treasury disallow and which the Public Accounts Committee-condemn involves the consideration by this Committee of the conduct of the official responsible. It was in that respect that I meant to raise the much more serious question of the introduction of coercion into the prosecution in Ireland. However, I bow to the ruling of the Chair, and I submit in conclusion that it is most unreasonable to ask the Committee to pass a Vote for a sum even so small as this which has been disallowed after the fullest investigation and consideration by the Public Accounts Committee.
  Mr. FIELD: In paragraph 10 of the First Report of the Public Accounts-Committee, it says:—
  "The Committee, after taking evidence, are of opinion that the scale of payment is extravagantly high, and regret the delay in referring the matter to the Treasury. They, therefore, disallow any amounts but those authorised by the Treasury."
  I am not going to dispute the ruling of the Chair on the point raised by the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan), but I want to emphasise the point brought forward by the hon. Member for Blackpool. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is about to take up an extraordinary position. The Public Accounts Committee was appointed by the Government in order to safeguard this House from any undue extravagance in public payments. Here we are solemnly asked by the head of the Government in Ireland to do—what? To override and condemn the very Committee appointed by this House in order to safeguard public expenditure. If that position was taken up by any of my hon.

  545
  Friends who represent Ireland it would amount almost to disloyalty, but apparently it is a perfectly correct act because certain permanent officials in Ireland, and also certain removable officials in Ireland, take another view. I would urge the Chief Secretary not to give us a bad example in this respect. I am perfectly serious, because I have studied this question of the Public Accounts Committee, and so far as I can understand it the Public Accounts Committee is really the only body in this House that goes carefully into expenditure. Nevertheless, we are asked now by a responsible authority of the Government to disregard the findings of that Committee. This House has practically no control over financial matters, because the Government bring in their measures, and, having their majority behind them, we have got to pass those measures. The private Members have really no control over expenditure, and the result is that the only safeguard we have in this House in regard to the expenditure of money is the Public Accounts Committee. It is, therefore, strange that we are asked now to override that authority. It is a transaction that is unworthy of the occupants of the Front Bench, unless they have an explanation which has not been given.
  Mr. DUKE: My hon. Friend has distributed his censure in advance, upon the supposition that there can be no explanation of this transaction. I think I can give him a statement which will show that what has taken place was, under the circumstances that exist, inevitable. The Public Accounts Committee disallowed certain expenses of a particular prosecution on the ground that they had not been sanctioned by the Treasury, and that in the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee they were at an extravagant rate. The administration in Ireland accepted that view, and the Treasury accepted that view, and they thought that if it were practicable to recover these moneys, that should be done, and in that event this supplementary sum would not have been asked for. What had happened in the case in question was that upon the authority of the Attorney-General for Ireland at the time—it was at the end of 1014 and the beginning of 1915, so hon. Members will be able to recall who was the Attorney-General—who was the public officer ordinarily exercising authority, certain payments were made out of public moneys by subordinate persons
  546
  who had no discretion as to whether or not they should obey the order. They were payments which were held to be on an extravagant scale for the maintenance and so forth of a body of witnesses.
  Mr. DILLON: What was the case?
  Mr. DUKE: It was the trial of a case of the King v, Ryan and Another. The actual character of it I do not know, but it was a case where there was a body of witnesses, and expenses were incurred for a very considerable time, and on a scale against which the Treasury officials protested. When it came to the notice of the representative of the Treasury in Ireland, and the late Under-Secretary, Sir Matthew Nathan, the scale was thought to be inordinate. The Treasury disallowed the expenses, and thought they should be recovered from those who were responsible for the payment of them. The Treasury has found that the sum is irrecoverable. The Committee will not expect me to go into great details as to the circumstances. Here was a censure upon a dead man, who ceased by his death to be in the public service, and in the circumstances that exist the sum cannot be recovered, and the Treasury is satisfied that the sum cannot be recovered. What is to be done in that special case? There are certain public funds necessary for the administration of government in Ireland, and properly necessary, and being safeguarded by responsibility which is accentuated by the formal refusal of the Treasury to give its sanction to the expenditure and by the decision of the Public Accounts Committee disallowing it. The question is whether the balance in this fund, which has been depleted by an expenditure which the Treasury is satisfied is incapable of recovery, shall or shall not be made good. Though this does seem like a palliation of the matter complained of, and a disregard of the action by the Public Accounts Committee, it is nothing of the kind. It is necessary for the purpose of carrying on police administration in Ireland that there must be certain balances available, and to make good a deficit which the Treasury is satisfied cannot be recovered, and which the Treasury officials who procured this censure upon members of the Irish administration have found cannot be recovered. I think with that explanation the Committee will see there is no impropriety in the inclusion of this sum in the Estimate.
  Mr. SCANLAN: So far as I am concerned, I am thoroughly satisfied with the explanation given. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made out his ease very properly, and I think the Vote should be allowed.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I agree entirely that as the officer concerned is dead we must accept this suggestion as regards him, but if hon. Members will look at the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, they will see great laxity of administration in the Irish Office, not only on the part of the Attorney-General. All through the Irish Office itself there was great laxity. The Public Accounts Committee say:
  "It appears that the charges were first incurred in the month of July and lasted until December, but although the Irish Office—"
  not the Attorney General, be it noted—
  "was aware in August that this expenditure was being incurred, it was not until the beginning of November that a newly appointed Accounting Officer for the Vote drew the attention of the Attorney-General for Ireland to the extravagant rate of the allowance."
  Therefore, it is not the Attorney-General for Ireland who was primarily responsible, it is the Accounting Officer who is primarily responsible. Has he no money that we could recover from? Has he no estate?
  Mr. DUKE: The Accounting Officer was included in the censure. Hon. Members who are familiar with the course of business in regard to the administration of justice in Ireland will know that the Attorney-General exercises a very high authority, an authority very much that of the Public Prosecutor. Sir Matthew Nathan, who was Under-Secretary, made a very complete explanation of the course of events which led up to this charge before the Public Accounts Committee, and he traced the process by which these extravagant payments were ascertained and brought to account. Sir Matthew Nathan told the Accounts Committee that the Attorney-General was well within what was understood to be his responsibility in a matter of this kind in directing payments of the expenses of witnesses, and that no subordinate person would have dreamt of questioning such an order as that. Those who know the mode in which legal business is transacted will well understand that if there is a highly responsible officer of he Government who has direction of a matter of this kind, and he certifies that certain payments are payments proper to be made, it is not in the province of a
  548
  subordinate officer to say, "I shall not make the payments." They were made, prima facie, with excellent authority. I believe the intention was to read a lesson to officers in the care of public money. I think those hon. Members who most properly interested themselves in this matter will be satisfied that the explanation which I have given is one which meets the case.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.—Class III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,590, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
  Mr. DILLON: This is a Vote to provide the means of paying the extra increase in salary to the Dublin Metropolitan police and to the Irish Constabulary which was sanctioned by an Act which we passed last December. On that occasion there was an interesting discussion as to the condition of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Before we pass this Vote I should like to ask the Chief Secretary to make some statement as to the result of his investigations into the state of that body, a body which, I need hardly say, the position and spirit of which is of enormous vital importance not only to the Irish Government, but to those of us who are resident citizens of Dublin. I think I may say, and that in doing so I speak for the vast majority, that the citizens of Dublin have been very friendly towards that force. The Dublin Metropolitan Police, as I think the Chief Secretary will have been able now to appreciate, is a very fine police force. Physically I do not suppose there is such a police force in the world except perhaps the New York Police, which are largely drawn from the same nationality. They are a magnificent body of men, and, so far as I have been acquainted with them, having resided in Dublin for forty years, they have been a very effective and, on the whole, under difficult circumstances, a very loyal and reliable body of police. I may say that the circumstances under which the Dublin police do their duty is very, very different indeed from

  549
  the circumstances under which the police in this City, or, I may say, in any other of the cities, do their duty, because sometimes trouble arises in Dublin of a political character which is quite unknown to this Metropolis and which puts a strain on the police and which is very much in excess of anything which falls on the police in a City like this. During all these years the police have managed, as a rule, to maintain fairly good relations, and, in fact, I go beyond that and say, very good relations with the poplation of Dublin. But, unhappily, about five years ago there came a great break in that condition of affairs. Owing to a variety of circumstances the police were brought into violent collision with the inhabitants of the city—large sections of the inhabitants of the city. Bloodshed resulted, there were serious riots, and very bitter feeling was aroused between the police and the people, which was a most unfortunate circumstance.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member has not seen the details of the particular Vote we have before us. It is a Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. DILLON: Does not the Vote of any sum of money for the Dublin Metropolitan Police raise the whole question of the administration of that force?
  9.0 P.M.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Member explained at the opening of his remarks, this sum is to meet the necessities arising out of the passage of an Act of Parlament carried last Session, and it is confined to that. I do not think it raises the whole question. It is a Supplementary Estimate, and the relations between the police and the citizens of Dublin do not arise.
  Mr. DILLON: On the point of Order. I submit, if it raises any question, it raises the question of the administration of the police and the question whether this House is justified——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is a Supplementary Estimate, and not the ordinary Vote.
  Mr. DILLON: I know.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is for a specific object. I remember the Debates on the Act which was passed last Session, when claims were made for additional remuneration. That principle has been accepted by the passage of the then Bill into an Act, and this Estimate is simply
  550
  for the money, and I think the hon. Member must confine himself to that.
  Mr. DILLON: Would the Deputy-Chairman kindly define what are the objects of this Vote? The objects for which this money is being voted is to increase the pay of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and surely I am entitled, in connection with that, to consider the question of the pay of the police generally.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is settled by the Act of Parliament. The hon. Member is entitled to raise anything which comes within the Act on which this Supplementary Estimate is based. It must not be in general terms, but confined to that.
  Mr. DILLON: That is exactly what I was doing. I was raising questions which arose out of the Act for which this money is to be voted, and unless the ruling is that we must pass this Vote sub sikntio we are entitled to discuss such questions as arise out of the Act. One other question which I propose to discuss was the question whether the Chief Secretary had looked into the matters which he promised to look into when we were discussing the Act, because if he has not looked into those questions I intend to move a reduction of the Vote, in order to raise the question of his neglect to look into those matters which he promised to look into when we were passing the Bill. I raised the matter then, and it is precisely on that very matter I propose to address a few observations arising out of that very discussion. I maintain I should be entitled to challenge this whole Vote, if I am so disposed, on the ground that the assurances, or the expectations, not to put it as high as assurances, which were then aroused in our minds have not been carried out. When that Bill was before the House I made a strong appeal to the Chief Secretary to take into favourable consideration a claim for the reinstatement of four or five of the police-constables who were dismissed from the service, and I want to know whether he has investigated that matter or not. I would point out the grounds upon which I make a very strong claim for favourable consideration. The police in Dublin have been undoubtedly in a very disturbed and discontented condition. The Chief Secretary himself must know now that that discontent did not arise entirely from the question of insufficient salaries or wages, although

  551
  that was a very large element in the matter, but that it arose from the series of circumstances to which I have just been alluding. In view of the ruling which you, Mr. Maclean, have given, I will not enter into those circumstances in detail, although I hope that some other opportunity will be given when the main Vote is brought on. I may point out that when you, Sir, say that another opportunity will be given when the full Vote is brought on, since the War broke out we have had no opportunity at all of discussing any Irish business, therefore a little latitude might reasonably be offered on occasions of this kind. The Irish Votes for the two last Sessions have been thrown into the hotch-potch at the end of the Session and no discussion allowed upon them at all, owing to the excuse of war emergency.
  This is a matter of extreme urgency. I maintain, from a long knowledge of the city of Dublin, that by a little sympathetic and judicious handling the police force in the city might be restored to the same spirit of loyalty which prevailed prior to the unhappy events of 1911. I can assure you, Sir, and the Chief Secretary that the state of the city of Dublin at the present moment is such that it is in the highest interest to everybody that the police force should be in an entirely satisfactory condition. It is not in a satisfactory condition. The men are smarting under what they consider to be, and what I consider to be, a good deal of mismanagement and injustice. I will not attempt to go in detail into all the events which led up to the condition of things which prevailed before Christmas, when we were on the eve of a police strike. It would be impossible for me to exaggerate the dangers that threaten the city of Dublin in the event of a strike in the police force. It would be, or might be, nothing short of a disaster. Better counsels prevailed, and that trouble for the moment passed away, but there is still a very serious spirit of discontent among the men. They do not think that they have been generously treated. I agree with them. I do not think they have. I do most earnestly urge on the right hon. Gentleman that he might now, discipline having been vindicated—he may remember that in the Debate last December he was pressed somewhat on this subject, and he made an appeal to us to say no
  552
  more about it, on the ground that discipline must be vindicated, and I used any influence I possess with colleagues of my own who felt very strongly on the subject to induce them not to press him further upon it, because I felt that these are extremely delicate matters, that in a police force discipline must be maintained, and for the moment it was better to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Chief Secretary and the Commissioner in Dublin—but now a considerable period has elapsed, discipline has been vindicated, the force have been doing their duty loyally in the interval, and I say that now the time has come when the case of these dismissed constables ought to be reconsidered.
  I would not make this appeal if I did not believe that the effect of reinstating these men and wiping the slate in their regard would be to greatly better the whole temper and spirit of the police force. Some, not all, of the main causes of the trouble have been removed. The officers who were in command of that force had not the confidence of the men. I do not think they deserved the confidence of the men. The men believed that they were brought into collision with the citizens of Dublin unnecessarily, and that all that trouble—vast numbers of them; were wounded and brought to the hospital, as were many of the citizens—was due not to any necessary cause, but to the incompetence and misdirection of their own officers. That left a very bitter and discontented spirit. There were other causes which I do not go into now, because I do not want to exacerbate feeling. I am anxious to smooth it over, because I have far too keen a sense of the situation in Ireland at the present time, and of the spirit of the country, to wish to add anything to the flames that may break forth. I am anxious, if I can, to help the Government in this matter in putting an end to this trouble, which is a very serious trouble. Therefore I will not go into the other facts which are agitating and causing discontent in the ranks of the Dublin police. I will only say that in addition to the belief—the well-founded belief—that they have had incompetent and unsympathetic officers who were wholly ignorant of police business and who were responsible, through their ignorance, for bringing them into collision with the people unnecessarily, there were other grievances of a substantial character to which I will not allude

  553
  now. The situation as far as the officers is concerned has greatly improved. The officers now at the head of the Dublin police are competent men, and, with a little give and take and sympathetic treatment the morale, good discipline and good spirit—we cannot have an efficient police force without good spirit—and confidence in their officers would be entirely restored. I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make some statement to-night, before this Vote is passed, which will tend to set the police force in Dublin right and remove the bitterness which undoubtedly exists.
  Mr. FIELD: I rise to re-echo what has been said by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). As the senior Member for Dublin City and having an intimate connection with the citizens, I can vouch for the accuracy of every statement which has fallen from him. There can be no doubt whatever about it, every sane man will agree, that there ought to be good feeling between the citizens and the police. That good feeling which did exist to a certain extent was rudely disturbed by the events to which the hon. Member has alluded. The root of the whole business is that the Dublin Metropolitan Police are not governed by the chief magistrate of the city as the police are in other places. I desire to allude to another matter. This is a money question. The ratepayers complain that they have no proper account of how the 8d. in the £ was disbursed in regard to the police. The valuation has much increased in Dublin. The charge made goes into the Treasury. I happen to be a member of the Blackrock Urban District Council and also the County Council of Dublin, and every year a motion is brought forward not to pay the Police Tax because we do not get the information we think we are entitled to in respect of the expenditure on the police. It is quite evident that the ratepayers are dissatisfied in regard to the matter.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is quite a general question I really must ask the hon. Member to relate his remarks to the Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. FIELD: Is not the question of the Supplementary Estimate the question of emoluments—the expenditure of money which causes that Supplementary Estimate to be necessary? However, I have got in the remarks I wanted to make, and I hope the Chief Secrettry will understand
  554
  that we are not here to oppose this Vote, but we want information, and I think I am entitled to get information on a point which my Constituents demand. It is so seldom that we get an opportunity of asking anything with regard to the administration of affairs in Ireland that I think a point might be stretched to allow us to obtain information which our constituents require from us. The Government, in their desire to prevent private Members from being anything but mere voting machines, are constantly giving away our rights and privileges.
  Mr. FLAVIN: As this is a Supplementary Vote, may I refer you, Sir, to Paragraph (m), which says, "Estimated deficiency by receipts from Police Tax, £600." Surely when there is a deficiency of £600 in the amount of money levied on the Corporation of Dublin, and through them on the ratepayers, we have a right to ask for some information in connection with money compulsorily raised on them.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member forgets, I dare say, that in all these Supplementary Estimates the appropriations made at the end do not relate to the specific items with which the Supplementary Estimate is concerned, so as to enable them to raise the whole question. Hon. Members must confine themselves to the items in the Estimate and the items in the Estimate are set out quite clearly, and we are now dealing with pay and extra pay of the police—£6,200.
  Mr. BYRNE: I rise to join my Friend in the appeal to the Chief Secretary for the reinstatement of these six men. I received a promise from him yesterday that he would go into the matter. I have been in communication with the Chief Secretary for the last couple of weeks and he said he was not overlooking the matter. I gathered very satisfactory information from him yesterday and, in fact, I expected to hear of the reinstatement of the men in the next few days.
  Mr. DUKE: I must protest against the hon. Member putting upon me, as an account of a private conversation yesterday, a promise that I would take some action with regard to the matter. That the inquiries a Member of Parliament makes of a Minister should be made the subject of a misleading statement in the House, which raises expectations it would

  555
  be dangerous to raise and worse to disappoint, is to my mind, a thing which cannot be justified.
  Mr. BYRNE: Apart from that I have had several letters from the right hon. Gentleman's Department on the matter.
  Mr. DUKE: I cannot allow this to pass unchallenged. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) raised this question as one of public gravity. That the contents of letters which are not here, and a mistaken account of a conversation from one party to it should be made the subject of expectations on the part of the Dublin police in the matter, puts a Minister in a most unfortunate position. I beg the hon. Member not to continue the statement as to a conversation such as he states or to represent the contents of letters without producing the letters here.
  Mr. BYRNE: I will not persue that line, but I have been informed for the past two months that the matter is receiving attention, and I thought it would do no harm to join, at the end of two months, with my colleagues when they raise this appeal for these men, who have really been victimised for the endeavour which they made to improve the lot of one of their own colleagues. A number of them have received a war bonus, and a number of them have been dismissed. But I will get away from that point, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has received any representation from various public boards asking them to withdraw their request for an additional £5,000 tax for the purpose of paying the police? Considering Dublin City is paying 8d. in the £ and has no control over the police, and can receive no information anywhere, I would ask him whether it is the intention of the Government to insist on the corporation paying this additional £5,000 for the payment of the police for the next twelve months? At the least, having given the men an increase from the Treasury, they should not ask the ratepayers of Dublin to pay the additional £5,000.
  Major NEWMAN: The Debate so far has dealt with appeals for justice to the living. I should like to ask a few questions about pensions and gratuities to the wives, widows, and dependants of those who fell in the recent disturbances in Ireland. As I read Sub-section (k), it appears that there is no actual pension given to wives or dependants of constables
  556
  who lost their lives in those disturbances. A mother gets a pension of £15, but when we come to dependants they only get gratuities—a gratuity of £55 16s. and £45 8s., which, of course, is in addition to-a gratuity of £30 already provided. That means a total gratuity of £85 16s. and £75 8s. I do not know what a dependant is—a mother, sister, or child—but does that mean that a dependant gets merely a gratuity and no pension at all? If that is the case I do not think we are dealing very fairly with these dependants. After all, the disturbance was not an ordinary riot, It was an insurrection, and these men were killed with rifles and not in the ordinary way by having stones thrown at them, and yet their dependants are not being treated anything like as well as if they had been the dependants of soldiers killed in action. It may be that I am wrong, and that, in addition to this gratuity, they are getting some sort of pension. If that is the case I withdraw what I have said, but if it is not, and if all that a mother is getting is a pension of £15, and a dependant this one gratuity and no more, these dependants are not being at all fairly treated.
  Mr. DUKE: I will deal at once with the-matter of detail which the hon. Member has just raised. Dependency, of course, is a matter of degree. When this question was raised some time ago I promised to look into it, and the same assurance-was given in the House of Lords in reply to inquiries there. Provision had been made in the General Estimates for a sum by way of gratuity in respect of the dependency of some of the relatives of the members of the police to whom the hon. Member has referred. I looked into the matter, and this is an addition to a previous grant, and brings up the amount of the payment to a year's pay of the officer in each case.
  Major NEWMAN: The previous grant being £30.
  Mr. DUKE: In the case of one of these officers it is an increase of 150 per cent. I believe that redeems the promise which I made across the floor of the House, and which was made with my knowledge in the House of Lords. With regard to the pension of the mother of an officer who was unhappily killed, that is a case which was not provided for, and that pension was given on the scale which the most recent Act of Parliament provided for a widow.
  Major NEWMAN: The widow of a soldier?
  Mr. DUKE: I am dealing with the widow of a constable. The case of a mother is entirely different from that of a wife, and it seemed to me that the sum which I presented to the Treasury for sanction and which appears on this Estimate was a proper one. I am sorry that some of the things that have been said should have been said about the Dublin Metropolitan Police. I had hoped that such things as have been said about the force could not have been justly said at the present time. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Field) spoke of the men as being at the present time discontented with their pay. Having debated that question in this House as lately as November last, I think it is unfortunate that a subject which involves so many grave considerations, as has been pointed out, should have been made the occasion for a statement of that kind.
  Mr. DILLON: I think the right hon. Gentleman is in error. I certainly did not say that.
  Mr. DUKE: No, it was Member, but the hon. Dublin.
  Mr. BYRNE: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the hon. Member. I do not think he said that they wore discontented with their pay. I did not hear him say so.
  Mr. DUKE: I took a note of what he said. I do not think the hon. Member would seriously tell the Committee that the police of Dublin are in a state of discontent with their pay, increased so lately by the action of the Department.
  Mr. FIELD: I had no intention of saying so, and I do not remember saying so.
  Mr. DUKE: I have to watch matters carefully, because I know how seriously circulation of impressions and representations may be expected to affect the morale of a police force where there was for some time last year discontent and dissatisfaction and some reason to fear that which every decent citizen would be glad to avoid. I have not the least reason to believe that the police in Dublin take the view that the House did not deal with them reasonably in the Act which was passed at the end of last year, and at present I do not believe it. It was
  558
  stated that the men are suffering under a sense of mismanagement and injustice, that there is a serious state of discontent among them, and that it is the business of the Chief Secretary to remove bitterness which "undoubtedly still exists." It was said that there was a feeling that the superior officers of the force had been incompetent and had misdirected the force, but that there had been some improvement in this respect and that the officers were now competent men, though there was still this sense of mismanagement and injustice and a serious spirit of discontent and bitterness. I have been a great deal in Dublin, I am happy to say, during the last two months; in fact, I spent the whole of the Recess in and about Dublin. I saw and heard a good deal of the condition of the Dublin police, and I want to say on behalf of the Dublin police that they responded readily, and I think generously, to the desire of Parliament to deal with their case in a reasonable spirit. I have had no representations from any member of the Dublin police—and I do not believe that they hesitate in coming to me—that would lead me to think there is at the present time among that body a sense of mismanagement and injustice, a spirit of discontent, and a condition of bitterness. I really should deplore such a state of things. To say that there has been no difficulty in the Dublin police would be to burlesque the fact. Of course there has been. But the police at present have a commanding officer, the Chief Commissioner, who is accessible and is ready to hear any reasonable representation of a grievance. They have officers as to whom the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has said that the superior officers now are competent men. I appeal to hon. Members to consider whether that improved state of things may not have its fair opportunity to produce its natural results.
  DILLON: That is exactly what we want.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg that it may have its fair opportunity to produce its natural results, and that we may not sow suspicion and mistrust and new grounds of trouble in this House which will redound against good administration in Dublin or in any way put in question the discipline of the police, the cheerful acceptance by the police of their duties, and the pride of the police in the esprit de corps of the force, which is one of the most valuable assets

  559
  of the public in its dealings with those who are entrusted with the maintenance of order. For my part, I have at the present time—and I believe I am warranted in having—confidence in the readiness of the Dublin police not only to do their duty but to do it cheerfully. I believe that they are able and ready to represent grievances if they have any, and that those grievances would be entertained. At the same time, on the questions which were asked me when the Bill was before the House as to the readiness I expressed to investigate the questions which might be brought to my mind, I can assure the hon. Member for East Mayo that those questions have been the subject of discussion between myself and the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner is as anxious as any man in Dublin that we shall be entitled to expect the cheerful service of the Dublin force. I was very glad to hear the tribute paid to him and the superior officers of the force. It is a just tribute. I hope that the discreet action of the Chief Commissioner and the superintendents will have the best results.
  I would have been glad if it were possible to part from the matter without entering upon the question which I think was presented to the Committee in a misleading fashion by the hon. Member for Dublin who spoke last, when he referred to the inquiry made of me yesterday on this particular matter, and the conversation of perhaps ten or twenty words in which I assured him, as I honestly assure every Irish Member, that I am ready to receive his representations and take care that they secure attention on the part of those whose business it is to attend to them. The conversation went no further than that, and I could only say at the present time that the Chief Commissioner thinks that we must proceed with the discipline of the force as the force stands. I cannot usefully add anything upon that subject. To every wish of this body, every reasonable wish, it is the business of the Chief Commissioner, and my business as Chief Secretary, to give all the attention we can. All these subjects affecting the contentment and discipline of the Irish police force are subjects of a degree of delicacy and gravity which cannot be exaggerated. The hon. Member for East Mayo, as an old resident in Dublin, well knows that. I have endeavoured as Chief Secretary—and I am sure any Chief Secretary always
  560
  does—to bear that fact in mind, and while doing that to support the Commanding Officers in everything I can, to secure that the police of Dublin are a disciplined force, and a contented force, as I think generally they are at the present moment.
  Question put and agreed to.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.—Class III.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £56,770, 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, 1917, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
  Major NEWMAN: The Royal Irish Constabulary stand on a different footing from the Dublin Metropolitan Police. They are paid by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and are mainly a military body. I desire to raise a question as to the pensions and gratuities payable to the widows and children of members of this force who lost their lives in the rebellion of last spring. Before the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary I asked a good many questions about the widows and children of, at any rate, two of these people. I have always had difficulty in finding exactly what pension and gratuity were being awarded. Naturally enough, in the regulations of the force, nothing has been laid down as to what is to be done where a constable loses his life in what may be called civil war. A policeman does not expect it. A soldier joins the Army to fight. If he loses his life his wife and children get certain gratuities and pensions. But a constable enlists in the force with the idea that he will serve his time, and that when he arrives at a certain age, or becomes infirm, he will retire with a certain pension, or, if he dies suddenly, or in certain circumstances, his wife and children may get a pension or gratuity. But here we have men who were killed in action, just as much as any soldier who is killed in the course of this terrible War. After a great deal of negotiations and trouble, and after the widow of one of these men had taken an action at law they come out not too well. The widow and four children of a head constable are, I understand, to get a pension of £75 a year. The head constable is about equal to a sergeant-major in a military battalion. If a sergeant-major killed in action left a widow and

  561
  four children they would certainly get more than £75 a year. I have worked out that at the very lowest they would get £104 a year, and I think that they would get more. On that showing alone the widow and four children of Head Constable Rowe are not getting what they have a right to get, and I would ask the Chief Secretary to see that that pension is increased. The other two cases are much the same. It is not enough to give the widow and child of a sergeant merely £56 to live on. In the case of a sergeant in the Army the widow gets a much better pension and gratuity than is put down in this Supplementary Estimate. I do not know about the three disabled constables, as to whether they are totally disabled. But even if they are I think that £l a week is a reasonable pension to give them. But with regard to the widows and children the sums which are being given should be increased and made equal to what would be given in the case of widows and children of soldiers who are killed in action.
  Mr. DUKE: I have gone into each of these cases, and I discussed them with the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary. We arrived at a figure which they and I were satisfied was the figure we ought to recommend. That figure was laid before the Lords of the Treasury and accepted, and except from the hon. Gentleman I have heard no objection.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the kindness to answer a question I put last Wednesday in regard to the payment to be made to Mrs. Sheehy-skeffington?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Vote.
  Mr. KING: I did not say it did.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  TREASURY CHEST FUND.—Class V.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,675, 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, 1917, for making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1915–16."

  GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.—Class VI.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
  562
  Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of. March, 1917, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."
  Mr. ASHLEY: As this comes within the Department of the First Commissioner of Works, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) will say something about Government hospitality in the last nine months. I do not wish to go into details about banquets and small matters, but I think the House is entitled to know considerably more about this £25,000 and about the big occasions on which money has been expended. These details reach the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, but their Report is issued so very long a time after that any criticism which is oxered is looked upon as criticism on matters long gone by and too long ago to have any debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain the very unusual practice resorted to in this instance, that any balance that may remain unexpended on the 31st March, 1917, will not be liable to surrender? My impression is that any Government Department with an unexpended balance at the end of the financial year sends it back to the Treasury, and that is a proper regulation. I do not know why the gracious and generous hospitality of the Government, dispensed by the right hon. Gentleman, is to be excepted from this regulation, unless it is wished to pile up a large sum of money to spend on some gigantic celebration on the conclusion of peace.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The hon. Gentleman has raised one or two questions and I will deal with the last one first. I find that the practice has always been that money saved on this Vote is not surrendered at the end of the financial year. As a matter of fact, it is not an annual Vote. No money has been taken on this Vote since the financial year of 1912–13, and we have not in that time come to the House of Commons to ask for a Grant of this character. The reason this arrangement was made, I imagine, was that it is an expenditure very difficult to estimate, and, as the matter is of rather a peculiar character, it has been treated fn this way. The hon. Gentleman very rightly asked me whether I could give him any particulars as to expenditure in the past. I have had a very careful analysis made of the expenditure, but of course it is impossible to put the details before the House. It must

  563
  be very obvious that a large number of distinguished foreign guests have been received during the War from our Allies, and missions have come here. I think my hon. Friend and the House will agree that we ought to entertain to the best of our ability distinguished visitors to this country, though it increases expenditure from the fund. We had to entertain on the occasion of the visit of the Overseas Parliamentary Association, with whose objects the hon. Member, I am sure, sympathises; and undoubtedly considerable expenditure will be incurred in the current year in view of the Imperial Conference which is to take place, which, of course, is one reason why a larger sum is taken on the Estimate. Personally, I have given a good deal of time and attention to this matter, and my hon. Friend may be assured that, while our hospitality is exercised in a proper and becoming manner, no undue expenditure will be incurred.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I submit that the advisability of making this an annual Vote and surrendering any balance at the end of the financial year should be considered. The retention of this balance is not very satisfactory from the House of Commons point of view. We are here asked to vote the sum of £25,000, most of it to be spent in the next financial year, and perhaps in the two succeeding years. That is not a very satisfactory thing. It would be much better to give a sum of money each year, and. if there be any balance, hand it back to the Treasury. If the sum should not prove enough, then a Supplementary Estimate could be brought before the House in the ordinary way. This is another, though a small, instance of the very slipshod financial methods we have got into in this House. It is not this Government, but all Governments, under which it has been occurring.
  Mr. BOOTH: I was listening to the Minister who defended the Vote in order to learn whether it included all the money which has been expended on Government hospitality, or whteher other items are to be found in the subsequent Votes. Are we to understand that this sum really does represent all the Government hospitality? An impression prevails that the Munitions Department spends money in entertaining foreign representatives who come over here, and I. should like to know if any hospitality thus expended is accounted for
  564
  under this Vote. If it be the fact that Grants for this purpose are scattered over the Supplementary Estimates of the different Departments, then it is no comfort to us to be told that this particular item is being carefully watched. I therefore think we are entitled to ask if this is the whole item for that class of expenditure. As regards the question of surrendering the unexpected balance. I would add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley). I am not sure that it would be wise in the case of some Departments to always insist upon the money unspent being given back to the Exchequer, because such a course might tempt some Departments to spend the money, lest they should not be able to get it voted again. Of course, that cannot apply here; it is quite clear the Government would not invite people to come over simply because they had money available; still I think it is better that if the money is not spent in a particular year it should be handed back, and I am sure Parliament would vote it even more willingly if they found Departments acting straightforwardly in returning unexpected balances.
  Sir A. MOND: As far as I know this-Vote does represent all the money spent by the Government in entertaining the guests of this country.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I see that the heading of this is "Class VI., Vote 10." I have taken the trouble to look and find that in Class VI. of the original Civil Service Estimate there were only seven Votes, and I am anxious to know if there is a Supplementary Estimate for Votes 8 and 9. There is another important point, apart from this mere technicality. It has been raised by the last two speakers, and it is whether the Vote includes all Government hospitality. I hold that we ought to have an inclusive Vote for hospitality extended not only to strangers within our gates, but also to our own people. We know there have been a great number of organised demonstrations on the part of the Government to which large numbers of British subjects have been invited. We have had conferences addressed by both the late Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister, conferences to which many people have been invited and to attend which they have received first-class railway passes.
  Mr. ASHLEY: They never invited me.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Those attending the conferences have also received hospitality when they have visited London. I do not say that they have been put up at any of the first-class West End hotels, but there have been miners' conferences and other trade union conferences, not only in London but in other centres, and, in all these cases, liberal allowances have been made to the favoured individuals who, by some process or another, have been selected to attend. Obviously that is Government hospitality. I do not understand how it could be deemed to be otherwise; it does seem to be a strange thing we should have a Vote for Government hospitality, headed "No. 10," for £25,000, if all these items are not included under the heading. Are we to understand that these numerous gatherings are paid for in some way out of the Vote of Credit, and that there is no head in the Civil Service Estimate under which all this expenditure is accounted for? We are entitled to know under what head the expenditure is placed and whether ultimately it will come before the Controller and Auditor-General, so that the public and the House of Commons may be enabled to check it. If it appears under the miscellaneous expenditure, then I fear we shall never have any real accounting in regard to it. If there is to be a special heading for Government hospitality, let it be an inclusive heading; let it cover all the entertaining by Departments whether it be the entertainment of visitors from Russia, France or Italy, or whether the guests be carpenters, like my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson), who sometimes meet Ministers in deputation. All these things ought equally to be brought within the purview of this House, and should be accounted for in the usual way by the Controller and Auditor-General.
  Mr. KING: There is another item which we might get an explanation upon, and that is what money has been spent by being given to Mrs. Pankhurst. I think it was the Prime Minister who arranged that several hundreds of pounds—I forget the exact amount—should be handed over to Mrs. Pankhurst in connection with one of those demonstrations in which she brought many delightful ladies to London for the occasion. I hope we shall have an explanation on that point.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I am not quite certain, whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) is quite justified in suggesting that all the items he referred to should come under the head of hospitality; it may be advisable, and perhaps wise, on the part of the Government to give details of its expenditure in connection with these matters. I am very much inclined to think that the outlay in connection with deputations from trade unions and labour generally will be found to be expenditure accounted for by the Ministry of Munitions or the Board of Trade, and it very justifiably comes under those headings, because really it is not hospitality; it is business. I have attended a number of meetings at the Munitions Department and the Board of Trade, and I have always had to pay my own railway fares and hotel expenses. I do not suggest that this applies to all those who have met the Minister of Munitions, the Labour Adviser, or the Board of Trade. I do not suggest that everyone has paid his expenses. It is common knowledge, in fact, that the railway fares of many deputations have been provided by the Departments themselves, and no one would say that they should come under the head of Government hospitality. As a matter of fact, I do not think that the people who have met Ministers in connection with the question of supplying labour ought to have the expenses incurred in connection with their visit classed as Government hospitality.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  MINISTRY or LABOUR.—Class VII.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,915, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and Repayments to Associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of The National Insurance Act, 1911."
  Mr. HOGGE: I do not know whether my hon. Friend who is in charge of these Estimates is prepared to give over, having successfully got up to Class VI., Vote 10. The reason I would suggest to him at five minutes past ten for not going any further with the remaining Estimates is-that the following Estimates really deal

  567
  with the creation of new Departments. This one relates to the creation of a Ministry of Labour, which is not a Supplementary Estimate and which provides the salaries for the new Ministry of Labour. That is followed by the Ministry of Munitions, which, of course, is a Supplementary Estimate. That again is followed by the Ministry of Pensions, which, again; is the creation of a new Department. I think my hon. Friend will agree that those of us who have followed the discussion throughout the day have acted very fairly and have not prolonged the Debate more than "was necessary to produce certain information. There may be one or two other Estimates, such as Class VII., Vote 9, which deals with the treatment of tuberculosis, and although it might be taken now without any trouble I should like to appeal to my hon. Friend, before we enter upon what probably must be rather prolonged discussion, whether he could not agree now to be content to stop at this Estimate, which he has now got, and leave those others which really raise, larger points of policy to be taken at some rather more opportune time. I am perfectly certain those of us who have sat through the Debate from four o'clock are quite satisfied and gratified with the courtesy my hon. Friend has extended, and I feel sure he might be able to meet us on this point.
  Mr. BALDWIN: So far as I am able to respond, the Leader of the House not being present, I think I may say I have sat in this House this afternoon as much as my hon. Friend, and I certainly am very anxious to get as far as we can tonight. I should, therefore, propose to proceed with the Votes on the Paper, and go on as far as we can.
  Mr. BOOTH: On that point, if I might make an appeal, the next Vote is rather an important one, but I naturally am interested in the Vote which deals with the treatment of tuberculosis, and I must say that I do not like this idea of going on with it after the Ministry of Labour has been dealt with to-night. It is a point which, above all others, presses on me at present owing to my association with the problem, and I want justice done to it. If the Minister in charge would be content with the Vote for the Ministry of Labour, which is a very big Vote, and will leave the tuberculosis question over, perhaps that will meet with the wishes of the House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has put the matter very reasonably to the Government. The Vote with which we are now asked to deal is a very large Vote, and relates to the creation of a totally new Department. Not only are there additional sums required in respect of old services, but there are sums required in respect of services which are entirely new. As my hon. Friend has reminded the Secretary to the Treasury, Class 7, Vote 9, although a relatively small Vote, is a matter of extreme importance. It raises the whole question of the position of sanatorium benefit under the Insurance Act, which has given rise to great misgiving and anxiety all over the country. The difficulties with which all local bodies and the societies which are administering the Insurance Act have to face in relation to this are so great that I think they deserve a discussion in the House at a time when it may be reported in the public Press. That is why I think there is a good case for taking it at an earlier period of another sitting. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman, after consultation with other authorities on the bench, will be content to-night with the Vote for the Ministry of Labour.
  Mr. BALDWIN: It is not the intention of the Government to go on to an unreasonable hour to-night, but I cannot help thinking that when my hon. Friends get to the discussion they will find it can be covered in less time than they think, and I shall certainly ask the Committee to proceed with this Vote.
  Mr. HOGGE: On this Vote of the Ministry of Labour there are a very large number of points which require to be raised, and which I am sorry to have to raise at so late a period in the sitting. We have been told to-day on earlier Votes that certain policies were involved which were new policies, and for which there might be more appropriate occasion for discussion. Now we have arrived at the second of those in the Supplementary Estimate, and I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come in, because I think this is quite a fair point to put. Earlier in the discussion he suggested, on the question of the War Cabinet, that while we were technically entitled—and as a matter of fact this is the only occasion on which we are constitutionally entitled—to discuss the creation of the War Cabinet,

  569
  he as the Leader of the House would provide a, suitable opportunity. There are two other Votes in the same category which we have begun to discuss, namely, the creation of the Ministry of Labour, a thing unknown so far to the Departments of our British Government; and, third, the whole question of the Ministry of Pensions, which comes later in the Supplementary Votes. Both those Votes are presented to the House for the first time, and, as my right hon. Friend knows, because he is as cognisant of the forms of the House as any of us, we are entitled to raise any point practically on these two Votes which are covered by those two new Departments. He will see at once that that is a very large order, if we are to discuss it frankly and with full knowledge. That was why I suggested earlier when we had reached Class VI.—10 (Government Hospitality) that we might reasonably stop there for to-day, and have another opportunity for discussing so large a Vote as the Ministry of Labour. However, if we cannot secure agreement on that point we must discuss it and find out what are the real intentions of the Government. The question, especially of a Ministry of Labour, has long occupied the attention of a great many people in this country, but it has not come to any fruition until the advent of the present Administration. The office is filled by a very worthy Member of the Labour party, and has been, I believe, successful in, at any rate, securing ample premises—like every other Government Department.
  What does the Estimate show? The establishment of a permanent secretary and an administrative and clerical staff, messengers, cleaners, etc., to the value of £l,550. That refers to the permanent expenses, but there is, of course, provision made for a Parliamentary Secretary at £l,200. I had a look at these premises in Whitehall the other day. They belong to a distinguished Scotsman. I wondered what was taking place in that ducal building. Looking at the door I saw a piece of white paper stuck up against the railing which said, "Headquarters Staff of the Labour Ministry." Inside was the Minister of Labour, secretary and typist or two, and a few tables and chairs. That was the organism for looking after the industrial future of this country! That last remark really explains what I meant when I said we should discuss this at an earlier hour of the day, when there is more ample
  570
  opportunity, because this Department is of very great importance. The Prime Minister, and, I suppose, the Leader of the House agrees with him, has stated that this Department has been created in order that the Cabinet should be kept in closer relationship in days to come with the industrialism of the country than it has ever been in the past. Industrialism means, as we all know, the whole life-blood of our country. After the War we are going to be faced with problems of immense importance. We are going to be faced with such a problem as that of whether the Government pledge to trade unionists can or will be carried out. There are all the problems of reconstruction.
  It is obvious that we ought to know exactly where we are in a matter of this kind before consenting to the expenditure of this amount of money. What I object to first of all in regard to all these things-is, that they are decided first, that men are appointed, offices are actually taken, and expenditure incurred before this House of Commons is asked whether or not they agree to the creation of that particular Department. To quote an analogous case. I do not say anything on the merits or demerits of the particular example, but we are having to-day the nationalisation of man-power under Mr. Neville Chamberlain. On the Order Paper of the House there is notice of a Bill to be brought in to regularise that position. Somebody has incurred expense on this matter. Somebody has taken buildings. Somebody has appointed a staff. That has all been done before this House of Commons has been consulted. I picture to myself the frenzy of fury of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer as he stood at the box on the other side of the table in the old days when these things used to be done, and appealed to us on this side to support him in his efforts to bring the Government to their senses. What are the large questions which are involved in the creation of a Minister of Labour? I notice from this Estimate that the first thing done was to take over the various Employment Exchanges in the country.
  I would like to submit, with regard to that, that the Labour Exchanges were being run Departmentally before. They were being run with such success as can attend a Labour Exchange movement until it has overcome the prejudices which all working men have towards it in, at any rate, what used to be this free

  571
  country. These have been handed over to the Minister of Labour. The first thing be did, as far as I can gather from the Press, was to describe the managers of the institutions he had taken over either as wooden images or as graven images—I forget which. At any rate, he was not satisfied with the management of those Exchanges, and he proposed to see that they are better managed in future.
  He made a speech the other day—I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer read it or not; he is usually very careful about the public purse—in which he suggested the creation of, I think, between 800 and 900 further Labour Exchanges. There is a point which seems to me to require very careful discussion. How are you going to create either 800 or 900 Labour Exchanges to-day? Where are you going to get the man-power, that you so want to conserve for other purposes, to look after those Exchanges? Where are you going to get the staff? And when you have set them up, what is the purpose for which you are going to use them? We are told it is, among other purposes, to make the demobilisation of the Army and the Navy easy after the War. We are told in cryptic phrases that the Government have various policies that will be put into motion as soon as they have time and have been able to consider the question. May I submit to the House that when you set up a new Department, when you put a Minister in charge who is not, after all, a member of the Cabinet, who is a detached Minister, who from his speeches in the country shows in many respects that his policy is detached from the policy of the Cabinet, we as a House of Commons ought to know where we are before we agree to the expenditure of this amount of money. Labour Exchanges, after all, may be used for industrial purposes. The Minister of Labour has made one speech in particular in which he proposes to act as the stoppage of some considerable kind of leakage. The ample proportions of the Minister suggest that he will be capable of filling a very big leakage. That speech involved a policy, and that policy may or may not be carried out by these Labour Exchanges, which are to be so extended under the rule of the existing Ministry.
  Surely the Leader of the House will agree with me in this, if he has not agreed with me in anything I have said so far, that the House of Commons is entitled to
  572
  know, before agreeing to this expenditure, what is the policy of the Government with regard to the Labour Ministry. What is it for? Was it to create another post in the Government, or had the Government any real intention when they set up the Labour Ministry of doing anything, and, if they had, what was it that they had in their mind? You are not going to evict the Duke of Buccleuch from one of the few remaining ducal mansions in the neighbourhood of this Palace and in place of the aristocracy put one of the proletariat to run a Ministry, unless you have got something at the back of your mind. I think it is futile, at nearly half-past ten o'clock, to discuss an Estimate which sets up a Department which obviously in the future of this country must play an increasingly large part. I do not think it is quite fair of the Leader of the House to expect us to do that. He will agree that we have examined very carefully the Estimates up to this point. He will also agree that until the hon. Gentleman who sits near him gets into his stride he and his colleagues will not be able to answer our questions. The hon. Gentleman has, improved vastly as he has gone along and he is now almost an expert in avoiding questions and criticisms on the Estimates. That is all very well with small things, but this is a great big thing, and I want to show now that it is so big that even yet there is no Minister on the Treasury Bench who can give an adequate reply to the point which I am going to put. Can any Minister present give us a satisfactory explanation why the head offices in Scotland with regard to the administration of unemployment insurance have been transferred from Edinburgh to London and put under the control of the Minister of Labour? There are one or two Scottish Members present and this is a point which is agitating the whole public mind of Scotland, and has done for some considerable time. It was something that happened when Parliament was not sitting, and it was a great waste of money, because it vacated a building upon which thousands of pounds had been spent, and it sent to London a large number of civil servants without extra pay and which has not been increased since they came here, and they have all come to London because there is supposed to be some advantage in connection with that particular way of doing things. An hon. Member representing the

  573
  Government has now gone out of the House to find what the answer is to the points I am now putting.
  The hon. Member who will reply to my criticisms does not know anything about that particular point. I am not surprised, and I should not expect him to know, but it involves the most virile part of the United Kingdom. It is a point of extraordinary interest to us, and all this only shows the futility of entering upon a discussion at this time of the day. I notice the Secretary for Scotland happens to be on the Treasury Bench, and he will know that this building to which I have referred is within a stone's throw of the Law Courts. He will remember the old Corn Exchange, and he will be able to tell us from his own knowledge of Edinburgh what has taken place in that particular respect. He will know that some Government officials went down on their bended knees and implored the Insurance Commission to go down into the Corn Exchange. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has never made his maiden speech yet, and here is a valuable topic on which he might make his maiden effort. He knows the associations that we all have in Edinburgh, and I should like to hear any or either of the Scottish Ministers present defending this insult to Scotland.
  Having made a few general remarks upon this Estimate I should like to put some particular questions. If this position is of so great importance it must obviously be of the greatest importance, because it concerns more individuals in this country than any other Ministry. Why is the paltry salary of £2,000 being given to the Minister of Labour? [An HON. MEMBEE: "He is in the pool."] I know he is; but what I want to know is what is the standard upon which you can get a Minister? It used to be £5,000, but I suppose since the Labour Exchanges were put up you can get them cheaper. I suppose you can get them at £2,000 a time now. Who fixes these amounts? Is there an axiom of the Treasury which says a certain post is worth a certain amount, or that a certain man is worth a certain amount? I do not see, if you are going in future to maintain a large number of these particular offices, how you can expect men of the greatest ability to have any ambition to occupy these particular offices. You are giving to the Minister of Labour what you give to the Secretary for Scotland. Surely the Secretary for Scotland, who governs a whole country, is worth
  574
  more than a Minister of Labour, who only occupies a Scotsman's house in Whitehall! If you are going to save money, save it in proper directions, and not upon the expenditure which means most to the people involved. There is an item for £2,000 for the Minister, and £1,200 for a Parliamentary Secretary, making £3,200, which is being expended in doing what was done departmentally for nothing two months ago. All this work was being done departmentally, and all that has happened since is the taking over of this particular mansion and the making of a few speeches by the Minister of Labour, including that in which he described the people over whom he was placed as wooden or graven images. It has cost the country £3,200 for that. Can we be told whether it is intended to keep this particular building in Whitehall, and whether there is going to be a vast expenditure upon this last building that was taken over. If so, what kind of arrangements have been made? Is that building rented or is it taken under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, or what is the arrangement?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): It is not in the Estimate.
  Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend says that it is not in the Estimate. This is the first Estimate we have had presented to the House dealing with the Ministry of Labour. Obviously that building must be in the Estimate, because there is a sum of £1,550 down for cleaners. What are they going to clean, if they are not going to clean the building to which I am referring? We are entitled to know what kind of arrangement was made for taking over this building in Whitehall. I do protest that we should be asked to enter upon the discussion of a question of this kind in the absence of anybody on the Front Bench who can give us any guidance in the matter. I am not concerned with the sums of money that are put down, but I am concerned to know what is the policy with regard to Labour Exchanges, unemployment, the utilisation of men after they have been demobilised, with all the attendant questions such as the insurance of the men until they have got work. What are the plans that are talked about so frequently by the Minister when he addresses deputations? He says he has been thinking of these things, that he has got

  575
  great schemes for demobilisation, and great schemes for this, that, and the other. Why should the House of Commons be the only place in this country where we cannot get an intelligent explanation from a responsible head of the Government? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone before we enter upon the discussion. Unless we have some explanation, we must divide the Committee on this Vote. We cannot have this extravagant expenditure going on, and the creation of these now Departments without any explanation. We have stopped here for a very long time, and we must divide the House upon this. The Minister himself is not present, the Leader of the House is not present. The Parliamentary Secretary, I know, is present, and I am very glad he is here, and I hope we shall have a long explanation from him. I am sure he will see we cannot accept the Vote unless he satisfies the House as to it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: This Estimate can only, by a stretch of language, be described as a Supplementary Estimate as it is really a new service, and under those circumstances I think it is an abuse of the forms of the House to open consideration of it after ten o'clock at night. In normal times this Vote would have received a whole day for discussion, and at the very opening of the proceedings the House or Committee would have had the advantage of a statement from the Minister as to the policy of the new Department over which he presides. We have nothing of the kind to-night. I think the absence of it makes it impossible for the Committee to give to this Vote the consideration which it deserves. I noticed that on some occasions the hon. Gentleman who is acting as Financial Secretary has volunteered explanations of Votes which are far less important than this. It was with some surprise I observed that when this Vote was put from the Chair no movement of the kind was made on the part of any hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to give some explanation of the large sums which we are at this hour called upon to vote. I propose to deal with one or two of the items which appear in this Vote, but I think it is only fair in the first instance to remark an omission from the Paper in our hands. In the principal Vote, Class VII., Vote 7, Labour Exchanges, Unemployment Insurance, we are told the various sums allocated to the
  576
  different services under the heads A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I. There is a footnote, in addition, which informs us regarding a number of other Votes where provision is made for expenditure in connection with those particular services. There is provision made, for example, in regard to office accommodation in Class I., Vote 9, and similarly in Class I. Vote 15, and in Class I., Vote 14, and so on. But I think that the Committee should have been informed whether the absence-of any reference to increases in the other Votes is to be taken as an indication that there is absolutely no increase in expenditure in respect of office accommodation, owing to the complete change in the constitution of the Department of Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has referred to-the palatial office accommodation which has been put at the disposal of the new Minister, and he naturally asked some pertinent and relevant questions as to the expenditure which this office accommodation will involve. A reference is made to office accommodation in the original Vote, and I think that at least some footnote might have been added to the Supplementary Estimate dealing with the same subject.
  I understand that under sub-head A we are asked to vote an increase of £4,000 in respect of salaries, wages, and allowances. In the original Vote we have a complete list of the numbers who are employed in Labour Exchanges and in unemployment insurance. We see there that, under class A in the central offices 435 officers are employed, from a director down to typists; and we find also that in divisional and local offices there are 3,566 employés from divisional officers downwards. In a Supplementary Estimate some indication should have been given of the number of additional employés in respect of whom the expenditure of £4,000 is to be incurred. Four thousand pounds, after all, only refers to a small portion of the year. For the whole year the £4,000 would be represented by a figure nearer £20,000; consequently, £20,000 on the basis of the salaries which are paid here must mean a very large increase of the staff. It is very natural in these days for us to ask who are added to the staff? Ts it an increase in the male staff and, in particular, is it an increase in the males of military age? Are we here seeing an example of the combing-out which is so common in White-

  577
  hall—the combing-out of men from the Army as contrasted with the combing-out that is going on all over the country in some of our most essential industries, the combing-out of men from those industries into the Army for which they will never be of any use? I hope that the hon. Gentleman who receives a very inadequate salary for acting as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will be able to give an answer upon two points, first, how many new male employés there are in this Department, secondly, how many of them are of military age, and whether any recourse has been had to that favourite device of the Government—a favourite device which, as a whole, does not apply to Government offices—namely, the dilution of labour. Those questions deserve an answer. We are told in the footnote that this additional staff is largely required for the administration of the National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act, 1916. It goes on to say:—
  "of the total expenditure in the current financial rear estimated at £16,000, £12,000 can be met from savings.'
  So we are faced with this remarkable fact: that the £4,000 which actually appears as here as the additional sum required in the third column does not represent by any moans the real increase in salaries. We find in the footnote that the real increase in salaries is £16,000. Sixteen thousand pounds for three months represents a yearly expenditure of £64,000, which is a very large sum. This is almost an army corps to be housed, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) has indicated almost surely at Montagu House. He told us that all the staff has been removed from Edinburgh, although they had excellent premises remodelled for the purpose of the Unemployment Exchanges in Scotland. But apparently the new régime does not believe in the policy of decentralisation. It is the system of central mobilisation. Probably they think that if they centralise all the officials under a single roof in Whitehall thereby, they have taken a considerable step towards the mobilisation of our national forces, and that we are now having something which may be fairly described by that favourite formula of which we heard so much in the early days of the Military Service Act—scientific organisation. I think we require an explanation of this large sum. It is all undertaken in a period when we understood that economy was the first requisite in every Department of the Government. The only exhibition of
  578
  economy under this régime seems to be in the unproductive work of Government supervision in the new bureaucracy. If we go on at the present rate the great majority of the population will be looking after the minority who are left out of Government offices? Of course, those who are looking after the others will be in a very fortunate position compared with the remnant who are left outside and who have to pay for the supervisors.
  Now I leave this point, and I refer to the salaries which are voted for the Minister of Labour himself, for the Permanent Secretary, and the Parliamentary Secretary. Of course, the House has itself sanctioned expenditure in regard both to the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not quite understand why the Parliamentary Secretary should only receive £l,200, while the Permanent Secretary receives £l,500. I always understood that the salaries in these offices, both of the Permanent Secretary and of the Parliamentary Secretary, were on a scale and that scale was in relation to the salary paid to the Minister at the head of the Department. I understood that when the Minister at the head of the Department was paid a salary of £5,000 the Permanent Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary received £1,500. But when, on the other hand, the Statute setting up the Ministry fixed the salary for the Minister at £2,000, the salary of the Permanent Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary were on the £ 1,200 basis. I may be wrong in this, and I do not desire to ask the Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to deal with this invidious question himself; but, as this is a rate of payment which is fixed by the Treasury, I have no doubt the hon. Member for Worcestershire will be able to deal with that question. Before the creation of the Ministry of Labour Mr. Shackleton was in another appointment. I think he was an Insurance Commissioner, and that may, of course, be an explanation of the salary of £1,500.
  Mr. BOOTH: He could not get more than £1,000 as an Insurance Commissioner, and I think he would be delighted to step into this job at £1,200.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Apparently, however, he is getting an increase of salary of 50 per cent., a very good appointment in these days of national economy. We require an explanation of it. The only

  579
  other heading which is of importance, and in respect of which there is a considerable increase, is the contributions to the Unemployment Fund, a contribution which, in the main, has been rendered necessary by the Act which we passed lust year, the National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act, which has brought large numbers of new workers within the scheme of unemployment insurance, and which, by bringing in large classes of new workers, has, as a natural result, increased the amount of the contributions which the State has to make to the Unemployment Fund. I do not think, as the House has deliberately passed this measure, that there could be any criticism of the increase of the Vote under this head, but I think under both of the first two heads not only the questions which I have addressed to the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, but also those which were put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) deserve an answer, and I hope before the Vote is disposed of that the hon. Gentleman, who represents the Government, will be able to give us a reply.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am rather sorry that the Government will not say whether they are going to take Vote 9. I put that point for what I think is a fair reason. No. 7 largely concerns unemployment insurance, and Vote 9 is health insurance. I have always made a point of the fact that there is apt to be confusion between the two parts of the Act, and we only add to that confusion if we immediately proceed from the discussion of unemployment insurance to health insurance. It may be remembered that I moved an instruction that the original Bill should be divided into two parts, and I argued then that nothing but mischief could come from considering these two things together. At first the Government did not accept my suggestion, but later the late Prime Minister did so, and acknowledged that he got it from me, and the unemployment part was sent upstairs to a Grand Committee, whilst the health part was kept here, so that there should be no confusion in the minds of any Members in the House about the two parts. I submit, if I am expected to deal with unemployment insurance, and then we go on to discuss the health part immediately afterwards, that it will confuse the business. I wish the Government
  580
  would be content to get this very-large Vote to-night. Really, it is a very great question. In the absence of any intimation, however, I must proceed to deal with Vole 7 and the Government must take the responsibility of having confused the two things. With regard to this Vote, the first item that captures my eye is a very small amount.
  Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): In accordance with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at Question Time, it now1 being five minutes to Eleven, we should certainly not enter upon any further Vote when this has been disposed of.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am much obliged to you. The second Vote is naturally very present to my mind and I feel exceedingly keen about it, but if that is the intention I will be as brief as possible on this Vote. The first is a matter of vital importance with regard to travelling expenses. I do not like, as a retrenchment critic, suggesting that an item is too small. I am very glad that the present Minister of Labour has been chosen for that post, and I was rather hopeful, because he is one of the most vigorous Members of this House, that by going about the country he should give us a more direct administration of labour. He cannot possibly understand the difficulties in the cotton trade of Lancashire, the woollen workers in Yorkshire, or the home workers in Cumberland, and so on by sitting in Whitehall, and I thought that we were getting a real live Labour Minister who would deal with things on the spot, but when I see £100 put down for travelling expenses, it is quite obvious that he is going to remain in London. It is absurd to suggest that all the necessary travelling for three months for the Ministry of Labour can be done for £100.
  The Vote following I cannot understand. It is not grammar. I do not know what the Government means by it. It says: "The total original net estimate, 1916–17, for Labour Exchange and Unemployment Insurance"—but it cannot be a Labour Exchange insurance—"(now Ministry of Labour)." If it means that both these Departments are now within the Ministry of Labour, why does it not say so? Under III. I join in the criticism of my hon and learned Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle) in saying that the Permanent Secretary is

  581
  getting too much. I am perfectly certain that the present occupant of the post who, like myself, started life in Lancashire as a half-timer, would be quite glad to change his present post in which he is getting £1,000 a year, and in which he has been simply an errand boy and a messenger for the last few years, for a most responsible post like this at £l,200 a year. He does not want a superior salary to that of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridge-man), who, when he joined the Government, was, from information which I have heard, a financial loser. I certainly had to make great business sacrifices. It seems to me ludicrous that the hon. Member, who is always polite to everybody, should he getting £1,200 and that an ex-Member of this House—I do not say that he is not a desirable man for the post—should have £1,500 a year.
  11.0 P.M.
  My main point, however, is the increase in the number of workers under the Insurance Act: how many are men and how many are women? I am not quite clear from some of the regulations whether any women have been brought into the unemployment part, Part II., of the Act. The original idea was that they would not. Under this Supplemental Estimate I think that for the first time some women have been brought under unemployment benefit. I do not think it assists the woman worker at all: it was designed for workmen. The position of a woman, in this matter, is entirely different from that of a man economically; and that was recognised in that part of the Act, and the provision was modified. There was also provision for the time she came back after the death of her husband into health assurance and equal benefit again, and the secretary was obliged to provide that. I think that is a recognition of the difference in the economic position between a man and a woman. Part II. of the Insurance Act was not designed to include the woman worker, though I think it should have been framed on different lines from those which were contemplated. A project was adumbrated at the time by certain trade unions and was accepted by some of them, but the great bulk of trade unions were left out; and when the increase in the numbers under the principal Act are spoken of I want to know how many women there are—I would like the figures. I have always maintained that one of the chief benefits of the Insurance Act was contained in Part I.—namely, to
  582
  procure reliable statistics, and I think the House saw an opportunity of a large variety of information being made available. Ministers have two duties. With one they are well acquainted, but the other is to give information to the public. If there is to be an extension to other trades we must have a reliable system. Therefore, I should like some information about women, and whether it is intended to extend the Act still further.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows more about the Act than I do, but surely intention must be a matter of legislation.
  Mr. BOOTH: When the Bill was being passed, and the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) was in charge, he was good enough to meet a number of Members collectively and individually, and we had an opportunity of talking with him as to the power given to the Board of Trade to extend the Act to different trades. The principal trade unions and the federation of Masters were both up in arms against the extending Order, and Members of this House were bombarded with representations regarding it. I know of the glass-bottle workers in my own Constituency objected very strongly to it. They have paid a larger sum per head per week in unemployment benefit than any other class in the world—seven shillings, eight shillings, and nine shillings per week. They have a special system in their industry. They divide the work up, and if a certain oven or small furnace is out of work then the men in work give up a week in turn, so that those who have been out of work some time get employment. I do not know whether that system is in operation now, but it is a right system. It helps those who are temporarily out, and it has proved fairly successful. But then the Board of Trade comes along and forces on them something they do not desire. I should like to be informed how far the Department have gone with this Order, and whether it was contemplated to bring other trades under it in the future.
  Mr. ROCH: I should also like to call attention to a very important point in connection with unemployment insurance. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who is speaking for the Department is familiar with what has happened, but if he will look into it he will find that this Order was intended to

  583
  cover unemployment insurance for munition workers. That was a very wise thing. But by some oversight on the part of the Board of Trade industries, not munition works, were brought in quite unnecessarily. I would like to call attention to the case of the cement workers. It was almost ludicrous to include them in the unemployment insurance for munition workers. Every one will agree that the cement workers, who are now suffering severely from the War, belong to the one industry which will not require such insurance when the War is over. The Order has given rise to a great deal of unpopularity among the men, and it is putting a heavy burden on the cement manufacturers, who are going through very hard times indeed just now. I know they have approached the Board of Trade and suggested that the extension was quite unnecessary, and I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will undertake to look into the matter.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): With regard to the question of classes or trades being included or excluded from the unemployment part of the Insurance Act, I am afraid I am not in a position to give a definite answer, but I can say that every trade that has a grievance on this matter, if it will bring it before the Labour Ministry, will have it considered. As regards women brought in under the Act, I may tell the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) that the number is considerable, but I cannot now give the exact totals. If he will put a question down I hope to be able to give him the information he desires. The only other point he raised was, I think, that the travelling expenses of the Department which I have the honour to represent were too small. I think that is the only compliment we have had on economy during the whole discussion of this Vote, and I think very few Members of this House would like to add, if it were in order to do so, to that item. After all, it is only till 31st March, and I think we shall be able to manage on that amount until then.
  Mr. BOOTH: Can I have an assurance that this does not mean centralised administration, but that the Department will get about the country?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We shall certainly do what we can to be in as many places
  584
  as possible. Other hon. Members raised many interesting points. I should like to say that I regret very much that the Minister of Labour, not being well, has not been able to be here to-night and to have an opportunity of explaining the policy which, I believe, to a certain extent he has explained elsewhere, with regard to his tenure of office as Minister of Labour. With regard to the point raised as to the new house of the Ministry, that should be addressed to the Office of Works. Whatever place is occupied, cleaners would be required.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It, all depends how-dirty.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member for East Edinburgh said it would require cleaners, and so on. Whatever house the Office of Works gave us would have to be swept. The hon. Member also spoke as if the whole of the work of the Labour Ministry was being concentrated in Montagu House. That is not the case. We only occupy a small portion of it. The other parts of Montagu House are being occupied by other Departments, and the huts in the garden are going to be occupied by other Departments too. The offices of the Labour Exchanges, now called Employment Exchanges, are, as the hon. Member knows, not in Montagu House but in Broadway, and there is no intention of moving them there. It is merely the central headquarters' staff that is located there. So far as the duties of the Ministry are concerned, they are defined by the Act of Parliament already passed as well as the salaries of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. While we are aware that the services of the right hon. Gentleman who presides over this Ministry are worth his weight in gold, neither he nor anyone else in war-time is anxious to stand out for any high salary. Their only desire is to do the best they can in the posts to which they have been entrusted. With regard to the salary of the Permanent Secretary. I think the hon. Member who criticised it was -wrong in the comparison he drew. He said the Under-Secretary for the Board of Agriculture did not get so large a salary, I think.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I said the usual scale.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: His scale is higher and the same may be said of the Board of Trade. Before the Board of Trade was raised to £5,000 it was, I

  585
  think, only £2,000, and the Permanent Secretary had £l,500. In the Board of Agriculture now his salary is £1,500 to £1,800, and I do not think that anybody can complain that the salary is excessive. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire also spoke of what he described as abolishing Scottish offices and bringing them to London. Several persons in divisional offices have been brought to London to the Central Offices to concentrate the work, and great economy has been thereby effected. I have been asked for an explanation of the large additional expense incurred by the extra staff required in connection with the work of the National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act. It may interest the hon. Member to know that his calculations as to the total amount were wrong, The Munition Workers Act came into operation in September, 1916, and the figures therefore cover about six months. The number of books issued under the Munition Workers Act up to 13th January of this year was 1,177,455. It is estimated that the number will reach 1,280,000 by 31st March. A very large additional amount of work has been thrown upon the Department. In view of that I do not think the hon. Member will consider that the Supplementary Estimate is in any way excessive. As to the military aspect of the case, so far as the new staff goes they are men over military age or unfit, or women; 1,200 men have gone or have been replaced by women, and ail men fit for general service under twenty-six, as well as the others, have gone. In the short time the Labour Ministry has been established it would be very difficult to answer some of the detailed questions put, but if any hon. Member would like information and will put down a question or questions we shall be very glad to try and provide answers.
  Mr. T. WILSON: My excuse for saying a few words now is that this is a question that affects labour. I am not quite certain whether any provision is made in the Supplementary Estimate for one point. The Minister of Labour has stated on several occasions that he proposes to establish something like 800 more Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Agencies or Exchanges?
  Mr. WILSON: I am not quite certain whether the experience of the Employment Department in the past will warrant
  586
  him in doing that. I know the reason he gives for opening these agencies is that when demobilisation comes it will be necessary to deal with it. I do not think that Labour Agencies or Exchanges will be the best way of dealing with the men discharged from the Army, and I hope he will reconsider that point before deciding to open 800 agencies, because it is well known that during the past four years a considerable number of Labour Exchanges have been closed because, using an Irish phrase, they are uneconomical; they do not pay for themselves. It is well known that Labour Exchanges were open for a considerable time, with a staff of from two to seven people in the office, that did not provide employment for half a dozen men in a month. If experience proves that in the past the Labour Exchanges have not brought the unemployed workmen in touch with the employers, it is absolutely foolish on the part of the Labour Minister to say he is going to open 800 agencies. I think the question of the provision of employment for the men demobilised will have to be dealt with in quite a different way from establishing, like an insurance company, an agency in a small village or town, and therefore I do hope the hon. Gentleman will convey to his chief the request that he ought to consider, not once, but twice and thrice, the desirability of further considering this question. In this Supplementary Estimate provision is made for increasing the first Estimate, so far as unemployment is concerned, by some £247,000. I do not find very much fault with that, but I am under the impression that there will be no occasion whatever for the use of this money. It may be a question of precaution and foresight, but it seems to me in a large question of this kind the Board have been given a large discretion.
  I am exceedingly sorry that the Government established their Ministry of Labour during war-time. I am certain it would not have been agreed to in peace-time as easily as it was when it passed through the House of Commons. We are told by the apologists for the establishment of the Ministry of Labour that Labour had demanded the Ministry for a considerable time past. I am not quite certain whether this kind of Ministry of Labour is the Ministry they were requiring. I may be extremely old-fashioned, or I may be extremely advanced—I am not quite certain which—but I disagree to some extent

  587
  with some of my colleagues on this question. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) referred to the withdrawing of a certain number of the members of the employment staff from Edinburgh, and wondered whether it was in the interests of economy or why. If he were here, I would suggest to the hon. Member that dilution extends to other matters besides employment in shipyards and engineering works. So far as the Employment Exchanges are concerned, I believe an opportunity for effecting economies in administration has been missed. We have got the Director of Labour, who, in my opinion, practically speaking, occupies the position of Permanent Secretary to the Employment Exchanges. I believe that the Government is making a great mistake by establishing new Ministers and increasing what I call the permanent staff by giving a high salary to the men who are doing work which was previously done by the present staff. I hope at a time like this, when the Government and every responsible person in the country is appealing for economy, that the Government will, wherever they can, economise and prevent extravagance of all kinds. I am afraid in this Department extravagance has already taken place. I think we ought to take advantage of every change in administration to economise as far as possible. On the contrary, I am afraid that instead of doing that we are increasing expenditure needlessly in each Department. Without any hesitation, I say that the intelligent working men of the country are looking with great apprehension upon the policy of the Government in connection with this Act and other matters connected with the administrative work of the country. I appeal to them to be careful what they do. We are told that if we criticise them we are not loyal and patriotic. That is the argument used by the men who defend the policy of the Government. I would not like my loyalty or patriotism, or the patriotism of my party, to be measured by the positions offered to it by any Government.
  Mr. RENDALL: I wish to utter a word of protest against what has been said by the hon. Member for Oswestry. The hon. Member stated that some trades which had been brought under the unemployment portion of the Act said they did not like it, and they had only got to make a protest and their representations would
  588
  be considered; and not only this, but would be favourably considered. I can speak on this subject with reference to the boot trade of Northampton, Kettering, and Bristol, and the glove trade of Worcester and Yeovil. They have made representations to the Hoard of Trade and sent deputations protesting against being brought under Part II. of the Insurance Act, and they have been told by the permanent officials and by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Act having given power to the Board of Trade to bring them in once the Board has done this there is no power to get out of the Act, the consequence being that in reply to all representations made by people to the Board of Trade they have been told "we cannot do anything. The Order has been made and it cannot be undone without an Act of Parliament." It is not true for the hon. Gentleman to say that representations at the Board of Trade are considered favourably. I know great hardship has been caused to the boot and glove trade, and I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to do something to alleviate the really severe penalty which the bringing of these trades under the Act has caused to the workmen and the women employed in them. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to show some sympathy in the near future with regard to those trades.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member seems to suggest that I have said something which was not true. All I said was that any trade that thought it a grievance as to being included or excluded under this Act would have that grievance considered if it was brought before the Labour Ministry.
  Mr. RENDALL: You cannot consider it at the present time.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then what is the use of the hon. Member asking me to be sympathetic at the end of his remarks?
  Mr. RENDALL: I meant that we want legislation.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not possible that we may consider this with a view to seeing whether it is not possible to remedy grievances by legislation?
  Mr. RENDALL: I hope so.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is all I meant to convey. I cannot see how I can be accused of saying what was not true.
  Mr. RENDALL: I did not mean it in that way.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite aware of the general facts stated by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not know all the difficulties in any particular trade. It has, however, been brought clearly to our notice that there are grievances, and we are doing our best to consider how it is possible to get round those difficulties. In regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division (Mr. T. Wilson) with reference to the increase in the number of labour agencies mentioned by the Labour Minister, he stated that that was not the right way to deal with demobilisation or unemployment. He further said that he hoped the Ministry of Labour would not object to being criticised. I can assure him that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself object to intelligent criticism such as he offers. I will represent what he says to my right hon. Friend. It is really a matter for the Government to decide how demobilisation is to be done, and not for the Labour Ministry.
  Mr. T. WILSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the word "agency" means a committee of people in the district or a person?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: "Agency," as I understand it, is probably some person who acts as agent. There are already agencies connected with the Labour Exchanges, and it means some person who will not give full time in the town where he lives, and where he is now probably a correspondent for the Labour Exchange. With regard to the item of £247,000 in subhead H, that is a contribution to the Unemployment Fund which is due from the Government in respect of new people, munition workers, who have come under the new Employment Act. Of that amount, £221,650 is accounted for in that way, and the remaining £25,750 is due to
  590
  the actual increase of the number of people outside the Munition Workers Act since the first Estimate was made.
  Mr. WILSON: Is it intended to pay out of this fund the 3s. 6d. per day unemployment benefit promised by the organiser of the civil workers?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that question without notice.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.

1. Resolved, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended 31st day of March, 1917, a sum of £200,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

2. Resolved, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, the sum of £350,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes before Twelve o'clock.

WAR.
  BARON FREDERIC ROPP.
  BARON FREDERIC ROPP.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IRELAND).
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IRELAND).
  RAILWAY FACILITIES (IRELAND).
  RAILWAY FACILITIES (IRELAND).
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
  VOLUNTEER BATTALIONS (ADJUTANTS).
  VOLUNTEER BATTALIONS (ADJUTANTS).
  DAMAGE BY AEROPLANES (COMPENSATION).
  DAMAGE BY AEROPLANES (COMPENSATION).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  GAS STOVES (RENTAL).
  GAS STOVES (RENTAL).
  GAS (CALORIFIC POWER).
  GAS (CALORIFIC POWER).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BREWING MATERIALS.
  BREWING MATERIALS.
  GRASS LANDS (IRELAND).
  GRASS LANDS (IRELAND).
  Newtownforbes Industrial School.
  Newtownforbes Industrial School.
  Dublin Advance Company.
  Dublin Advance Company.
  Education Authorities (Duties and Grants).
  Education Authorities (Duties and Grants).
  Administrative Areas (Population).
  Administrative Areas (Population).