I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100. I hope to get from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote a short review, and from other quarters a certain amount of criticism upon the conduct of those who control the Civil Service Commission. I speak under correction, but I think it is many years—

I understand that the ruling of the Chairman has always been that on Supplementary Estimates no question of general policy or principle can be raised unless the Supplementary Estimate provides for a new service or unless the policy represented by the original Vote is departed from. I submit that all that can be discussed on this Estimate is the reason why we have come at this time for a sum of £4,200 in addition to the original Estimate.

In reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman I have to say that the policy of the original Estimate does not arise on a Supplementary Estimate. I do not know what the hon. Member was going to say, but it seemed to me he was about to introduce a question that would be out of Order.

Cannot we discuss the policy raised by the money which the Treasury asks to be added?

So far as it is a new policy it may be discussed. I understand, however, that this money is asked for because of the larger number of examinees.

That is so.

Would it not be possible on this Supplementary Estimate to raise the whole principle on which the appointments are made?

Certainly not; that is the policy of the original Estimate.

If this is a Supplementary Estimate does it not necessarily carry with it a review of the policy of examination.

I do not think it carries that with it at all.

It was not my intention to raise the whole question or to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an extended reply. I will postpone the general question of policy till a later day, but I would like to point out in regard to this Civil Service Commission that there is no expert in this House in charge of its conduct so far as the House of Commons is concerned. The Secretary of the Treasury is in a sense responsible, but there is no expert control as in the case of the Charity Commission or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which bodies have a representative in this House.

That question does not arise on the Supplementary Estimate.

I put it merely as a matter of courtesy.

We cannot have questions of courtesy for this simple reason, that if I allow such questions to be put and replied to it would be very unfair to refuse the same privilege to other Members who might wish to put similar questions.

I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee to move a reduction on the whole Vote, although I am chiefly concerned with item B. My chief complaint regarding that item is as to the increased amount set apart for assistant examiners. I want to know the reason for this unforeseen increase in the salaries of the assistant examiners. I notice that in the Estimate for 1909 only £869 was asked for, and in the Estimates for 1910–11 only £919: now the figure is £18,685.

It is a very large increase and requires some answer from those responsible for putting down the estimates. I do not understand why we should have this startling increase in the number of examiners, especially at a time when there is a notable change coming over the public mind in respect to competitive examinations. A great many people are now wondering very seriously whether this cramming for competitive examinations and the results of it really provide for the State the best people for its service. A number of very learned persons are urging that these cramming methods, which are purely utilitarian in their preparation, are not always satisfactory in result, and that by means of them you risk depriving the State of a very valuable asset, namely, the personality of candidates. There are, it is said, candidates with great and good personalities, although they cannot stand the test of competitive examination, who could be very valuable servants to the State. Of course we could urge the Chinese example as a reductio ad absurdum where the people are examined—

The hon. Gentleman is again travelling beyond the Supplementary Estimate.

I am really very sorry Sir, and I will try to keep myself in Order. It is really very difficult in the case of a large question to unravel from it this question of assistant examiners which seemed to me to open up the question of competitive examination. I do not understand why there should be these extra examiners when competitive examination seems, from the Government point of view, to be going rather out of fashion as quite recently the Government, as shown by their present Estimates, have appointed a very large number of people by patronage in regard to the Labour Exchanges, and also a large number to deal with the land surveyors' business. Instead, however, of the examiners decreasing they are, I understand, being increased. The Admiralty since the year 1904 in the case of 200 clerks, who used to be examined clerks, I think in the Second Division, have substituted clerks and assistant clerks by patronage. I perhaps must not pursue the matter further on this occasion, but the whole question of Civil Service examinations and the examiners must be raised on the general Estimates. I should like, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to tell us, why it is that this very large Supplementary Estimate is put before the House and on what ground he thinks it necessary in these later days when competitive examinations are going out of fashion to ask for this large sum.

I venture to submit to you, Sir, that on this Vote it would not be out of Order to ask who are these examiners for whom this large sum is demanded, who appoints them, who do they examine, for what purposes and who is responsible for the conduct of the examinations? The Civil Service Commissioners as a body exercise a very wide and far-reaching effect upon the country. I will endeavour to keep within your ruling, sir, and I do not wish to go into the general question, but the point of who is responsible for the acts of the Commissioners arises directly on this Vote by which we are asked for £4,000 extra. I think we are entitled to ask who is responsible for dealing with that sum?

That clearly must depend upon whether the hon. Member is really going back to the policy of the original Estimate. I should guess that is his intention, and if that is so he is clearly out of Order. He can ask whether these extra examiners were necessary and why they have been appointed.

On the point of Order. Everybody on this side wishes to keep in order and to obey your ruling and may I ask whether it would be permissible to discuss how it is that these additional examiners have come to be appointed? Of course, I quite submit to your ruling, that the original question as to appointing examiners is not before the Committee, but somebody must have erred or this additional sum would not be required. I venture to submit, most humbly, that it is in order to discuss and ask how this Estimate has been exceeded and who is responsible?

That is perfectly in Order. The hon. Member must know that if hon. Members wish to go on from that to who appoints all examiners and why they are all appointed that is a question of the policy of the original Estimate.

I do not wish to go into the general question of the value of competition and of examinations for special services, but I wish to ask whether I may not inquire upon this Vote who is responsible for the administration of the money, and there are some details which I find in the report of the Civil Service Commission as to who is responsible for the administration of the money, I should like to inquire about. The Vote does not describe in what branches of the Civil Service these examiners are wanted. It may be in the higher branches or in regard to boy clerks or any one of the officials of different sorts. The reason why I was anxious to know who is responsible for the administration of this grant arises from a correspondence in the last report of the Civil Service Commissioners, who addressed the Treasury and say that they think sufficient importance is not attached to Latin and Greek verse and prose composition as compared with English composition.

Although not in the least anxious to cut the discussion short, I do submit to you, Sir, that if the hon. Baronet opposite is allowed to put this question to me I am bound to answer him, and then a discussion, as you wisely pointed out, becomes general. I venture to submit not on account of this Vote, but on account of the general principle in discussing Supplementary Estimates, that that is not in Order.

Unless the hon. Baronet can show that this £4,000 is required owing to some change of policy with regard to this particular point, it is clear it is a matter of general policy arising on the original Estimate, and not on the Supplementary Estimate.

The point I was putting is this. It is very difficult to say what Department is concerned in the Civil Service Commission. We are asked for &a large sum of money for examinations. Are we not entitled to ask what are these examinations and who is responsible for their conduct? If not, I can hardly see what function this Committee has in dealing with Supplementary Estimates.

The Supplementary Estimate is for an extra sum owing to more examiners being required. The Minister in charge of the Estimates assures me that it does not indicate any change of policy, and is not in regard to any change of policy. The question which the hon. Baronet is raising, or desires to raise, is obviously one which should be raised on the Estimates for next year, and then it will be perfectly in Order.

I am not raising any question of policy. I am merely asking who is responsible for the administration of the money. I have before me in the report of the Civil Service Commission a letter addressed to the Lords of the Treasury by the Civil Service Commissioners asking whether they will consent to an alteration in the adjustment of marks.

I have assured the Chairman, and I assure the House, that no such question as the hon. Baronet wishes to raise on the report of the Commissioners arises on the Vote, and I submit, therefore, that it cannot be discussed.

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state my case I will stop in a moment if the Chairman says it is out of Order. Here is a question as to the relative value of certain subjects of examinations referred to the Lords of the Treasury. Their Lordships agree to a readjustment of certain marks. I want to know who are their Lordships—who is it who deals with this question of examination?

The hon Baronet has put to me a question on a point of Order. The point he desires to raise cannot come on these Supplementary Estimates. It must come on the original Estimates for next year.

Would it not add greatly to the convenience of the Committee if Ministers in moving a Supplementary Estimate would just favour the Committee with some explanation of the grounds on which the Estimate is asked?

That is a question which must be left to the discretion of the Minister.

I submit that it will be in order to ask how the increase arises and to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain the system which has accounted for this increase.

It is perfectly in Order to ask how the increase arises.

Am I to understand that it is out of Order to ask who is responsible for the administration of this slum which the Committee is asked to recommend?

If in this£3,535 there is a charge indicating a change in administrative policy, I think the question of administration does arise, but I understand no such charge is included in this £3,535, and it is quite clear to me that the point the hon. Baronet desires to raise does not arise at this stage. I think the hon. Baronet could not show me how he can distinguish between this and the general question of policy which can be raised on the original Estimate.

May I endeavour to show how my point would arise. I want to know who are responsible for the conduct of these examinations to this House? Is it the Secretary to the Treasury?

Yes.

Then are we to understand that the Lords of the Treasury go into these questions of examination of themselves, or is it simply a request from the Civil Service Commissioners, handed on without further explanation to the House by the Secretary to the Treasury?

I perfectly understand the hon. Baronet's question, and I have already replied to it. It is a question which can only be raised on the original Estimates.

On a point of Order As I am responsible for starting, I think it is most regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman, whom I told about a week ago I was going to raise the point—I mean the Minister for Education—did not let the Civil Service Commissioners know, but waited till this morning to tell us it was out of order.

That is not a point of Order.

May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will now explain why this extra money is required. It will then be perfectly clear what topics are in order and what are not?

I am very willing to meet my hon. Friend, and I should have risen before but I understood the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Anson) wanted to raise some point, and I waited till he had made it. Then arose all these subsequent points of Order for which I was not responsible. I was getting up, when I saw the hon. Baronet had a desire to speak, and I waited for him. The hon. Member (Mr. Malcolm) has asked why there has been such a very large increase in the Estimate. The answer is very simple, and I hope it will be satisfactory not from the point of view of the Treasury, but from the general point of view of these examinations. There has been an enormous increase in the number of candidates who have come forward for examination during the last twelve months. I think this is the first occasion for a great number of years that the Civil Service Commissioners have been sufficiently out in their reckoning as to the probable number of candidates for examination as to require a Supplementary Estimate. But this year there has been an actual increase in the number of candidates amounting to 45 per cent. The candidates last year who came up for various examinations amounted to 25,000. This year, 1910–11, they have already amounted to 37,000 odd—not merely an unprecedented but a wholly unanticipated increase. Of course there has been with that a very great increase in the amount of fees which have been returned by the candidates to-the Treasury. These fees cannot be brought to account in this Estimate and cannot be discussed on it because they must be treated under the regulations of the Public Accounts Committee as Revenue and not Appropriations-in-Aid. Take the case of the second division clerks. There has been an increase of no less than 500 in the number of candidates for second division clerkships, there has been a very great increase in the number of women and girls who come up for examination, either as abstractors or for clerkships for the Post Office. There has been in particular a very extensive examination of examiners in the Patent Office and there have been similar unforeseen necessities of the Civil Service Commission. The whole of this money has been expended in the payment of the assistant examiners and the incidental expenses of these examinations. The examinations have been conducted on exactly the same lines as they always have been and if there had not been these increases in the number of candidates there would have been no necessity to come to the House for this Vote which is practically met, from the financial point of view, by the increased fees.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that the conditions under which the candidates increased has been changed?

I have expressly said not.

Then how does the right hon. Gentleman account for the enormous increase? Is it that there has been more places open this year, because it seems to me an extraordinary thing that we should require no less than £3,535 for the examiners in one year beyond anticipation. There must be some further explanation besides that given. Then again, have the earnings of the examiners been increased? It seems altogether extraordinary that the Government, knowing more or less of the average cost of these examiners, should find themselves so much out that they actually have come here for £3,000 extra. We have heard a good deal about sloppiness lately. It seems to me there has been a good deal of sloppy finance in the preparation of these Estimates. The Committee will certainly expect a little further information as to the causes which have led so suddenly and unexpectedly to this great increase in the number of candidates.

I am sorry I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is at all satisfactory. I think the Committee will agree with me it is not an explanation at all. It is merely a statement of a fact which was already in possession of the Committee, namely, that there were certain unforeseen circumstances. The Committee were quite aware that even this Government would not come down for a Supplementary Estimate if there were no unforeseen circumstances. Therefore we did not need the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that. He says there have been more candidates. Of course there must have been more candidates or there would have been no necessity for more examiners. Even such a stupid person as a reactionary Tory would be aware of that. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was a mere waste of time. He referred to the increase in the number of candidates and stated that this is the first time for many years that a Supplementary Estimate has been necessary for the Civil Service examinations. Either the right hon. Gentleman did not know what the explanation was or he thought it wiser not to say anything, or perhaps there is something which he does not desire the Committee to know. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions. Why were there unforeseen circumstances? We pay the right hon. Gentleman a considerable sum of money to see that there are no unforeseen circumstances, and when he puts Estimates before the House which do not correspond with the sums to be divided I want to know why the mistake has arisen. He said that there was no change of policy, but that, owing to certain circumstances, it was necessary to have more examiners. There was not a single word said to enable hon. Members on either side of the House to know why these examiners were necessary or how these unforeseen circumstances arose. The right hon. Gentleman said there were 37,000 candidates this year, as against 25,000 in the previous-year. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is going to do with these candidates? How was it that when the original Estimates were brought in it was supposed that the ordinary number of candidates would come forward? How was it that they were increased to 37,000? We want to know whether that is a change in policy.

I really must interrupt. I do not expect the hon. Baronet to pay any attention—

Yes I always pay every attention.

I told the hon. Baronet expressly that there had been no change in policy.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cause of this increase was? It is no use getting up and saying that there is no change in policy. There may be two opinions as to what is a change in policy. Are the Government valuers increased? I do not think that the Government valuers ought to be included. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know I must say that I do not think the Government valuers ought to be included in this. I presume they are included. My recollection is that they were not included in the original estimate, and therefore, if that is so, this is a change of policy. I will sit down in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining. [The hon. Baronet temporarily resumed his seat.] If the right hon. Gentleman will not answer, I conclude that the Government valuers are included in the estimate and that it is a change of policy. It opens a very wide field, and it is entirely the fault of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government valuers are to be included I should like to know why this particular policy of the Government has been altered. It was originally intended that these valuers should do certain things, and in many cases the valuations had been stopped. Therefore this supplementary estimate will not be necessary. I move that you, Mr. Chairman, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

I do not understand what the hon. Baronet wants. This is the examination of persons who come forward as candidates for the Civil Service. It has nothing to do with the valuers under the Finance Act.

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The Government appointed certain valuers for land valuations. Are these valuers examined or not?

I do not know whether the hon. Baronet moved to report progress, or whether he suggested that he would move.

I did move, but I do not want to move it if the right hon. Gentleman answers the question.

I take it that the hon. Baronet has not moved.

I have answered.

I do not know whether the valuers appointed have to pass an examination, and whether that has necessitated an increase in the cost of the examinations.

These examinations are the ordinary Civil Service examinations. They differ in no respect from previous examinations. There has been an increase in the number of candidates as compared with preceding years, and that could not possibly have been foreseen by the Government.

Why not?

How could the hon. Baronet with all his perspicacity say how many candidates will come up for examination in succeeding years? Whether the Civil Service has become more attractive under the Liberal regime of course I cannot say. There is no departure from the course which has been followed in previous years in regard to these examinations.

Even now the right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the Government valuers are examined or not.

I have said No, twice already.

I really cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's reply. We know perfectly well, because there has been correspondence in the papers about it, that these land valuers are examined. Some of them have written details of their examinations. Is that examination under the Civil Service or not? If the right hon. Gentleman says definitely that it is not under the Civil Service then it will not be in order to discuss it any further. If it is not under the Civil Service examinations, is it under arbitrary rules framed by some department? I really think it must be under some authority from the Civil Service Commissioners. I do not think a Government Department would take upon itself to set on foot an arbitrary examination for which it had no authority. There is acknowledged to be a large increase in the number of candidates. How is it accounted for? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that there has been no change of policy? It must be due either to offering greater inducements to candidates to come forward, in which case there must have been a change of policy, or there must be a greater number of places. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been a greater number of candidates for the same number of places or for a greater number of places? If a greater number of places has been thrown open, that again means that there has been a change of policy. Which of those two explanations is the right one? We are entitled to know. The right hon. Gentleman might have made some sort of statement at the beginning giving the information that is now being extracted with difficulty and reluctance. In reference to the item, "fees of assistant examiners on account of increased number of candidates," I would like to know on what principle these examiners are paid? Are they paid a minimum salary whatever the number of candidates, or are they paid per head on the number of candidates coming up for examination? I presume they are paid at a minimum rate, otherwise the examiner in a subject in which there are not many candidates coming up for examination, such as Russian for the Foreign Office, would be at a great disadvantage. If the payment is per head, I take it it will affect the work done, but only up to a certain point, because the fact of being an examiner at all and having to get up the subjects does entitle the examiner to have something assigned to him from the first, apart from the number of persons who may come up. The next question is, why is it necessary to hire examination rooms? Surely the country ought to have examination rooms of its own. The University of Oxford is by no means as rich as the State, yet it provides those splendid examination rooms which are the glory of everyone concerned. It is a little unworthy of this country to have to go about hiring examination rooms for the purpose of Civil Service examinations. My fifth question is what are these receipts from fee stamps? Are they levied in consequence of the last Finance Act, or not? In what form are they paid? Are they paid on the paper that admits the candidate to the examination hall or not? How is it they have amounted to this large sum? Is it due to the increase in the number of candidates or due to the fact that the stamp on the fees has been raised? I think the Committee are entitled to an answer to this question before they decide this Vote.

I also would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer one or two questions. He indicated very briefly that one of the candidates who sat in these examinations was an examiner in the Patent Office.

No. For what is called an examinership in the Patent Office.

That is what I thought. He indicated that it is a very expensive examination.

According to my information.

Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us what that examination cost, and whether the candidate had to pay heavy fees for the purpose of sitting at the examination. Then there was an increase due to extra receipts from the fee stamps. I assume those are fees paid by candidates for examination?

Yes.

The increase is £4,000, so that this examination is a paying thing?

We cannot discuss the extra receipts. They are not Appropriations-in-Aid. They are not included in this Estimate, and I submit we cannot discuss them.

We cannot discuss the question of the fee stamps, but I never object to questions being asked regarding anything of the kind, or even as to an Appropriation-in-Aid, but we cannot discuss them. What we are discussing now is how we spent the money. We have nothing to do with where we get that money from.

I do not want to discuss it, only I do not want to start my argument on a wrong basis. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell whether these are, in fact, fees paid by candidates for the examination, that is the only question I want to ask.

I am sorry I did not make that clear. I thought I said so before, that as a set-off against this extra expenditure we had a very large revenue from fees, which are, of course, paid by candidates for the privilege of sitting at examinations, and that those fees had increased by £4,000, which is more than a set-off against this Supplementary Estimate.

I thought that that was so. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed me. Then it appears that these examinations have been carried out for £3,990 extra, and that there were extra fees of £4,000, so that the State got a profit of £10 when the fees are brought into account. It becomes a more important thing to ascertain whether the State is making a profit by advertising, for example, vacancies in the Post Office for women.

That has nothing to do with the Estimate.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was an increase in the candidates of 45 per cent., and second division clerks 500, and others were applications from women for Post Office appointments.

Yes, that is so.

If is important to inquire how that large increase came about, because the State is actually making a profit out of the candidates coming up for examinations, and it is important that people should not be asked to go in for these examinations unless there was a reasonable prospect of appointments being open for them from the time they become qualified.

The question of what is being done under the Post Office arises on the Post Office Estimates, but not here. This money has not been spent on some new methods of examination. The question which the hon. Member desires to raise does not arise here.

If that is out of order, I will pass to the examination of those candidates that we are now asked to pay for, and confine myself to the general question, and ask why these inquiries for candidates have taken place, and whether there has been any advertisement issued by the Government for candidates. I wish to know whether any new appointments have been thrown open to these candidates, or why, otherwise, some intimation was not given in order to prevent this excess of candidates, some of whom, at any rate, are drawn from a class which can ill afford to pay fees for examinations unless there is reasonable prospect of an appointment following upon the examinations. With regard to the appointment of assistant examiners in the Patent Office, that is an expensive matter, and we should like to know whether the candidates have had to contribute to the total extra cost of those assistant examiners. For example, if the examinations cost £4,000, and you receive £4,200, then the State is taking £200 from other people who have sat as candidates for these appointments. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us some details of the expenditure in regard to this particular examination.

I presume that the examinations for the Patent Office would be expensive, inasmuch as they involve examinations into subjects which we all know cost money. I want to know who was responsible for setting the subjects for examination.

I must ask the Minister to tell me about the Civil Service Commission, and whether they or the Patent Office are responsible.

The course in all these examinations is exactly the same. The Civil Service Commission are informed of the time when vacancies will occur, and that is done on lines already determined. Unless the office is a new office, they hold the examination on lines already determined. They advertise the vacancy on lines already established, and the responsibility of holding these examinations is that of the Civil Service Commission.

On that explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, the matter raised by the hon. Baronet does not arise on these estimates.

I was about to refer to the cost and character of the examinations. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Patent Office informs the Civil Service Commission that a vacancy will arise, that they must provide for an examination of the candidates, and that the whole responsibility as to the cost and character of the examinations rest with the Civil Service Commission.

I was very careful to say "on lines already established." That being so, the Treasury is not concerned. If the office were a new one, then the Treasury would be consulted.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is extremely difficult to know who is responsible for the conduct of the examinations, which have a very wide effect on education as well as on finance. The answer I have received I admit is not satisfactory, but I also admit that it is all the right hon. Gentleman is able to give.

Is it not the case that the cost of the examiners in the Patent Office is almost entirely covered by the payments by the candidates for the post, and that no cost is imposed on examinees under other examinations?

That is the fact.

I have listened carefully to the Debate, and I am more in the fog than I was at the beginning. A large number of additional candidates were examined, and the extra cost was £4,200. We are asked to vote £4,200. There is a note that the extra fees amounted to £4,000, and we had better have some explanation as to the other £200.

I have had considerable experience as regards examinations, and I have not got the same complete confidence in their result as a means of testing—

The hon. Gentleman was not here when I pointed out that the question of general policy does not arise on these Estimates. These are merely Supplementary Estimates, and a discussion on a question of general policy arises on the original Estimates and not on these Supplementary Estimates.

I quite see the point. But there was another question which I wished to raise. I see there is a sum of between three and four thousand pounds in the Estimate. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what rates are paid for the performance of these duties by the examiners. I do not know whether this is a question of general policy, or whether we can discuss it on this item. If these examiners are to perform very important work it ought not to be carried out on sweating wages. I have information with

Can the hon. Gentleman point to the item on which be raises that question?

I cannot tell.

If the hon. Member cannot tell me, then it is out of Order.

I have good reason to suppose it is not.

Unless the hon. Gentleman knows the item is in this Supplementary Estimate it is not in Order, because it is a question of general policy.

Will there be no other opportunity to raise the question?

rose in his place and claimed to Move, "That the Question be now put."

claimed "That the Original Question be now put."

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter of considerable importance; that is as to what it is proposed should be done in respect to the dies and stamps. On the last Vote, Sir, you ruled out of order the raising of certain questions of policy which had been decided when the original Vote was before the House. This matter deals with an entirely new question. There was no Vote whatever in the original Estimate for dies and stamps. The reason for this Supplementary Vote is because the Government are embarking on a great change of policy about which nothing, I think, has ever been said to the House or to the public, and which really ought to be very fully discussed. The change of policy is this: Up to the present year postage stamps, and not only postage stamps, but stamps for bills of exchange, and for revenue purposes, have been let out by private contract and made by a private firm. I forget the name of the firm that first undertook this duty fifty years ago, but for the last thirty years the work has been done by Messrs. De la Rue. Their contract terminated in December, and the Government have taken over the work. The Government have decided—and this is where the matter arises on this particular Vote—that the stamps shall be made by the Royal Mint. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hobhouse)—not in any spirit of hostility, but because I think we should have the fullest information on the matter—certam questions in regard to the change. Firstly, why have the Government, after having followed for so many years the policy of private contracting terminated the contract, and why are they going to do the work themselves?

Secondly, is it the intention of the Government that the cost of making the stamps shall be less? We are entitled to have some figures laid before the Committee as to the cost of making the stamps in the past by Messrs. De la Rue, and what the cost is likely to be under the new Government arrangement. Is there likely to be any saving under this head? Again, I want to know if the Government really hopes to do the work rather better? I do not think we ought to boast very much of the character of the stamps that we have had up to the present time. The designs, in many respects, have not been good. I am sure that from an artistic point of view they compare very badly with, for example, the French and Swiss stamps, and from the point of view of finish they compare very badly indeed with the stamps of the United States. In addition, I think we are all agreed that a more flimsy, wretched paper than the stamps have been made of could not be conceived. I do not know how many times Members of Parliament, who are always having to put stamps on letters—that seems to be one of our principal occupations!—tear stamps and have to stick them together, or perhaps destroy them, because of the flimsiness of their material. I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that now that the making of stamps has been undertaken by a Government Department, that not only as regards the design and the character of the stamps, but in respect to the material of which they are made, there will be an improvement in the future. I am not for a single moment bringing any charge against the Government. nor am I complaining of the Government taking this important matter into their own hands. I simply want details as to what saving there is likely to be. Granted that it is the proper course that the Government should do this work themselves, is the Mint—and this is an important question—the best place to do it? The Government had several alternatives. They could have set up a separate stamp factory, an entirely new department, and could have come and asked for a Vote for it; or they could have followed the course they actually have followed. What do the Government contemplate for the future? Up to the termination of the contract, Messrs. De la Rue have been in the habit of making stamps not only for this country but have made nearly all—certainly the greater number—of stamps for the Colonies and for India. It has been the commonest thing for our Colonies, for our Indian Dependency, and for some foreign countries to come to us for designs without having got the designs for the stamps actually made here. Are the Government going to make provision, now that they have undertaken this duty of manufacturing stamps to supply, not only the Mother Country but also the Colonies? If so I venture to say that the provision in the Estimate is altogether inadequate. Much bigger premises would be required and much more dies and plates and a great deal more in the way of machinery and in the matter of Civil Servants, and so on. We would have to contemplate not a small augmentation of the business of the Mint, but a very large augmentation. Do the Government contemplate that, and as the Mint is the Mint, in most respects, not only for the coinage of this country but for the Empire as a whole, is it also to be the stamp factory not only for this country but for the Empire as a whole. The public and the House of Commons ought to be informed on these matters, and we ought to know how far this expenditure which is placed upon the Votes is going to help us in the future. It is a much bigger question than one merely of postage stamps; there is the whole question of Excise stamps, stamps for bills, legal documents, and contract notes. Whatever reason there may have been to complain of the character of postage stamps manufactured by private contract in the past, certainly the other stamps have been very well done, and if the Government are going to undertake the whole of that, in addition to the postage stamps, the addition to the work in the Mint will be very great indeed.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the extraordinary elaboration of these business stamps. It is such that even if the smallest bit of stamp remains actually attached to a document its character can be identified. There was an extraordinary case occurred some years ago arising out of a railway accident in the neighbourhood of Peterborough, on the Northern Railway, when the mail bags were burned and many legal documents were totally or partially destroyed. From some little bits of stamps found in the charred mail bags it was possible to identify the documents to which they were attached. When stamps have to be made with that elaboration it shows the business is a very intricate and peculiar one, which the Government are undertaking in addition to the manufacture of postage stamps. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a full statement of the intentions of the Government in regard to the making of stamps, and I claim the right to do so on this occasion because in the Estimates presented last year there was no mention made of the making of stamps. It is a new departure, and the policy has been embarked on since the Estimates of last year were published, and it is only fair that we should have a full statement from the Government upon the subject.

I want to ask a few questions as to the amounts of some items in the Vote which are not intelligible on the face of them. In the first place—specimen coins and medals—are they all in connection with the new reign and the approaching Coronation, or is there any other explanation for them? There is the item in connection with the last coinage of gold. On the face of it I should have thought that might have been anticipated and provided for in the original estimate. Why are salaries, wages, and allowances greater now than was anticipated; the new reign hardly makes much difference in that connection. Then with regard to coinage, is that old coinage or new coinage in connection with the new reign? Why is there no explanation of how the £48,780 Appropriation-in-Aid was arrived at-There is usually an explanatory foot-note, but there is no indication here of how you arrive at that appropriation. Then there is the item for increased rates and freights on account of the unusually large shipments of silver coins. It is very surprising that should not have been foreseen and provided for in the original estimate. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain how these various items arise, and why so considerable an estimate is laid upon the Table at this stage of the Session. The Government pledged themselves in times gone by to reduce Supplementary Estimates as much as possible, and it is somewhat disappointing to see Supplementary Estimates that show no reduction and great slovenliness of finance.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was necessary to have this extra coinage of £25,000,000 of gold, and in the next item in the Votes will he tell us whether the increased cost is due entirely to the cost of freight, and what freight is meant. Why should it be necessary to send these silver coins about to so very much larger a degree than in former years. If there was an increase in silver coinage there ought to be an increase of profit at the Mint.

The hon. Gentleman who raised this matter put very legitimate questions to me upon the subject of our new departure in the manufacture of stamps. The fact is that about six or eight months ago the contract held by Messrs. De la Rue for many years was due to expire, and the question naturally arose whether we should renew the contract or whether we should ourselves embark upon the manufacture. After a very careful examination of the subject, it was determined it would be better upon the whole that we should ourselves embark upon the process of manufacture, and a Committee which sat and went into all the details came to the conclusion that it could be so done better and more economically. The contract with Messrs. De la Rue expired at the end of the year and we took over the process of making these stamps and dies. The Committee will be glad to know that there has been a very large saving indeed upon former contracts, which we estimate will work out at not less than £40,000 a year. I think this will explain satisfactorily to hon. Members why we allowed the old contracts to run out and why we have embarked upon this new policy. I have been asked some questions about design, finish, and material. I do not think it will be found that in any of these three respects the new work will fall short of the old. On the contrary, I think there will be a great improvement in regard to those points. The old machinery used by the contractors was of a very old-fashioned type, and would probably have been scrapped under a new contract. I have been asked whether the size of the premises at the Mint would allow for expansion, and I think it is a very proper question to ask. I think anyone who considers the point will see that the Mint is undoubtedly the best place for this manufacture. In the course of last you, when preparing for this change, certain small alterations took place which afforded us all the room we wanted, as far as premises are concerned for the future. May I point out that the Colonies are free agents in regard to the supply of stamps. We have not at present actually entered into any undertaking for the supply of stamps to the Colonies, but I think it is very probable they will come to us for them. They have already asked us to supply them with dies, and doubtless we shall supply them with stamps.

Then you are making the dies now?

That is so. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) has asked me a question as to the loss of coinage under head H. It is very difficult to understand in an estimate for any given year what the exact requirements of the year will be. The demand for gold has been greater than the average.

Why?

I do not think that can be explained in a sentence, but it is due, to a certain extent, to the general demands of commerce. The amount of money generally in circulation is greater. It is obvious that in the manufacture of gold and turning it into coin there must be a certain amount of wastage. That is the simple explanation, and it can be wholly ascribed to the greater amount of money in circulation. The Noble Lord also asked a question about salaries and wages. There has been a certain amount of overtime work, first of all in connection with the change of manufacture in regard to dies and stamps, and on account of the increased amount of coinage. All this acts and re-acts upon the cost. I cannot take one sum and say this is due to stamps and another to gold coinage, but the general work has increased. With regard to the item of the total coinage for the United Kingdom and the Colonies a great deal of this arises on account of the Colonies, and an especially large part goes to West Africa. West Africa is a country the coinage o£ which has altered from time to time and certain coins acceptable in one part do not pass current in the adjacent Colony or in some parts of the Colony itself. From this Colony we get very varying demands as one part goes up in prosperity and the other falls, because the coin is not interchangeable and you have to have a fresh coin. That is the reason of this increase, which I do not think is very large.

Is it silver coinage?

Yes. With regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid which the Noble Lord referred to I am afraid I have not got all the particulars before me. The original Estimate was £169,000, and we propose here to take the sum of £218,000, which leaves a sum, in round figures, in excess of the Appropriations of £49,000. As I am informed, this increase arises upon the general profits of coinage, but the amount is applied in the same way as the original appropriation to the reduction of the nett expenses of the Mint. There is nothing new in these appropriations. I regret that the note has not been added; that is my error, and I offer my regret to the Committee.

I think the right hon. Gentleman has given a satisfactory explanation for determining the contract for stamps and taking on the work themselves. I do not know whether it is proposed to improve the paper. The right hon. Gentleman said there would be an improvement in style, but he did not say whether the Government intended to use better paper as I think they ought to do. Surely when the estimate contemplates a saving of £40,000 it will allow for an extra quality of paper. As for the Mint, the desire is to keep the work closer together in order to save the cost of management. The explanation given of the exceptionally large amount of gold coinage to my mind is not quite satisfactory. I would like to know whether the unusual amount of £25,000,000 arose from an exceptional exportation of gold. Were the exports of bullion to a large extent exports of coin, as very often such exports are? It appears to me that the absorption of £25,000,000 by the general business community during the year above the ordinary average is not to be explained by the conditions of trade. It has not increased to that extent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether it does not arise from a larger amount of bullion going abroad in the shape of coin.

One of the reasons for the enormous absorption of gold has undoubtedly been that the shipments of gold to America have been greater.

Is that coin gold?

Yes, a great deal of British gold since the crisis has found its way into the provinces of America, and the banks have been very reluctant to part with it. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the saving of £40,000 on stamps?

Would the hon. Member mind speaking up? We cannot hear him.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long this contract with De la Rue has been in existence. He says he anticipates a saving of £40,000 a year. That seems an enormous saving, and I should like to know how long this contract has been in existence, and whether there were competitive prices sent in when the contract was made? It seems extraordinary that when a Government Department is about to take over work hitherto performed by a contractor, they should say they hope to very materially improve the work and at the same time save £40,000. That seems to me to let in a great flood of light as to the way in which some of these contracts are placed, and I should like to know how long the contract has been in existence, and whether competitive prices were sent in when it was placed?

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—

I rise to Move to reduce this Vote by £10, in order to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter which, in my opinion and in the opinion of a large number of those who come from Wales, is one of extreme importance. I happen to have a half-crown in my pocket—although I have not yet received any instalment of my salary as a Member of Parliament, which I sincerely hope, with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) will be made retrospective when it does arrive—and I notice there is no emblem or recognition of Wales on the back of the coin. Although we have good reason to believe that the dies of the new coin will not be altered, I should at the same time be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman opposite could say the new dies are going to include an emblem of Wales. The coin as it is represents England, Scot land, and Ireland, but there is no emblazonment of Wales upon it. It seems to me it would be much better for the whole country that there should be some emblem of Wales on it. The point is absolutely most obvious. Great excitement has been caused in the north of Wales, and loyalty has been to an extraordinary extent aroused by the very idea of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales taking place there, and Cardiff has changed her Coat-of-Arms in order to emblaze on her escutcheon the emblem of Wales. This shows it is a matter of the greatest import ance and urgency. If the three countries are recognised surely the Red Dragon of Wales might also be—

Does the Noble Lord suggest that a new departure is being made in this matter?

It has not been made.

Then the Noble Lord is not in order.

On a point of Order. This arises on new charges, and my Noble Friend is criticising the manner in which the Government are spending the public money.

I submit it is impossible to criticise a design which, I understand, is not yet in circulation.