I will take this opportunity of asking the Patronage Secretary what he proposes to do now? I understand this Vote is to be postponed, not, I may remark, at our request; I understand, also, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to postpone the Irish Votes in Classes IV. and V., and then to begin with the Old Age Pensions and to go on with the International Exhibitions, and then the Post Office Vote, and, finally, the Ordnance Vote.

We must have the Excess Vote after the Post Office Vote.

We have made no request, but, of course, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes it, it can be done.

I understood it would be for the general convenience of the House if we to-day discuss those Estimates which were not discussed in Committee, and it is for that reason, and for that reason only that I suggested the course of procedure read out by the Noble Lord. It is a matter of perfect indifference to us which Votes are discussed, but we thought it would be for the convenience of the House to take those which were not debated in Committee.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will really give an opportunity for a few minutes' discussion on Class V., Vote 6?

I shall be very glad to come back to that after the other Votes have been disposed of.

I do not know that that will give an opportunity for discussion.

I hope there will be an opportunity for discussion.

I understand that the Votes which will be taken are the Irish Votes on Class IV. and Class V., Old Age Pensions, International Exhibitions, Post Office Vote, Excess Vote, and Ordnance Vote.

Yes.

I should like some explanation of the deficiency in estimated receipts and falling off of the duty on sales in the Land Judges' Department. Is that to be attributed to the general block in land purchase which has been brought about by the Land Act of 1909. The right hon. Gentleman has already had his notice called on more than one occasion to the complete stoppage of purchase which that Act as brought about in Ireland and is this falling off in the duty paid into the Land Revenue Department in Ireland due to that cause. I should like to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to it, and perhaps he might at the same time be able to assure us that some effort will be made by administration in Ireland to assist the working of the Land Acts, not only the Land Act of 1909, but that of 1903. I understand that the stoppage of the working of the Land Act of 1903 is mainly attributable to financial reasons. We all admit the great difficulty there was in raising the money to carry on the work of the Act, but we hope that some effort will be made by the Treasury in view of the enormous importance of this question to find the necessary funds to carry out land purchase. There is no more burning and vital question in Ireland. I venture to say then the completion of the land purchase settlement, and if the Government are to continue year after year allowing the Acts to remain a dead letter, and the land sales in the Land Courts, and under the Estates Commissioners to continue in this congested condition without any real effort to remove that congestion, I venture to say that we cannot hope to find in Ireland any large cessation from these agrarian outrages which are allowed to prevail throughout the country. I hope sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman in his explanation of these items will be able to give us some assurance in the direction which I have asked for.

I am glad to say that the deficiency is not in relation to the operation of the Land Acts. It is due to three causes. The first is the diminution in the sales in the Land Judges Court, as distinguished from the Land Commission, and no duty is payable in the case of a sale to the Land Commission. The second is that in the Land Judges Court in the case of the sale of an insolvent estate no duty is payable on the purchase money. The third reason has relation to the working of the Land Commissioners Court and the Land Judges Court, but the deficiency has no application whatever to the Land Acts or either of them.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that it has no application whatever to the block of land business?

I think not.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the loss which has occurred here is as to practically one-third owing to no duty being charged by the Court to the Land Commissioners. Is that right?

Yes.

That is to say, that if the Court sells an estate or a parcel of land to a private individual he has to pay more for it than the Land Commissioners?

In the Land Judges Court.

That is to say, there is a differentiation between the Land Commissioners and the private individual in Ireland, in so far as the duty is concerned. That seems to me rather unfair, and if the private individual buys from the Supreme Court or the Department involved in this particular transaction for the convenience of the Court which wishes to get its estates wound up in order to do that the private individual is charged more than the Commissioners. They surely ought to me on the same ground, but here one Department of the State is in unfair competition with the private buyer. There is something wrong about the Attorney-General justifying such a transaction. The corporate body should be treated exactly the same as the individual, and no differentiation should take place.

I am told in the case of sales made to the Land Commissioners by the particular vendors, no duty is payable. That is the explanation given to me, and I have no doubt it is an accurate one.

I should like some explanation how it was that the Estimate of £450,000 was found so much too small that this additional sum of £200,000 is required. I should like an explanation as to what exactly the money is for. We know generally that it is owing to the removal of the pauper disqualification. There are only fourteen days left in the financial year, and we are asked to provide this £200,000. I cannot imagine that it is required for additional expenditure on old age pensions for the remaining fourteen days.

The answer is a very simple one. It was necessary to put down a Supplementary Estimate because we propose to take over from the boards of guardians payments which would, under the original proposal, have fallen upon them for the maintenance of these pauper pensions. If the proposal which is contained in the Revenue Bill had not been brought to the notice of the House there would have been no occasion to take this sum. The charge would have been borne by the guardians, and no charge would have fallen on the Treasury, and no Estimate would have been presented to the House.

This is a very small Vote, but it raises an important question of principle. Since the original Vote was sanctioned by the House it has inevitably become necessary to buy a site in London, in Threadneedle Street, for which £183,000 has been paid. I do not doubt that that is justified by the exigencies of the Post Service service, but in order to find £183,000 for this service the Post Office has had to reduce its outlay upon other services by £182,990, so that the technical increase is only a £10 note. I want the Postmaster-General to explain how he arrives at a saving of £182,990 in order to justify an expenditure of £183,000 on another branch of the service. I am not complaining about the site in Threadneedle Street, but, after all, the services included in the £182,000, were not only sanctioned but were ordered by Parliament last summer. The Estimates were laid before the House and were agreed to, and, assuming that they were properly drawn up, it was the duty of the Post Office to spend that money if it was for the public service that the outlay should be made. But how does it come about that the saving is just £10 less than the cost of the new site. There is a suspicious approximation between the two sums which seems to indicate that the Treasury has directed that it will refuse its sanction to the outlay upon the Threadneedle Street site unless an equivalent reduction is made in other Post Office Votes. The outlay was no doubt necessary, but it is more incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to explain and justify the economy than to explain and justify the expenditure, and I should be glad if he will tell us of what items the smaller sum of £182,990 consists, how far he is justified in reducing the outlay to that extent which was sanctioned and ordered by the House, and whether, in short, the one branch of the public service is not suffering in order to carry out another branch which may be necessary.

I should like to ask if the new premises will give further and better accommodation than is available at present. I have heard very grave complaints made with regard to the post office. It is greatly overcrowded and it is impossible to carry the business out efficiently. I suppose this sum represents the purchase of the freehold? Does it comprise anything additional, so that the site can be made larger than that which is now leased by the post office so that better accommodation can be provided than at present?

I am not surprised that the Noble Lord has drawn attention to the fact that the estimated savings mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate are within £10 of the precise figure that is required for the additional expenditure. But it must not be supposed that the whole of the estimated savings of the year are included in this Supplementary Estimate as a setoff against the cost of the site of the Threadneedle Street office. It is not so. The total estimated savings for the year are, I am happy to say, over £300,000, and the estimated cost of the Threadneedle Street site less £10 has been stated in this Estimate because that is the ordinary form in which what is called a token Estimate is put before the House of Commons. We draw upon our estimated savings precisely for the sum needed for this Estimate less £10 in order that Parlia- ment should be asked to vote £10 as a token so that the matter may be brought to the cognisance of the House and that the Treasury should not be spending money allocated for other purposes behind the back of the House of Commons. The Noble Lord has asked how it is that these savings which amounted to over £300,000, and not to £180,000, have come to arise, and he says we ought to spend money which is voted by the House of Commons.

No, I did not say that. I said you have no business to get the House of Commons to vote money unless you really know it is necessary to spend it.

That As, strictly speaking, not so. The House of Commons every year votes for the service of the Post Office the sum which is required, plus what is called a small margin for safety. There is, every year, I am happy to say, a saving upon Post Office expenditure, the reason being that very many of our requirements cannot be precisely estimated beforehand. It depends upon the growth of work during the year, and Post Office work is continually expanding. It has doubled within the last fifteen years. Every year it shows a considerable increase of work, and it cannot be estimated to the last sixpence how far the work will grow during the coming year, what new engineering stores will be needed, and what precise growth of the staff will be required. Post Office expenditure is spread over a very large number of votes and subheads for different departments and different sub-departments of the Post Office, and for each of these there has to be a small margin for safety, and if the expenditure does not show any exceptional increase these margins are realised and a certain sum of money each year is saved. That, of course, is carried as a rule to the Old Sinking Fund. This year the savings as usual are spread over a large number of subheads chiefly with reference to the number of staff employed. There are also some rather exceptional savings relating to the packet service agreement which was expected to be arrived at in the course of the year as to the cross-channel mails with the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company. The argeement has not been concluded owing to a disagreement as to the amount of money to be paid, and that is to be resolved by a reference of the matter to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. Consequently the sum which was expected to be paid has to be carried to another year. There are other small exceptional savings this year which bring the total up to the amount stated.

Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the sum which has not been paid to the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company as a saving? Surely it will have to be paid next year.

It is a saving of money voted in the year. It cannot be carried over to next year because our financial practice does not permit of that being done. Of course, there will be a corresponding expenditure next year. Similarly, if I did not take money this year as a Supplementary Estimate for the Post Office in Threadneedle Street it would have to be Voted by Parliament the year after, so that the matter is as long as it is short in that case. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) asked whether the site for the new building would be larger than the present site. The site is not larger, but the accommodation will be greatly improved. I have myself visited the office, which is an old office which was taken over from the Submarine Telegraph Company. I think it was purchased forty years ago. It is an old building full of narrow staircases, which waste space, and there is a large area in the middle which in those days was thought necessary for light, but which in these days can be dispensed with, as light can be obtained in other ways. We can also build higher on the same site, and consequently the accommodation will be greatly improved. Increased accommodation was not only necessary for persons connected with the Stock Exchange and others who use the Post Office, but also for the staff employed, their accommodation at present being very deficient.

I do not wish to challenge the Vote in any way, but I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement in reference to a matter which has very much interested my Constituency. In this Vote money is taken for the purpose of providing an artillery range in Redesdale Valley or Coquetdale Valley in Northumberland. I want to ask, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the district, if he will make a clear statement as to what is going to happen. Is there to be a camp during the summer only or all the year round? Is he satisfied as to the suitability of the land? I am told that it is extremely boggy in wet weather, and that the conditions in that part of the world in winter are not of the best. I wish to be told, further, how much of the camp is to be in the Valley of the Rede or the Valley of the Coquet, and, in either case, will there be a light railway laid down? If so, can he arrange that as some compensation to the people of the locality the light railway will be available to them for the purpose of the transport of agricultural produce. If no light railway is to be laid down, will he take into consideration the extra charge which will fall on the local authority for the upkeep of the roads on account of the additional traffic. It is quite clear that the sheep pasture cannot be carried on on these hills as hitherto, when the Artillery range has been provided. Probably this will lead to the displacement of a number of shepherds who have worked there for a long period. I would like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will view the claims of such shepherds to compensation in a friendly spirit, and that in any case he will be careful to inflict as little hardship as possible on the people who may be dispossessed. Everybody recognises that the Artillery service must have proper ranges to practice upon in order to make themselves efficient. I think the House will recognise that it is a very great nuisance to people in a district to have land taken for this purpose. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend would, for the convenience of my Constituency tell us as much as he can consistently with the public interest as to what his intentions are.

I wish to draw attention to an item of £103,700, of which £64,000 is for regimental pay, and £39,700 for gratuities to officers and enlistment expenses. Are we to understand by this item that the Special Reserve is costing less in 1910–11 by over £100,000 than the Government thought it would cost when they framed their Estimates, because, if that is so, I think the House will agree with me, that shows a very disquieting state of affairs. Here we have a Special Reserve, which we were told was going to take the place of the old Militia—a force which was to be far superior to the old Militia, both in efficiency, age, musketry, and practically in every respect. We heard the other night that this force had decreased in twelve months from 67,500 to 60,000. That is to say, there are 7,500 men less in the Special Reserve than twelve months ago. I presume that the £103,700 represents the saving, if it can be called a saving, to the country, owing to the loss of 7,500 men in the Special Reserve. I think more attention should be given to the deplorable state of the Special Reserve, as shown by this Supplementary Estimate, than the country has yet given to it. Here we have a force which is going to train our recruits for war purposes, which is going, it is claimed, to be the creator of twenty-seven extra Reserve battalions, which is going to do garrisoning abroad, guard our lines of communication, go abroad in units if necessary, or garrison the important centres in England, or garrison in Ireland. Here we have brought up again to-day the fact that this force is a miserable failure, as is shown by there being over 20,000 fewer men than in the old Militia. How can the right hon. Gentleman come to the House and ask us without discussion to pass this Estimate? Having destroyed the Militia against the wishes of a very large number of the people of the country and against the experience of many Members of this House who had served in the Militia, he now acknowledges on this Paper that he has only 60,000 men instead of the 80,000 which the old Militia consisted of, and that in twelve short months over 7,000 men have fallen off. And the falling off is not only in men but in officers. We have here £39,700 less and a considerable portion of that decrease is due to falling off in officers. The right hon. Gentleman in his Memorandum issued with this year's Army Estimates practically acknowledges that he had given up the attempt to get officers with any training at all. He has now come down to six months' training, and I am sure that next year he will come down to no months at all. I do not complain of that. I think, on the whole, the old Militia officer did extremely well. I wish that the country as a whole could see what deplorable injury has been done to our second line by destroying the Militia and substituting this Special Reserve.

This is not the time for the discussion of the question of the Special Reserve. What the House is now asked to vote are certain Votes for works and buildings. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to take advantage of that to switch the discussion off to a wholly different subject, and to point out that certain results have arisen from the Special Reserve. The time to discuss that is on the Special Vote for Special Reserve.

I would like some explanation of the footnote No. 3. It is stated that provision is made in the Army Estimates under Vote X. I have looked through Vote X. very carefully, and I do not find any direct special increase in the place you would naturally expect to find it for the sum of money required for this range, I presume it ought to be under the Northern Command, but I do not find it there. I know that in the right hon. Gentleman's Memorandum there is a special sum, I think of £28,000, for the Northumberland range, which was to come out of the falling in of these annuities of £340,000. I should be glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman where I could find the special specification for this Northumberland range.

I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having altered his first mind with regard to the site of the old Duke of York's School at Chelsea. On behalf of the county associations of London I put down several questions, pointing out that if it should go out of the hands of the Department it might be put to very good use by the supporters of the associations. As a supporter of the voluntary system I tried to do the best I could to convert the right hon. Gentleman to that view, and I am delighted to see by this Supplementary Estimate that our views have been recognised by the right hon. Gentleman; and I am sure that it will greatly assist the Territorial Association in its work in providing proper accommodation so far as the county of London is concerned. There is one question, as to the Bedford Barracks, as to which I do not know whether it is in order to mention it here. I am not sure whether the works and buildings are in the Vote. I do not know whether the discussion is limited to a certain number of subjects, or whether the whole question of works and buildings may be discussed on the Vote now before us. If there was that opportunity, I should be very glad to have the chance of saying a word or two about it.

The only works and buildings are the two mentioned in the Vote.

I would like to say a few words on the Supplementary Vote on Ordnance Army subjects.

We will reach that by and by.

I share the satisfaction that has been expressed by the hon. Member below the Gangway at saving the old school at Chelsea, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that the question which I am going to ask is due to any feeling of antagonism. As the right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware, several Members on this side of the House went very carefully last Session into the question of the valuation of the Duke of York's School. I notice in the footnote of these Estimates that the calculation of the site and buildings is put down at the sum of £225,000, which gives an excess of £7,000 over the cost of establishing the new school. I do not wish to set the information which we acquired in the course of last Session against the expert information and advice which the right hon. Gentleman has received from his own Department, but it does appear to me that that estimate of £225,000, which is, after all, only a hypothetical estimate, is rather a swollen estimate and considerably in excess of the valuation that private valuers would put upon the land if they had been consulted. One other point I would refer to. In carrying out these new works and rearranging the site it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would make provision for adding a small strip—it is only a question of a few feet—to the public way, which I understand can be done without in any way causing serious inconveniences to the rearranging of the site for the purposes of the Territorial Forces.

I wish to call attention to a subject of great interest, namely, the provision made for the accommodation in this country of the dirigible balloon, the "Clement Bayard," which was brought from France to Shepherds Bush in London. A few days later it was taken to Aldershot, where they tried to put it into the shed which had been erected. That shed was apparently too small for the magnificent balloon, which, unfortunately, was ripped to pieces and fell among the machinery. It has been found necessary to enlarge the shed, but I want to know why it was not made large enough at the beginning. Why is it that, while in France, between Paris and the German frontier, they have three enormous structures for the accommodation of these dirigible balloons with their apparatus, we have only one shed at Aldershot, which was found too small for the balloon which had been purchased? I think it is very unfortunate. The War Office might have made better preparations for the reception of the balloon, especially as the dimensions were known beforehand. A sufficient margin should have been left to enable the balloon to be brought in and housed in safety. I do hope we shall not have disappointments of this kind in future, and that care will be taken in the erection of sheds to allow a sufficient margin for the accommodation of the balloons for which they are intended.

I leave other questions to be answered by my hon Friend (Mr. Acland) and will deal with the question put by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). It was not the "Clement Bayard," but the "Lebaudy," which got into difficulties at Aldershot. The reasons why the shed was too small was because we built it to the dimensions furnished to us from France for the balloon. We carried the building out on the dimensions of which we were told, but I think we should have allowed a larger margin. The structure is now being put right, and we shall take care in future to allow a larger margin. As regards the Duke of York's School, I thoroughly appreciate what the Noble Lord (Lord A. Thynne) has said in regard to leaving a strip of land to be taken into the road. But that question does not arise at this moment, because there is another piece of property further along the road which the local authority have not got hold of. We quite see, however, that the King's Road should be made as good-looking a thoroughfare as possible, and the arrangements which we are making in regard to the Duke of York's School will not prevent the accomplishment of that object. There is a rather ugly wall on the King's Road, and we propose to take that down and substitute for it an ornamental railing. We also propose to put the Riding School in such a position that the public view will not be blocked. If at any time the King's Road is to be improved, nothing we are doing will make that work difficult. On the other point, as to the valuation, the amount of the purchase money, £225,000, was fixed by the Treasury valuers. I may remind the Noble Lord that various views were expressed as to the value of the property. There was a smaller valuation of £185,000; but on the other hand, the valuation went up to £300,000, while the Treasury valuers fixed the sum at £225,000. We have had to do our best. The purchase has been successfully accomplished, and what we are trying to do is to make the Duke of York's School fairly worthy of London. I quite appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. John Ward), who, with his military zeal, has contributed with hon. Member's opposite to bring about a state of things which is much better than if the Duke of York's School had fallen into the hands of the jerry builder instead of being retained for military training.

In regard to the purchase of land, the reason why we do not mention in advance the exact sum we wish to give for a piece of land is that if the amount were stated the purchaser would be asked to give more than the price named. Therefore, we have to put down a lump sum for the purchase of land, and we leave it vague on purpose so that the persons from whom we are intending to purchase cannot tell in ad- vance, by a study of the Estimates, what we are willing to give. We have found it very unwise to put down in detail the amounts we intend to give. As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) in reference to the Artillery range in the North, in the first place, no railway will be required to the site of the range. There are two good roads, not, I think, in the Valley of the Rede or the Valley of the Coquet, but from Knowesgate and Woodburn, two stations on the line from Hexham to Morpeth. Of course, if we do any extraordinary damage to these roads, and become legally and rightly liable to pay compensation we shall have to pay compensation accordingly. The total area we are purchasing is about 19,000 acres. I do not wish to name the exact cost now, for if I were to indicate it, the owners would be able to arrive at the amount which we intend to spend this year, but perhaps I may state that the amount is somewhere about £7 or £8 an acre for the 19,000 acres. It is very suitable land indeed for the purpose of an Artillery range. Great care was taken, and many inspections were made during several months to find a suitable site for an Artillery range anywhere in the North of England, and the site selected was found to be the most suitable. The land slopes gradually up from the valley of the Rede for about seven miles in a northerly direction, and it is one of the best sites for an Artillery range we shall have in the country. As to sheep, there must, of, course, be some disturbance, but it is not intended to have troops in the area all the year. They will be there for practice purposes only in the summer months, and even then there will be as little disturbance as possible. A very considerable part of the area may be used for sheep even at the time the troops are there and firing is proceeding. The question of compensation to farmers has not been left out of the reckoning in the price we have to pay. I hope the hon. Member for Bath is satisfied that there is wisdom in our practice in not revealing in advance the exact price we think we may have to pay when we are purchasing land.

From the Army Appropriation Account, page 11, which was presented to the House on 6th February, I see that there was a surplus of £70,909 10s. 9d. on the Ordnance Factories, which with the Suspense Account made a credit balance of £135,909. The maximum Suspense Account is not allowed to be more than £100,000, and, therefore, £35,000 went into the Treasury. That is a very handsome result. If the Ordnance Factories had been run as a business under the control of shareholders and directors I dare say £35,000 would have given a fat dividend for the shareholders and something in the way of a bonus for the employés in extra pay and salaries. I take it that the taxpayers, who are the shareholders, have got their dividend in the remission of taxation. Whether or not the employés have got their increase of salaries is another question which I cannot discuss now. I wish to ask, as 1909–10 was evidently a fat year, is 1910–11 going to be an equally fat year. As I read the Supplementary Estimate I do not think it is. We have Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £175,000; deductions for the Army for repayments, £5,000; from the Army, £160,000; sale of old stores, etc., £10,000; then we have got to take from those totals the estimated deficiencies. Army, Indian Government, and Colonies, leaving £80,000, out of which we get a total net Supplementary Estimate of £100. I take it that round figure was put down in order to give gentlemen like myself the opportunity of asking questions and discussing the matter. That is my reason for rising to ask a little explanation as one interested in these Ordnance Factories. Are we to have another fat year for 1910 as fat as 1909 or not? If we are I trust the Financial Secretary will try to remember the employés as well as the shareholders. I hope that without moving the reduction standing in my name the Financial Secretary will be able to give me some information.

There is no question of a fat year in this matter. When money has to be either carried over in the Supplies Suspense Account or given back to the Treasury it only means that we have not succeeded in spending at the Ordnance Factories on the materials bought the amount which at the beginning of the year we thought and hoped we should succeed in spending. According to the Rules, it is absolutely necessary, whenever it is saved and wherever the actual expenditure for the year falls short of the estimated expenditure, that the balance shall automatically go back to the Treasury, which means that it goes automatically in the reduction of the National Debt. As to the item of £100, if the hon. Member would look at the Ordnance Factories Estimate he would find that the Estimate is always a token Estimate. The work done there is met entirely by charges from the different Departments, the War Office, the Admiralty, the Indian Government, and the Dominions, who are also purchasers. The whole expense is met by the purchases made in the course of the year. In putting down this token Vote for the Supplementary Estimate, we are only following the practice adopted with regard to Ordnance Factories. The reason for Supplementary Estimate is, I think, a very simple one. At the beginning of the year we thought that the Admiralty would be able to take over the torpedo factory at Greenock some months ago. As it turns out, they have not been able to take over the factory until now. Therefore to the extent of £80,000 of materials which they bought we assumed that they would be buying from their own torpedo factory moved to Greenock. They have, as a matter of fact, still obtained their materials from the Ordnance Factories, which appears in the Ordnance Factories Vote and not in a separate Vote of their own. That means that the Ordnance Factory at Woolwich had a cost of wages and materials of £80,000 more to meet for the stores purchased by the Admiralty for the factory during that time.

The hon. Gentleman states that the reason that this £80,000 is required is that as there was delay in the torpedo factory at Greenock the Admiralty was unable to make arrangements early this year, as they had intended, and that the removal is now taking place. Will he inform us why the delay occurred? We are told that there has been delay owing to a miscalculation in some of the Government Departments—the War Office or the Admiralty, I do not know which— and we are not given the reason. If, as I think I read in the newspapers, the reason is that the Government were not able to provide proper dwellings for the working-men in as short a time as they hoped, then I have nothing more to say. I do think we ought to have some explanation before we vote this £80,000.

I agree with the hon. Member opposite that it is very difficult to find out how much of this Estimate belongs to the War Office and how much to the Admiralty. I do not know whether it is got up for the express purpose of bewildering hon. Members, but, at any rate, it has that effect. Some day, when the proper time comes, I shall ask the House to knock these two Departments into one, and then we shall know where we are.

This Estimate is necessary because we are buying from the War Office material which we had expected to provide for ourselves. There has been some little delay due to various causes, of which housing for the men has been one. We have been careful to send the men down in small batches in order to meet the housing difficulty as far as possibe. We have sent down nearly 600, and there are very few still to go. No doubt there was difficulty in housing the men. They were very well off at Woolwich, but there was a shortage of accommodation for them at Greenock. In particular, they did not take kindly to the tenement system. I went down to see what sort of tenements they had gone into, and the Admiralty have now entered into arrangements with a Scottish garden suburb company, by which they guarantee a certain amount of rental and the company are to provide a number of dwelling houses at 8s. 6d. rental excluding rates. We guarantee, under conditions, rental up to £200 on account of houses empty. Sixteen of these houses must be ready by Whitsuntide, and the company will use every endeavour to have fifty ready by that time. There have also been difficulties with regard to the transference of machinery to Greenock. Perhaps the outstanding feature which will give the hon. Members opposite more satisfaction is that we do not anticipate any delay whatever in providing the necessary number of torpedoes for the Navy.

The subject of scientific investigation for which the House is asked to grant this Supplementary Vote-in-Aid so seldom comes before the House, that I desire to take this opportunity of saying a few words upon it. I should like to say this with regard to such grants as are made in aid of this object, that of all the vast sums of money voted by this House to various national objects, I venture to say there is none which is anything like so productive of beneficial results, not only to this country, but to mankind at large, as the Grants-in-Aid of scientific investigation. I should like to invite the consideration of the House for a moment to the immense good which is done by endowed scientific research, even to the very limited extent to which it is endowed by the various Governments, and especially to the very limited extent to which it is endowed by the British Government. We have had scientific investigation into the nature of tropical diseases, with results that will be remembered as some of the greatest results of intellectual and scientific investigation in the age in which we live.

We cannot upon a Supplementary Estimate discuss the principle of the original Vote. The hon. Member must confine his observation to the subject for which the money is asked in the Supplementary Estimates.

I bow entirely to your ruling. Sir; but I thought this Supplementary Estimate was described as in aid of scientific investigation.

On a point of Order. I see there was no original Estimate for this matter, and, therefore, this is a new Estimate. The original Estimate was blank, and if there was no original Estimate I submit, very respectfully, the policy of this particular grant may be discussed.

If the hon. Gentle man will look at the Estimates he will see that there was a total vote of £74,000 for scientific investigation; this supplementary sum of £2,000 is for the Ornithological Union.

I quite agree that the original Estimate of £74,000 was for scientific investigation, and that this is an Estimate for the Ornithological Union, which was not in the original Estimates. Of course, we cannot discuss the original policy of scientific investigation, but we may discuss the policy of the British Ornithological Union.

I have not got the original Estimate here, but I do not think the principle can be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, the Debate must be confined to this Vote.

In deference to your ruling, I should like to say a few words with regard to the Grant to the British Ornithological Union. I see there is an amount for the expedition to New Guinea of £2,000. I cannot help feeling considerable regret that while £2,000 has been given for this object another important branch of scientific investigation is only receiving a grant of £1,000. I will conclude by expressing the hope that when this question of scientific investigation and tropical research comes before the Treasury for consideration again they will extend to it a larger measure of generosity than it has hitherto received.

As we are debarred from discussing anything but this particular item, our discussion is necessarily rather limited. I wish, first of all, to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why he should endow an expedition to a foreign country when I know there was a similar expedition went to British New Guinea. Why should he endow an expedition going to Dutch New Guinea when he might have supported one going to British New Guinea. It is not very patriotic to endow an expedition going to a foreign country when you do not do the same thing in the case of your own possessions. The sum of £2,000 is going to be spent to examine into the habits of birds—in fact, this is only a moiety of the sum required, the full amount being £4,000. Now £4,000 is a large amount to give to an expedition going out to examine into the habits of birds and the different forms of bird life. I do not wish in any way to depreciate the importance of this form of research, but there are forms which are infinitely more necessary, and which do infinitely more good to the people of this country than spending £4,000, which is going to a foreign country purely for the gratification of a private society to investigate the habits of birds. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will give us some valid grounds for the spending of £4,000 in this rather trivial form of research.

My answer to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last can be put into a very few words. If the hon. Member had had the good fortune to be present when an account of this expedition was placed before the House in Committee and if he had read what had appeared in "The Times" the previous week he would have seen a most interesting account of the objects of this society given by the leader of the expedition, who has just returned, and he would see that it is not so much the habits of birds as the habits of the people who live there.

Then why is it called a grant to the Ornithological Union?

Because it was granted to that union, a body whose activities the hon. Member must be fully acquainted with. The reason why this sum is given is because all the valuable specimens obtained will be offered to the British Museum.

I bog to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

The reason for this extra vote of £4,000 is not so obscure as the bon. Baronet seems to think. It is due to two grants being necessary in order to put Bristol University and Durham University on the same footing as the other universities. Neither of those grants could have been foreseen, but it would have been most unfair in respect of both universities to have delayed grants justly due to them until after the end of the financial year. It was in order to put them on the same footing as other universities in respect of these grants that this Supplementary Estimate was put down. A grant has been made to Bristol where there was a university college which has been subsequently merged in the university, but it was made upon the express condition that £2,000 per year was not necessarily to be the permanent grant, and that it would not set up a vested interest should these grants be merged in the general grants to university colleges and universities for general education. The same considerations apply to the case of Durham University, the scientific side of which is a separate university college. It is absolutely necessary in order to do justice to these two localities that this Supplementary Estimate should be presented.

I am very glad the Government are giving money for the purpose of university education, but I regret it should continue to be the practice to give grants to the younger universities and not to the older universities. There are institutions connected with the University of Oxford like the Bodleian Library which are of national interest, and which might very well receive assistance from the National Exchequer. I shall not be able to vote with my hon. Friend if he persists in his Motion for a reduction, because, although I share his desire to see financial purity, and certainly agree in thinking the Comptroller and Auditor-General's authority should not be interfered with, yet the importance of university education and the desirability of furnishing funds for the purposes of it is so great that I should be sorry if anything was done to discourage the Government in the good path on which they have entered.

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not given the explanation for which my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) asked. He has referred to certain mysterious local circumstances which made it impossible for him to foresee this additional expense when he framed his original Estimates, but I should have thought if there was one matter capable of exact and precise calculation it would be a case of this sort, because the Bristol and Durham Universities, I presume, are not of sudden growth. It has been known for some time that they would be qualifying for grants of this character, and I should have thought that a little care on the part of the Treasury would have relieved them of the necessity of presenting any Supplementary Estimates at all, and certainly of presenting two consecutive Supplementary Estimates of this character. I should be the last to wish to see the accounts of the Bristol University examined in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but I deprecate this habit which is growing of withdrawing one item after another from the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I hope the House may be furnished, perhaps later in the afternoon with some explanation as to the basis on which these grants are made. These provincial universities are doing a very great work in the country, and some of us feel that the usefulness and the possible sphere of the Bristol University might be widened and very largely extended if they received more generous treatment.

The right hon. Gentleman partially, but only partially, met the criticism of my hon. Friend. He told us there were local circumstances which prevented the Treasury from knowing beforehand whether these two universities would qualify, but he did not say a single word about the Supplementary Estimate in

I want to have an explanation of this. No doubt there is one, but I do not understand it. It may be due to my stupidity. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the paper, he will see that the items are given in a different form to that in which they are submitted for every other Vote in the Supplementary Estimates. I find these words, "Treasury Chest Fund, 1910–11, £26,128." Then the next item goes back to "1909–10, £17,052—increase £9,076." Then there is a little star, and we go back to the Supplementary Estimate 22nd February, 1910. Why we should suddenly go back to that date I cannot understand. Is it in order to inform the House that last year there was a deficit of £17,052, and this year of £6,928? If so, it may be a very good way of doing it, but I would point out it has not been done in the case of any other Estimate. I believe it means that the £26,000 is required to make up a loss on exchange. I am not disputing that item, although it seems to me rather a large amount, but I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give me some explanation why it is brought out in this form in the Supplementary Estimates? I have only given the explanation which I have found out for myself. I want to know if it is correct.

The Treasury Chest Fund is an account with which I daresay a great majority of hon. Members are not familiar, and perhaps it will serve the purpose of the hon. Baronet if, in half-a-dozen sentences, I endeavour to explain what the operations of this fund are. It goes back, I believe, to the year 1826, when the Treasury first became responsible for the fund, and when the practice was somewhat antiquated. Since that time they have had to deal with the money required for the pay of the troops and of the Admiralty, and in connection with these transactions there are telegraphic transfers on bills. There is a loss, or it may be a gain, upon these transactions in some years, and provision is made in the expenditure of one year for the loss resulting from the transactions of the previous year, consequently the Treasury Chest Fund is presented to Parliament in the year subsequent to the financial year on a Supplementary Estimate. It is therefore the sum required to make good the nett loss on the transactions of the year 1909–10 of £26,000, which is really an increase upon the year previous to that. These transactions entailed us in a loss of something like £9,000 more than they have in previous years, and the reason why this sum is brought to the House of Commons is this. No final expenditure may be charged upon a sum, which is fixed, I think, by the Act of 1894—a capital sum of £700,000—no final expenditure may be charged upon that fund, but the expenses incurred in connection with it can be brought before Parliament and sanctioned year by year. If there is a loss that has to be voted by Parliament, and if there is a surplus that has to be surrendered to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who audits the accounts, so that the control of Parliament over the whole of this fund is fully and amply maintained.

Do I understand that this sum is for a loss of exchange on orders and bills in the financial year ending 31st March, 1910?

Yes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the amount involved in the transactions connected with this charge so that we may see what ratio the cost has to the magnitude of the actual transactions?

There is only one point I wish to ask for information about, and which arises out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend, and that is if this is a loss which has occurred during the year ending 31st March, 1910, why was it not put in an Estimate before? Why has it remained over till March, 1911, before we are asked to pass it?

The explanation is not a difficult one to give. It is due to the vastness of our territory and to British possessions being scattered all over the world, a fact which does not allow of these amounts being brought into account until a very late period of the year. May I add that this is the usual time at which the consideration of this matter is presented to Parliament?

I do not think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is a very satisfactory one, although it might have been a good explanation in the year 1856, when we had no telegraphs and no posts.

The hon. Member is only entitled to speak once.

I was interrupted, Sir, when I was in the middle of my speech.

If the hon. Gentleman is only answering an interruption he can proceed.

I say the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is entirely unsatisfactory. If he had made that explanation fifty years ago then I can quite understand that it may have been possible that information from distant parts of the Empire or from China could not arrive in London in time to present Estimates, but to tell us now in the year of grace, 1911, that letters or telegrams take six, eight, or ten months to reach other parts of the Empire is, I think, a very lame explanation. I do hope and trust that in succeeding years the right hon. Gentleman will not wait until March of the succeeding year before he brings this expenditure before the House.

This is a loss which appears to have occurred in the year ending 31st March, 1909–10, but apparently, if it is a loss, it was paid, and I should like to know out of what fund it was paid? It was brought forward as a loss by exchange, but if that was the case it must have been incurred and paid before the 31st March, 1910, and it would interest the House to know whether this sum was drawn from the capital sum of £700,000, and the object of this Vote is for the purpose of replacing it or whether it is a sum which has been paid and not authorised by Parliament at all, and now at this time he comes to Parliament to authorise the payment of it.

If I may speak by the leave of the House the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has accurately described the transaction which took place.

I cannot regard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation as in any way adequate or as meeting the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this is a loss that has been incurred upon certain rates of exchange in consequence of certain operations with regard to establishments abroad. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what the total amount involved amounts to.

I asked that.

We have no means of telling whether these operations by means of bills of exchange or documents of a similar character were advantageous or not, and we should like to know what proportion the sum of £26,000 bears to the total sum involved in order that we may form some rough estimate of the business ability with which the financial affairs of this country are transacted. There is one other point which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with at all, and that is the point raised by my hon. Friend below me, that this is a complete transaction before 31st March, 1910, and there was no reason why it should form the subject of a Supplementary Estimate. This practice of bringing in Supplementary Estimates has grown with great rapidity under the right hon. Gentlemen's administration, and I do not think that it makes for sound finance, or makes our system of finance intelligible to the ordinary Member of this House.

On the Committee stage of this Vote the Home Secretary made an important statement about the sum which is asked from Parliament. He said he had expected that an Appropriation-in-Aid which will reduce this Vote would be forthcoming from the local authorities in questions, but that they had refused it. I take this opportunity of inviting the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on that point. It is very important, not only to the London metropolitan taxpayer, but to the taxpayer at large, that we should know exactly how we stand with regard to what must be called an Appropriation-in-Aid for this Supplementary Vote. We should like to know how the agreement was arrived at that the local authorities should contribute, whether the agreement was in writing or not, whether it was made by and with the consent of a competent authority to guarantee the payment of money, and, m short, what prospects our taxpayers at large have of being relieved by a contribution from the Glamorganshire local authorities.

I do not think there is any prospect whatever of the taxpayer being relieved in this matter. On the contrary, the prospect is the other way. The amount in the Vote now under discussion—£15,000—was never expected to be reduced by any Appropriation-in-Aid from the source to which the Noble Lord has referred. It is the sum which must be paid, not for the ordinary costs of the Metropolitan Police while they were on duty in Wales, but for the extra allowances which were paid to them in consideration of their employment on duty so far from their own sphere. There never was any question of recovering any part of this £15,000 from the local authorities. There has, however, been a question of recovering from the local authority the ordinary pay of the police, apart from the special allowances, and an agreement to that effect was signed by the chief constable. Of course, we had to act in a great emergency, and there was not an opportunity for considering how far the chief constable was authorised or whether the acceptance of this aid by the chief constable was couched in due legal form. We had to accept such an undertaking as we could get in the crisis and emergency with which we were trying to deal, and I now understand that the Glamorganshire County Council Standing Joint Committee repudiate the signature of their officer, and, although they have profited by the Metropolitan Police during all these months, they propose to resist at law any attempt to impose upon them any portion whatever of the charge. The question of law is difficult and uncertain, and I am far from saying I am at all decided that we occupy a position of superior advantage in regard to the law. I have, however, laid the subject before the Law Officers of the Crown, and they have expressed an opinion upon it which is now being considered with a view to a decision whether action shall be taken or shall not be taken. Passing from the sphere of law to equity, I should think the case was a good deal clearer and I would very respectfully submit to the Committee that it is a subject which well deserves the future legislative attention of the House of Commons. It is a very unsatisfactory position of the law in which soldiers can be requisitioned to an almost unlimited extent without any reference to the central authorities, and that they cost nothing to the local authority, the whole cost being borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and yet that the charge for police, although they may be better suited to deal with an emergency than soldiers, can be repudiated.

Why the Metropolitan Police, which is partly paid for by the local authority in London?

The Noble Lord is surely aware that the Police Forces in all parts of the country are called to go to the aid of other police forces, and they frequently do, and the calls made on the Metropolitan Police have been much less than on other forces in other parts of the country.

Has this local authority refused to contribute to the cost of the police from half a dozen other districts who co-operated with the London police?

I do not know what they have done in respect of other authorities. It is only the Metropolitan Police, so far as I am advised, that they have refused to pay for. I daresay they have their own special reasons for that.

At the Glamorgan County Council yesterday there was a statement made that a number of merchants in the Aberdare Valley who supplied provisions to the Metropolitan Police during their visit there are still without their account being paid, and the county council, owing to the refusal of liabilities, will not pay these accounts. Some of the merchants are on the verge of bankruptcy as a consequence. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not make an arrangement whereby, pending the decision of the legal point, the accounts of those merchants who supplied goods to the Metropolitan Police could not be paid?

I must consider that. The hon. Member might put down a question on the subject. I will certainly consider the point that the Central Government, whether it supplies military or police, ought to be in a position to recover, at any rate, a proportion of the cost. That appears to me to be the only check upon the altogether undesirable and unlimited use of these forces in local disputes. I am bound to say I can hold out no expectation of this sum being reduced. There never has been any expectation of that—but I can hold out a very considerable expectation that it will be increased if it should be decided not to press the case at law against the Glamorganshire County Council and that may well be decided in view of the opinions which the Law Officers have expressed.

I think this is a very important point, and the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is one of very great importance. Are we to understand that the present state of the law does not give power to the central authority to recover the ordinary expense from the local authority, and that it is the intention of the Government, as early as possible, to bring in a Bill to alter the law so that if a local authority does requisition police the ordinary cost of these police shall fall on the local authority and not on the taxpayers at large?

That was the view I was putting before the House, but I must not be understood to be specifically promising legislation on the subject. I think it is a desirable course. It is obvious that no part of the charge will fall on the ratepayers of London. If it is not paid by the Glamorganshire County Council it will be paid by the Imperial Exchequer.

The action taken by the Home Secretary has an important effect with regard to the position of the Metropolitan Police as well as in regard to the Metropolitan ratepayers. So far as I know, there is only one authority under which police can be transferred from the districts in which they usually act into another district. That authority is Section 25 of the Police Act of 1890, which the right hon. Gentleman did not pursue. I think that has a most unfortunate effect on the position of the Metropolitan Police when they were sent down into Wales. As the House is probably aware, the law hedges round with special protection constables who are in the execution of their duty, but that protection is only given to them while acting within the district for which they are sworn. When, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman sent Metropolitan Police down into Wales he divested them of that protection which they would have had if performing their duty in London. The section to which I have referred meets the difficulty, because it specifically provides that police when they go into what I may call a foreign district shall have the same powers and privileges which are possessed by the local police. But the right hon. Gentleman did not pursue that section, and that special provision did not apply. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman put the Metropolitan Police in an unfortunate position. I should like to ask him whether, when he sent these police, he told them what their position would be. The more experienced Metropolitan police know the law, and they would naturally suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing Section (25) of the Act of 1890, which would give them the same protection in South Wales as they possessed here. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman further, whether the heads of the police informed the police who were sent down that they were not sent under Section (25) of the Act of 1890, and that when they got into South Wales they would be in the position of ordinary citizens and not in the position of police officers acting in the execution of their duty.