asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what separation allowance widow Kate Scally, Mullingar, mother and dependant of Private John Scally, B Company, 7th Battalion, Leinster Regiment, Kilworth Camp, is entitled according to scale; when she became entitled to it; why she has not yet received it; and, as she is in ill-health and unable to work, when the arrears will be paid to her?

Mrs. Scally was found not to have been dependent on her son before his enlistment, and therefore was not entitled to any allownce from Government.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how long the military authorities in Ireland are empowered and accustomed, respectively, to keep civilians in custody without trial; and under what law civilians so treated are then transferred to and sentenced summarily by one paid magistrate, remote from the scene of the alleged offence and beyond the reach of witnesses?

Whether in Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom, persons are only detained in custody for such time as is sufficient to make a full inquiry into the charges which have been brought against them. The answer to the last part of the question will be found in the Defence of the Realm Amendment Act, 1915, chapter 34, 5 George V.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is any appeal possible on the part of a naturalised British subject of many years' standing from the decision of the military, especially in cases where such subject has never had any opportunity of meeting the alleged reasons for the treatment meted out to him?

There is no appeal from an order made by a competent military authority under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Before issuing his order a competent military authority would give attention to all relevant facts brought to his notice.

Might I ask my right hon. Friend if the War Office acts on the principle that a man in this position, who has been treated by the War Office in a certain way, is not entitled to lay before them his side of the case?

His side of the case would be placed before the competent military authority before any order was given, but after the order was given, then, as my hon. Friend is aware, there would be no appeal under the Act.

May I ask whether in those cases, or in any case, the man or the woman concerned is allowed to appear in person before the military authority?

I should say not, speaking without full inquiry.

Why not?

If my hon. Friend will give me notice, I will have that point inquired into.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House precisely what he has meant upon the two occasions on which he has used the word "competent"—does it mean military rank or judicial knowledge?

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Act of Parliament he will see that the whole of its provisions are governed by the appeal to the competent military authority, which is the body responsible for putting the regulations into-force.

asked the-Under-Secretary of State for War whether Reservists who were called up at the commencement of the War will be kept on active service until peace is declared, or whether they will be discharged on the completion of their twelve months' extra service; and whether it is proposed to give them a bounty on the completion of their service?

An Army Order was issued on the 22nd June stating the conditions on which men due for discharge might voluntarily continue to serve until the close of hostilities. I will send my hon. Friend a copy. The issue of a bounty is not contemplated.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any war correspondents and, if so, how many, had been permitted to accompany the Expeditionary Force in France?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I have given him on previous occasions to similar questions. At present five representatives of the Press are at General Headquarters in France.

Is there a limit put upon the number of newspapers which can be represented?

Yes, obviously there must be a limit.

Is that limit five?

I am unable to say without knowing. It depends upon the French authorities.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether the standard of efficiency of the non-commissioned officers and men of the 10th Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers is so high that already and under very restrictive administration nearly 200 commissions have been granted to men; whether he is aware that there are no less than 600 of the men of this battalion who are in every respect competent to receive commissions and who are of much more value than the many persons who are daily receiving commissions; and whether, having regard to these circumstances and also to the suitability of the men from a social point of view, he will cause the restrictions which at present preclude these men applying for commissions to be removed; and (2) whether, owing to the standard of efficiency attained by the non-commissioned rank and file in the 10th Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers and having regard to the circumstances that socially and in all other respects they are of the class from which the best officers are obtained, he will consider if the interests of the country will be better served by offering commissions to such of the rank and file of this battalion as are desirous of accepting them, and so distributing them over various regiments rather than sacrificing these men as a unit to the exigencies of service in the field?

Commissions have been granted to a considerable number of noncommissioned officers and men of the 10th Battalion Royal Fusiliers, and recommendations are still being received from the commanding officer of that battalion, who has instructions to submit the names of all soldiers serving in his unit who are candidates for appointment to commissions and whom he can recommend as in all respects suitable for such appointment, provided the efficiency of the unit as a whole does not suffer. I do not know what the number may be of those who are eligible for recommendation on these conditions, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it must be left to the commanding officer to decide whether any particular soldier shall or shall not be recommended at once for a commission.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the amount of salary paid to each of the two Army lieutenants who have been appointed travelling inspectors of goods and material for the War Office; and what are the qualifications they have for that position?

These officers are not employed as inspectors of goods and materials, but as supervisors over the large numbers of viewers who are scattered up and down the country at outlying contractors' works. One of these officers is paid £450 a year, and the other about £300 a year.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what are the qualifications of those two gentlemen?

They are very well qualified for supervising the work of the viewers or men engaged in the technical part of the business.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these gentlemen are passing materials and goods which the viewers have refused to pass?

No, I am not aware of that fact.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in reference to the proposal to relieve hospitals from the payment of duty on alcohol used medicinally, he has consulted authorities on the temperance question as to the possible dangers of an increased use of tinctures and other forms of alcohol which must ensue if the cost of such medicines is substantially reduced?

I have not thought it necessary to take this step, as I have no reason to suppose that the grant of the concession will lead to abuse. The effect of the proposal would be not to relieve hospitals from the payment of duty on all spirits used medicinally—e.g., brandy—but only to exempt spirits used in the preparation of tinctures and other articles to be used for medical purposes.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman listen to the Debate, in which suggestions of that kind were very freely advanced; and will he, in order to prevent discussions and Divisions on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, try and consult some temperance authority?

My hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division (Mr. Bridgeman), who has that particular Amendment in hand, is consulting various persons.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether Mr. Joseph Duncan, of the Farm Servants' Union, has been appointed by him a member of the Committee on Food Supplies in Scotland; whether this is the fourth or fifth Government Committee to which this gentleman has been appointed in Scotland within a short period; whether there were other trade union leaders of more experience available to the Secretary for Scotland; and whether he will explain how the work of these Committees will be satisfactorily done if confined to a few hands instead of being distributed amongst those who have rendered great service to the labour cause?

Mr. Duncan has been appointed by me to one Royal Commission and one Committee, the former in 1912 and the latter this year. He has done his work admirably, and I have every reason to be satisfied with his appointment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information regarding the recent riots in Ceylon?

On the 28th May, the festival of Buddha's birthday, the hostility felt against the Mahomedans by the Buddhists gathered in Kandy for the celebrations resulted in serious disturbances, which took the form of attacks on Mahomedan mosques and shops. During the next few days the rioting spread to Colombo and to other parts of the Colony, and it became necessary to proclaim martial law in five provinces. The military forces in the Colony quickly succeeded in suppressing the disturbances. I have not yet received details of the loss of life and destruction of property which were suffered. Inquiry is being made on the spot into the origin of the rioting, with a view to the punishment of those responsible. I propose to lay Papers on the subject when I have received a full account from the Governor.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if German agency was apparent in any way to this affair?

I have seen a statement to that effect in the papers, but, although I have received voluminous accounts from the Colony, there is no indication in them of any such agency.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty for what offence Petty Officer Owen, of the ship "Drake II.," was recently degraded and put ashore on the Kerry coast; whether this officer has proved in Court to have spent his time ashore, in company with sailors John Rushby and Frank Morrows from the same ship, insulting everybody, calling Irishmen curs, striking them, and saying that under the feet of Englishmen was the proper place for Irishmen; and, as civil justice is now suspended in Ireland, how those men were dealt with on their return to the ship?

The person to whom the hon. Member refers is no doubt Percy Owen, engineman on board His Majesty's trawler "Drake II." He has not been degraded and put ashore, but his discharge has been approved on account of disciplinary offences, namely, drunkenness and leave breaking. As regards the incident mentioned by the hon. Member, Owen and two other sailors, hearing disloyal language in a public-house, had the speaker prosecuted, and he was sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour. This happened about a month ago. As there was no charge against the men on account of this matter, they were not dealt with in respect of it on return on board.

Was not that sentence the result of the evidence given by the two men who assaulted the countryman?

I do not know anything about the assault. I have said there was no charge against the men on account of that, and they were not dealt with in respect of it on return on board.

Since it is very desirable to prevent anything of this nature, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions, in the case of sailors on shore leave, that prosecutions shall only be commenced on the initiative of their superior officers, and not on that of the men themselves?

I will take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty why the men in the Royal Naval Division at Blandford only get half-fare railway warrants to visit their homes before going to the front in cases where they have had Christmas leave; is he aware that many of them come from Scotland, the North of England, and North Wales, which brings the cost of their journey to £2, while, if they have made a separation allotment, their pay is only 5s. per week; and can anything be done to make less expensive their final visit home before sailing?

It has been decided to grant free railway warrants to men of the Royal Naval Division, when leave is granted them, to enable them to visit their homes before going abroad, and instructions on the subject will be issued shortly.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to a complaint as to the charge made to the Admiralty for water by the Lame Harbour Commissioners, namely; 1s. per 100 gallons, for which they only pay the local authority 6d. per 1,000 gallons; and will the Government enforce against this body the right of supply of a vital requisite for His Majesty's ships without being thus victimised?

My attention had not previously been directed to the matter. I am instituting enquiries into it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the prices charged to the Admiralty were precisely the same as those charged to other-users, and did not leave any profit or cover the interest on capital?

In this instance?

Yes.

That I cannot say.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also ascertain whether this body has not provided berths for 2,000 of His Majesty's ships without charging any fee for light and accommodation, and if they have not given every possible assistance to the Admiralty?

I have no doubt that is true, and I am quite sure they would not wish to make that up by charging too much for the water.

May I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the "Larne Times" showing that the question was only put after the Admiralty had made complaints to the local authorities?

I shall be pleased to receive a copy of the paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability, with a view to reducing the work of the censors employed in examining mails, of allowing the correspondence of Members of Parliament to be free from censorship wherever it may be addressed, and not limiting it to their address at the House of Commons?

The reason of the present limitation is that, in the case of letters to a Member of Parliament, the censors cannot be sure, without having a list of all the addresses at which Members of Parliament are residing or may in future reside, that a letter addressed to a Member of Parliament is not really intended to reach another and less desirable person, and in the case of letters from a Member of Parliament it is impossible to say without inquiry whether his signature on the envelope is genuine. The proposal would increase and not diminish the work of the censors.

If the letters are addressed to hon. Members at this House, will my right hon. Friend make exceptions in those cases? All my letters from the front have been opened.

I think that is the rule at present.

Not to open them?

Yes.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Professor A. W. Schuddekopf, of Leeds University, a German believed to be naturalised, whose son formerly held a commission as second-lieutenant in the 7th Service Battalion Leeds Rifles; whether, when the battalion volunteered for service abroad, Professor Schuddekopf informed the commanding officer that he (the professor) was a German and his wife a German, and that he refused to allow his son to fight against Germans; whether Second-Lieutenant Schuddekopf acquiesced in his father's views and intimated his unwillingness to serve abroad, and has since resigned his commission; whether the professor above referred to is the same Professor Schuddekopf who in May last published a letter in the "Times" and other papers publicly expressing his unswerving loyalty to the country of his adoption, and stating that he felt bound to it not only by gratitude, family ties, and his solemn oath of allegiance, but also by a deep sympathy born of common work and intimate knowledge of the nation's life and character; whether Professor Schuddekopf still owes allegiance to the German Emperor; and whether, having regard to the hostile origin and associations and the action of Professor Schuddekopf and his son, he will order them to be interned?

I have made inquiry and find that the facts with regard to Second-Lieutenant Schuddekopf's resignation of his commission appear to be substantially as stated in the question. His father, Professor Schuddekopf, who was one of the signatories of the letter in the "Times," of 14th May, was willing that his son should serve for Home defence, but did not wish him to volunteer to fight the Germans abroad. I am informed that the professor owes no allegiance to the German Emperor. As regards the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, the matter shall receive consideration.

Is it competent for an officer holding His Majesty's commission to select which of the King's enemies he shall fight against?

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. This man belonged to a Territorial regiment, and only those Territorial officers who volunteer for service abroad are liable to serve abroad.

asked whether the Secretary of State for War has during the past six months released, with permission to remain in this country, any German alien enemies who had been sent to detention camps by order of the Home Office; and, if so, how many?

Between the 1st January and the 13th May, on which date the responsibility for the release of civilian alien enemies was taken over by the Home Secretary, 1,289 such aliens were released from internment camps by order of the Secretary of State for War. Of these, the great majority had been interned by the various police authorities acting under the general instructions of the Government issued through the Home Office regarding alien enemies. Both in the general measure of internment which took place at the end of October and in the subsequent release of selected cases the two Departments co-operated.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have been actually released from these internment camps by order of the War Office, and how many are still at liberty—that is what I want to know?

One thousand two hundred and eighty-nine was the number I gave.

Are they all at liberty?

I am afraid I cannot answer that. I have not been able to trace what happened in the interval.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total tonnage and value of charcoal iron imported from Sweden in each of the four last years and the total for that period; whether, having regard to the abundance of British ore, the necessity for this expenditure is due to any cause but the failure to use a pure charcoal fuel instead of coal or coke; whether he is aware that in converting a ton of peat densified by the Zohrab process into 8 cwt. of charcoal a much larger amount of sulphate of ammonia is obtained than from a ton of coal, and also a much larger amount of gas for lighting, heating, or power purposes; whether he is aware that the plant required for this is less expensive than that for coal, and that both densified peat and peat charcoal are smokeless; and, having regard to the needless outlay for charcoal iron and to the value of a substitute for coal as a precaution against strikes, whether the Board will give attention to the development of peat bogs and the utilisation of bog products?

I will circulate with the Votes a statement giving the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I have nothing to add to the answers given to him on the 22nd and 24th June. [See Written Answers this date.]

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficult position in which certain holders of patents are placed, inasmuch as taxes on their patents must be paid when due or fines are exacted, while certain trades are in cessation, the expenditure of local bodies is largely curtailed, works manufacturing under patents are commandeered for Government work, and the labour market is disorganised; and whether he will favourably consider applications for relaxation of the present charges in cases where exceptional hardships can be shown to have arisen?

I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the rules made on 21st August last, with a view to meeting the difficulties to which he refers. He may rest assured that the power given in these rules to extend the time for the payment of fees has been, and will continue to be, generously exercised in all suitable cases.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the advisability of temporarily suspending during the War the motor mail-van services in those cases in which the mails might be carried by railway with little inconvenience; and whether he has formed any estimate of the number of men and cars who could thus be released for the purposes of the War?

Advantage will be taken of any favourable opportunity that occurs to release motor mail-vans and their drivers for war purposes, but at the present time is not possible to say how far such changes will be practicable.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this with reference to a specific case where motor cars are being used?

The local officers of the Post Office have been considered in reference to a specific case.

May I ask this question, on which I wish to be quite clear, in view of the discussion in the Committee to-day. Does this money Resolution mean that the only money that is to be provided by Parliament under this Bill is money which will be required for the salary of the chairman or vice-chairman, if such are appointed? Does it mean, therefore, that if further money from the Treasury is required for the purposes of the Bill there will require to be a fresh money Resolution after this Bill becomes law?

That is so. If it is suggested that any fund out of the public purse is to be placed at the disposal of the authority who is to administer this, of course that would require another Vote in Committee.

I am afraid the Members of the House generally have got so many duties thrust upon them that they have not the time or the opportunity of examining and analysing the proposals of the Government with that care which at other times they would display. It appears to me that this money Resolution does not go far enough, because in the Bill upon which it is founded, while provision is made for the payment of a salary to the chairman and vice-chairman of the body about to be constituted, it appears that any expenses incurred by the Committee must be a charge upon private or other charitable donations. That is not at all a good thing, and I think we ought to have some undertaking from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the out-of-pocket expenses of those who constitute this Committee of Management ought to be paid out of public funds, and should not come from any funds which are collected from private sources. I understand that one of the things the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends doing is to raid the Prince of Wales's Fund. I do not think that will appeal to the Members of the House generally as a desirable thing. The work that is necessary in connection with any provision so far as disabled soldiers and sailors are concerned, ought to come entirely out of public moneys. It is the primary duty of the State to do this, and I trust, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us an undertaking that at a later stage he will make provision to cover the points I have now raised.

I understand from the ruling you have given that the Resolution we are now passing will only authorise under this Bill money from the public funds being paid for the chairman and vice-chairman. I think before we pass this Resolution we should have some kind of assurance from the Government that if the opinion should be expressed later on that under Clause 3 some further provision should be made to make those numerous powers there really effective, we should have some kind of understanding or undertaking that they will give effect to that expression of feeling. I shall be in the recollection of all who heard the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill that the strongest possible view was expressed as to the entire inadequacy of Clause 3 without some further help from the Treasury, and I really think in these days, with all the feeling of patriotism which we are all showing, it would be nothing short of a scandal if the Bill was allowed to be entirely inoperative for want of public funds. We are being enjoined on all hands to use thrift. This is the one direction on which thrift should not be exercised, and I therefore hope, with all the tales that reach us of waste of public money in many directions, we shall not have to exercise thrift and meanness in cutting down the effective operation of Clause 3 of this Bill.

I entirely object to this money proposal. I see no rhyme or reason for the appointment of a salaried chairman or vice-chairman at this present stage. Under the Resolution we should have no power, I take it, to propose any Amendment to try and do justice to those men who are concerned. Even under Clause I of the Bill, Sub-section (8), no provision is made to pay the secretaries a halfpenny. Who is going to find the money? It really comes to this, that the Government—and I am sure the House and the country would be with them—should have been jealous in regard to the men who have given their lives and their limbs and their health and they have had no war bonus of any sort or kind. They are the only people in this country who have not struck, because they have no cause except the good of the nation. Yet, forsooth, the Government are coming down to the House and proposing to us, in pursuance of a Report made by a Select Committee, a scale of pensions that we shall be bound to accept. How shall we ever raise this question again? Our endeavour will be lost unless we get a clear undertaking from the Treasury that money is forthcoming, and that there will be a sufficient supply of money.

I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to do that on this Resolution. It would be irrelevant. The object of putting the Resolution before the House is that the House should exercise economy in cutting down and not that it should take this opportunity of spending. All the Rules of the House are designed in that way, that the House should not extend and give more than the representative of the Crown offers. I do not think it is right to take this opportunity of pressing the Government to put a largo sum of money into the Resolution.

Should I be in order in saying how inadequate and paltry this provision is? What I want to say is that it would be far better, in my judgment, to postpone the Bill than to offer a sum of money which, in my opinion, is contemptuous and inadequate. Shall I be in order in discussing that?

That is a good argument upon Second Reading. This Resolution, however, is of a very limited scope indeed—simply whether the chairman and vice-chairman shall receive a salary or not.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I say that if this provision is persisted in, I shall do my best to kill this Bill.

Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether, as a matter of fact, it is intended to finance this Bill out of the Prince of Wales' Fund?

I am astonished at the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holder). He speaks of the paltry and insignificant provision that is made in the Bill. Any provision that is made in the Bill is made solely for the purpose of giving this House an opportunity of discussing the working of it; it is not in order to find public money for the purpose of this Bill. That is not the real object at all. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely overlooked what has happened. The Government originally proposed a certain scale of separation allowances and pensions and allowances to wounded soldiers. This House, being dissatisfied with the proposals of the Government, appointed a Select Committee to reconsider the scale, and to reconsider the whole scale of Government allowances. The Select Committee reconsidered the scale and they considered other things too, and they submitted a scale of Government pensions and allowances to this House. That scale was accepted.

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the scale was only accepted provisionally. We were told we should sec the Bill and have a chance of amending it.

I stated the whole of the circumstances, and I had before me, not precisely this Bill, but a similar Bill in print. That scale was accepted by the House as a generous scale. I think the provision made by this scale, both for separation allowances and pensions and provision for wounded soldiers, is accepted as generous. One of the problems which the Select Committee had before them was the problem of the better-to-do soldier who had left his family, and whose absence, having regard to his income, left his home far worse off in proportion to the scale of his living than was the case in regard to the larger class of recruits. We had to consider the problem whether the case of such a soldier's dependants was a case to be met out of public funds, and we unanimously came to the conclusion that so far as public funds were concerned, at any rate in the first instance, we must give a flat rate which would be sufficiently generous to cover the whole mass of the community. That is what we did, but we were not oblivious to the need of seeing how far, by voluntary effort, we could arrange a scheme to supplement the pensions and allowances and the grants to disabled soldiers out of voluntary contributions. We proposed, therefore, a scheme by which a new statutory Committee would be set up, and we contemplated, and I still contemplate, that at any rate, in the first instance, that scheme shall be financed out of private contributions, in accordance with the general scheme of the Committee. If we ask the House now to give a large Vote in support of this scheme, we should be directly contravening the principle which had the direct sanction of this House, that so far as public money was spent on separation allowances, it should be on a flat rate. There was no section of the House more ardent in support of that principle than my hon. Friends who usually speak from the Labour Benches.

We are in favour of that.

This Bill proposes to supplement the flat rate in individual cases, but how can we come forward in the first instance and say that Parliament shall finance this Bill out of public money. It would be a direct contradiction of the principle that Parliament has already accepted. It is quite true that I have suggested, and I do suggest now, because I think it is the wisest course, that the Prince of Wales' Fund should hand over to this new body so much of its money as it chooses to allocate for the purpose of naval and military expenditure.

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to go into these matters on this Resolution?

It is not relevant to this Resolution. It is relevant to the Bill but not to this particular Resolution.

I apologise for being out of order. I have gone a great deal outside the terms of the Resolution, but I felt it necessary to do so in view of the misunderstanding on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holder). I will not carry the point further than to say that I think that this new statutory Committee would be the best body to administer so much of the Prince of Wales' Fund as the governing body think would be properly devoted to naval and military purposes. We shall hope also to recover from the War Office the very large sums which the Prince of Wales' Fund has already expended out of their voluntary contributions, which we think should have been met originally by the War Office. If we get that contribution from the War Office then we start with a large capital sum, but all of it from private contributions. Following the principle of the Bill we should then hope that we can get a large sum of money from private contributions to finance that part of the Bill, but if when all is said and done we have not enough money we shall have to come to Parliament and say that our hopes have not been realised. But to come to Parliament in the first instance is to prevent private contributions and the whole principle of our scheme is that there should be private contributions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to refer to the Prince of Wales' Fund when the Bill refers only to the National Fund?

The only question now before the House is whether the chairman and vice-chairman of the new body which is to be set up are or are not to be paid out of public funds.

I submit after this brief explanation that it is proper that the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman should be paid out of Parliamentary funds for the purpose of giving this House some measure of criticism in regard to and some direct knowledge of what is happening in connection with the work of the statutory Committee.

What about the expenses of the Committee?

The expenses of the Committee will be paid out of their funds, but by putting the expenses of one or two of the new body's principal officers upon the Parliamentary Estimates we secure an annual power in this House of reviewing the work of this Committee. I hope that the House will now accept this Resolution.

I am not going to deal with the question of the desirability of the appointment of two paid officials instead of having this work done by voluntary workers. Assume that the Government think that they cannot get work of this kind done by voluntary workers, then, if that is so, it is a very simple matter for a limit on the amount of expenditure to be put in the Money Resolution. It is a course which I have urged very often in this House. This is essentially a Resolution to which a limit should be put. We should know the amount of the salary which it is proposed to give to these two officials. It is desirable that the House of Commons should keep a very tight hold over these matters. That is the object of these Resolutions as to the amounts to be paid in connection with every new appointment. It is not creating a precedent. We pressed for it two or three times under the late Government and our request was granted, and I would press the Government very strongly that in this case we should know the amount which is going to be spent on the creation of new salaried officers, assuming that salaried officers are necessary.

You could have moved that in the Committee on the Clause, but of course you cannot move it now. I have already put the Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee."

May I ask whether the only object of the right hon. Gentleman in paying this chairman and vice-chairman out of public funds is to bring the Committee under the review of this House? It seems to me that that is a very insufficient reason for paying these two officials out of public funds. If the rest of the Bill is to be financed out of private contributions I cannot see why the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman should not be provided in a similar way. If the Committee did anything wrong or improper it would be quite within the province of any one person to bring their action before this House for discussion and criticism. But if the whole principle of this Bill is to pay the charges out of private contributions I cannot see why an exception should be made in the case of the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman. I think that a little more explanation on that point is required before we pass this Resolution.

It is of the utmost importance that the two officials mentioned should be officials under the control of this House and paid by this House. They have not merely duties to perform in connection with the voluntary fund, but they have also extremely responsible duties to perform in connection with the allowances which are made by this House. They are to decide whether the separation allowance has been forfeited or not. They are to decide also as between two or more claimants which of them is entitled to draw it, and they are to determine any other questions that are referred to them. This House would do well to keep officials performing such important duties under its control by paying them. If you had not ruled it out of order I would have liked to refer to the Section" as to deciding between two claimants, showing how necessary it might be to consider this matter.

The hon. Member will get an opportunity in an hour or so.

May I ask whether the object in this case could not be obtained by putting on the funds the salary of the secretary, or the assistant-secretary, which would be a much more satisfactory thing than putting on the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman? There are plenty of people in this country who would be prepared to take the place of the chairman or vice-chairman without payment of any sort, and would it not be possible to attain the object in view by transferring the payment by this House to the salaries of some such officials of the Department as the secretary and the assistant-secretary, while the chairman and vice-chairman will discharge their duties as honorary officials?

Might we have some kind of reply from the Government? We are all being exhorted by people in high places to exercise rigid economy. Is it really necessary, then, at such a time to appoint two new salaried officials under a Bill of this kind? What the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to do, I understand, is to secure that there should be some control by this House over the proceedings of the statutory Committee. That would be secured, as the hon. Member has stated, by appointing the secretary as a Government official and, if necessary, taking a discussion on his salary in this House. But I do think in the meantime, with the object of saving anything that is possible, that the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether it is really necessary to appoint these two officials at salaries which will have to be on a fairly generous scale.

The officers of the Department, who must be responsible to this House, will have to be the head of the Department. It is no good having the salaries of subordinate officers on the Estimates, leaving them to be discussed or criticised, while their superiors whose orders they obey escape scot free. I might mention that in the first instance certainly we do not propose to appoint two paid officers; we only appoint one, but we take power to appoint two because we do not know how far the work of this Committee is going to extend. We have to keep in view the question of disabled soldiers and sailors, and it may possibly be that the work will require two.

I was for many years the only salaried officer on the Scotch Education Vote, and the discussion was taken on the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland.

I do not think there is any analogy to the present case. The Secretary for Scotland was not in this House at the time.

Yes he was.

I thought that he was in another House. If he was in this House at the time the House had ample opportunity for discussing it. In the present case the chairman and vice-chairman may not be in this House, and the House might have no opportunity of discussing the conduct of the really responsible person. You must have the really responsible person who is doing the work responsible to this House. We shall certainly have every regard for economy, and we do not intend to appoint two paid officials unless it is absolutely necessary.

I personally welcome very much the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman made a misleading comparison between the secretary of the new Department, which is to be set up, and himself in his former distinguished capacity as secretary for the Scotch Education Department. When the hon. Gentleman held that position he was called the secretary, but he was really the dictator of that office. He described himself in formal notes as "My Lords of the Council of Education for Scotland," but "My Lords of the Council" were only the hon. Gentleman opposite all the time. We do not want a similar situation in connection with the Committee being set up under this Bill. We wish the chairman of this Committee to direct the policy of the Committee, and to give his whole time, or practically his whole time, to the direction of policy. Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that the salary of the gentleman who directs the policy of the Committee should be on the Votes, and subject to the control and criticism of this House.

I support the Resolution. We have just heard an explanation as to how far the Resolution is to extend as regards amount, and, by this means, we bring before Parliament year by year a large expenditure, not only out of Parliamentary funds, but out of other expenditure on public purposes. In that way we place on the highest officers of this Corporation the necessity of economy. The suggestion that the secretary, instead of the chairman or deputy-chairman, should be responsible to this House, would be entering upon a most unbusinesslike and unprecedented course.