asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether under normal conditions the triennial Report on trade unions would by this time have been published; whether this Report, 1911–13, is ready; if so, whether steps will be taken to secure its speedy publication; and (2) whether the Report on Labour Exchanges is now ready; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to secure its speedy publication?

The principal facts with respect to trade unions in 1911–13 have already been published in the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette," and further particulars are given in the 17th Abstract of Labour Statistics. In these circumstances, and in view of the number of enlistments in the Department, the pressure in other directions owing to the War, and the desirability of economising effort and expenditure during the present crisis, it is proposed to postpone publication of the volume referred to by my hon. Friend. For these reasons the postponement of the Report on Labour Exchanges is also proposed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any power to forbid the mortgage of British ships to foreigners; and, if not, whether, seeing that the mortgagee can easily possess the real control of the ship, he will take powers to forbid the mortgage to foreigners, if he thinks desirable, during the War?

There is no statutory power at present to forbid mortgages to foreigners, but every case is reported and, when necessary, is inquired into. I would remind my hon. Friend that so long as a ship flies the British flag it is subject to British law and British Government control.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be possible, after having allowed a foreigner to obtain a mortgage on a British ship, to forbid him to foreclose?

If a foreigner forecloses a mortgage, I understand that it will involve a transfer to a foreign flag, and that course, as the hon. Member knows, is forbidden at the present moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what facilities, if any, are being given by the railway companies for tourist traffic between England and Scotland during the present summer?

No excursion facilities are being given, but the usual issue of tourist tickets is being continued.

Are we to understand that advantages are to be given to long-distance travellers, namely, the rich, while the same advantages are not to be given to the short-distance travellers, namely, the poor? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for that!

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make his promised statement as to the steps which he has taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the retail price of coal; and whether he proposes to fix and regulate the price of coal for home consumption?

I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division.

As this matter has been under consideration for a period of several months, and is one of grave, urgent importance, will not the right hon. Gentleman come to some decision now on the matter, and give us an assurance, at least, that he will be in a position to make a statement next week at the very latest?

If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Mansfield, he will see I pointed out that matters of great importance relating to the coal trade and consumers had to be dealt with by the Government during the past few weeks, and that that unavoidably delayed the-steps contemplated.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any undertaking as to when he will come to a decision on the matter?

No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long ago it is since these recommendations were made to him?

Yes, Sir, it is some months ago. Most of the recommendations, except that dealing with maximum prices, have been adopted.

Is it not the fact that the Committee recommended that if there was no fall in the price of coal in the near future the nation should take control of its own coal supplies?

I do not remember that recommendation of the Committee. I understand it was discussed among other matters.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any inquiry has so far been made into the dispute at present existing at the factories of Messrs. D. Gurteen and Sons, Haverhill, Suffolk; whether he is aware that the workpeople have offered to accept arbitration and that this offer has been refused by the firm; whether he is aware that this firm are Government contractors; and will he state what steps his Department proposes to take with a view to settling the difficulty?

The attention of the Department has been drawn to this dispute, and the Chief Industrial Commissioner is now in communication with the firm.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the prosecutions which have recently taken place against farmers for dismissing farm labourers and in their place employing boys on farm labour who had not secured certificates for exemption from school, and considering the disparity of payment offered to boys who have been granted exemption certificates (the rate in Norfolk varying from 3s. to 7s. per week), he has taken steps to secure that when children of school age are employed in agricultural work they are paid a fair wage?

I am investigating certain cases in which there is primâ facie reason for thinking that the administration of local education authorities or school attendance committees in excusing children from school attendance for employment in agriculture has been lax, and that the principles laid down in the Debate which took place in this House on the 25th February have not been observed. I am fully alive to the importance of securing reasonable and adequate remuneration for children so employed, and I will ask local education, authorities to co-operate with me in securing it. I have, however, no power to fix or enforce a minimum wage, and I can only appeal to the humanity and public spirit of employers and of those who are responsible for the local administration of education. If this appeal fails of its effect, the question of taking further action will have to be carefully considered by the Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he cannot reduce the Grants to these local authorities which are proving so unsatisfactory in this matter?

I think I have already pointed out that the whole conduct will be taken into consideration.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been directed to the resolution passed by a number of local authorities urging upon the Government that, having regard to the scarcity of cattle and the prevailing high prices of butcher's meat, they should take immediate steps to remove the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain; and whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Orders of the Board do not now, however, prohibit the importation of cattle from Canada for slaughter at the port of landing, and the provision of proper facilities for this is under consideration. The admission of Canadian cattle under other conditions would require further statutory authority, which the President of the Board is not prepared at present to take steps to obtain.

In view of the necessity that may arise of using Canadian stores in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter his very careful consideration, with a view to increasing the food supply?

Feed is very scarce, and it is very much better to have the animals fat than lean.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that gold in the form of sovereigns and half-sovereigns is continually being taken out of this country by travellers crossing to France and Holland and going also to Norway and Sweden and Denmark; if any regulation forbidding this practice has been made under the Defence of the Realm Act; and why passengers are not searched prior to leaving the country and paper given to them in exchange for any gold found on them?

Any evidence of gold movements of the kind indicated is being carefully watched, and I am considering what steps can be taken, but the measure suggested by the hon. Member does not seem to be one which on present information it would be desirable to adopt.

Would there be any other way possible to save the export of gold?

That is just what is being considered. One does not want to do anything that will have an unfortunate effect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of sovereigns and half-sovereigns are taken by drafts of soldiers going to France?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the War Department notified to the carpenters working at Moore Park Camp, Fermoy, county Cork, that their wages were to be reduced; were nine men dismissed who refused to accept the reduced rates; are trade union wages being paid to the men now at Moore Park; what are the rates for carpenters in England and Ireland, respectively; and will the local commanding officer receive a deputation from the carpenters' society at Fermoy as to the dismissals at Moore Park?

I am inquiring into this case, and will let the hon. and learned Member know the result in due course.

Will the hon. Gentleman see that there is no delay?

There will be no avoidable delay on my part.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman give definite instructions that they must observe the Fair-Wages Clause?

Those instructions are always given.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the lower limits of age for admission to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst are, respectively, sixteen and a half and seventeen years; whether, under these circumstances, officers are sent to the front from these institutions at seventeen and seventeen and a half years of age; whether these young officers have proved themselves mentally and physically fit to take command; and whether the lower limits of age will be raised for the next entrance examinations?

I am aware that the lower age limits are sixteen and a half and seventeen, respectively. Officers are not sent out to join units at the front immediately they pass out of Woolwich and Sandhurst; the third part of the question does not therefore arise. It is not proposed to raise the lower limits of age, which experience in reference to the consideration my hon. Friend has in mind has shown to be the most suitable in all respects.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether the Secretary of State for War refused to give his consent to private persons sending out to Egypt private hospitals at their own expense; and whether, as a consequence, when the wounded from the Dardanelles arrived at Alexandria they were sent to the German hospital to be nursed by German nurses?

Private hospitals were not and are not required in Egypt. As I stated yesterday, the arrangements for the reception of the wounded at Alexandria were adequate in all respects. I think the General Officer Commanding in Egypt exercised a wise judgment in making use of the German hospital. In fact, he would no doubt have been criticised adversely in this House and outside if he had failed to make use of all the suitable accommodation which was at his disposal.

asked the Under-Secretary for War if he will say how many hundreds of officers, also non-commissioned officers and men, are employed at general headquarters in France; and whether this staff is larger than the French general headquarters staff?

The organisation of the general headquarters of the British and French Armies is not, according to my information, the same, and any comparison of numbers might, therefore, be fallacious. In any case it would be necessary, in order to give even a general answer to my hon. Friend's question, to address an inquiry to the French Govern- ment, and this I feel hardly justified in asking for at a time when there is so much other work to be done.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the numbers for our own headquarters' staff?

Yes, Sir, I have already done so.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether officers on active service between the ages of thirty and forty who have joined the Army since the War, but were previously in the Regular Army, are prevented from receiving promotion by the War Office though recommended for promotion by their commanding officers; whether officers on the strength of a Regular regiment who have had no previous military experience are promoted over these officers; and whether the recommendations for promotion made by commanding officers at the front are disregarded by the War Office?

All officers of the ages mentioned are eligible for promotion. If my hon. Friend refers to officers on the General Reserve of Officers, I may repeat what I have previously stated, that is, that they come up for promotion when they become the senior of their rank in the regiment to which they are attached. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether, during the last few days, the greater part of the Canadian Division at the front has been armed with the Lee-Enfield rifle; whether the War Office notified, and, if so, at what date, the Canadian Government when they received reports from the front that the Ross rifle was unsuited for service purposes; whether any suggestion or request has been made to the Canadian Government, and, if so, at what date, asking them to manufacture the Lee-Enfield rifle and to discontinue the manufacture of the Ross rifle; whether the Ross rifle is still being manufactured in large quantities; and whether these rifles are being manufactured to the order of the Canadian Government or the War Office?

To the answer I gave my hon. Friend on this subject on the 24th June. I would add that the Ross rifle has been the subject of trial and report by the military authorities in France, and the results are now before the Canadian Government. In the light of the information received the situation in regard to the War Office contract for this rifle is being reviewed.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. The question I placed on the Paper was whether the War Office notified, and, if so, at what date, the Canadian Government, when they received reports from the front that the Ross rifle was unsuited for service, and whether the Ross rifle is still being made to the order of the British Government or of the Canadian Government? Both these questions are unanswered.

Generally it is not very-desirable to discuss these matters in public in this House. They are matters of very considerable delicacy as between the Dominion Government and the British Government, and I have given as much information as I can and rather more than would be desirable if it had not been that my hon. Friend, as I know, is very persistent in his demands.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any more of these rifles are being made to the order of the British Government? That is a fair question.

I think it is not desirable to say.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether, seeing that the Germans have now for many months held their trenches with machine guns, while our trenches have been held by riflemen, he will say why the War Office for many months persistently refused offers of British and American machine guns on the ground that these were not interchangeable with the parts of the Maxim gun; whether a number of the parts of the Vickers-Maxim gun, used by the original Expeditionary Force, are not interchangeable with the pattern of Maxim now being supplied; and whether he will therefore say who is responsible for the refusal of the War Office last year to order guns the parts of which were not interchangeable with the old type of Maxim gun?

No offers of British or American machine guns have been refused by the War Office on account of non-inter-changeability of parts, and I may add that no type of machine gun, considered suitable for use in the field has been refused. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative, and the third part does not arise.

Then how is it that guns have since been ordered by the Minister of Munitions which were refused by the War Office in February last year?

I do not think that is a fact.

I know it is.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether, when an officer or man is wounded, a telegram is sent to his relatives merely announcing the fact without giving any details; and whether, in order to relieve the anxiety of relatives, it would be possible for this initial telegram to be followed by a further communication giving details of the patient's condition?

When the original notification received contains any details they are always forwarded. When the original report does not contain details, the instructions in force already provide that the original notification shall be followed as soon as possible by a statement of the nature of the wound, and, in dangerous cases, by a weekly progress report.

asked if any representations have been made by the Board of Agriculture to the War Office on the subject of the recruiting of agricultural labourers; and if any steps have been taken, by instructing recruiting officers not to enlist any more agricultural labourers, to prevent the further reduction of our Home production of food?

Instructions have been issued, after consultation with the Board of Agriculture, as to limiting the recruiting of agricultural labourers. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the circular letter addressed to commands.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has now ascertained that Lord Aberconway, the chairman of John Brown and Company,, of Sheffield, has publicly complained, in. a widely circulated speech, that 10,000 of his men have been recruited, and that this recruiting has injured the firm's power to produce munitions; and if he will explain why the War Office permitted this injury to occur?

I have not succeeded in obtaining a copy of the speech referred to, nor can I add anything at present to the statements which have already been made on the subject of the release from the Colours of men who are skilled munition workers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that firms which are being pressed by the Government to make munitions of war are actually being deprived of their working men by the recruiting officers?

All I can say is, as I informed my hon. Friend in answer to a question only two or three days ago, that this firm, John Brown and Company, is one of the firms which are exempt from recruiting. That being so, it does not seem to me to be quite in consonance with the instructions that recruits should be taken from that firm.

I am sorry if I have not conveyed myself. I referred in my supplementary question to another firm who have suffered in the same way.

Other firms would be different.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the general application of this question?

General application is I a very difficult thing to answer. One may spread oneself at large. I am sure my hon. Friend would not desire me to do that. Therefore I do not really think that this is a question which can be answered, at Question Time.

Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman, on a public question of this importance, to treat this subject seriously?

The question which was asked refers to a specific firm.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the responsible recruiting authority has issued an official poster to the following effect: "Push and Go: It is better to Go than to be Pushed"; if he will state whether this poster is to be taken as an official intimation that the Government has decided to adopt a policy of conscription in the near future; and if it is with his sanction that the voluntary system is supported by threats?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As I have stated before, advertisements have to be framed to meet all tastes. I would add to that, they must meet all phases of inclination and intention and the most variegated forms of sense of duty. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these posters are much disliked by those who support voluntary service? I would ask for a reply.

I do not understand that there is any question.

Is it not the case that the words of this poster, "It is better to Go than to be Pushed," are a correct expression of the principle involved in voluntary enlistment?

That is a matter of interpretation.

asked the Under-Secretary for War who are the members composing the Board of Control of Canteens for the Army; whether they receive any and, if so, what salary; whether he is aware that the Board is deducting 5 per cent. per month from the takings of the regimental institutes; and whether, in view of the fact that this impost will cripple the institutes and make it impossible for them to continue the benefits hitherto accruing to the men, he will take steps to protect the regimental institutes by requiring the Board of Control to desist from making a deduction from their takings?

The list of members which was published in the Press on 15th February last is rather too long to read out, and I will circulate a copy with the Votes. None of the members receive any remuneration. The proportion retained by the board is not 5 per cent, of the takings, but is one-fifth of the rebate received from the contractor, and all moneys so received will be used for the benefit of the troops.—[See Written Answers of this date.]

May I ask whether, owing to the great dissatisfaction of officers commanding regiments with the present system of control of canteens by the new board, the right hon. Gentleman will receive a deputation of commanding officers to express their views on the subject at the earliest opportunity?

I shall be very glad to look into any complaints which reach me in any matter under my administration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that since the Board of Control was appointed the soldier has had the advantage of the fact that all the regimental institutes are under inspection, thereby assuring the quality of the goods supplied; and is it not the fact that owing to the Board fixing the prices the soldier is thus enabled to obtain his goods at a cheaper rate than would have been otherwise possible?

I think that my hon. Friend is quite correct.

Is not the deduction taken from the profits of the soldiers? Is it not a question of a new system of taking away money which was previously given?

I do not think there is any new system. I am quite satisfied from what I have seen of them that the arrangements now made are working well, and working for the benefit of the soldiers' committee.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a similar arrangement in the case of the soldiers in South Africa has resulted in there being still at large a considerable sum of money of which nobody can get hold?

I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. It is quite true that there is still a considerable balance to the credit of the fund and that that fund is now being applied to the credit of the soldiers.

That does not apply to the whole of it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the application for improved wages made by the writers at Enfield Lock and Woolwich has yet been considered; and whether he is in a position to report thereon?

I would refer the Hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Woolwich.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the suggestion that German and Austrian mercantile vessels interned in the United Kingdom harbours should be sold for the benefit of the compensation and insurance funds at present founded by this country for damage done to our own mercantile marine; and whether this step has been taken by other nations who are our Allies?

The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman has not been overlooked, but it is not proposed to take the action he suggests at present. I am not aware that interned ships have been sold by any of the Allied Governments.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider, under existing legislation, the commandeering of all private motor vehicles, other than those used for business purposes, in order to release for war work the services of thousands of young chauffeurs, mechanics, and others connected with the trade; whether he is aware that this course has already been adopted by the French Government; and whether, in view of the fact that economy in petrol is desirable, he will consider the adoption of this step in order to assist the nation at the present time?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnsley on the 30th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House what was the prayer of the memorial adopted unanimously by the board of management of Glin district school at its last meeting; and, having regard to the area represented by that body, whether he can see his way to accede to the prayer of the memorial?

The military authorities fully sympathise with the well-known desire of all Irish regiments to proceed to the front. The question of their dispatch must, however, depend on military considerations only.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has brought under the notice of the Indian Government the manifesto signed by numbers of ministers of the Christian religion approving the methods of war established by the Kaiser?

I do not gather from the question to what manifesto the hon. Member is referring, but in any case I see no reason for communicating any manifesto of the kind described, and presumably of German origin, to the Government of India.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having regard to the decrease in the number of new holdings formed from untenanted land and vested by the Estates Commissioners in the last two completed years to less than half the previous yearly average, and to the necessity for expediting that work to meet the demand for increased food supplies, will he state the number of such holdings vested in the first quarter of the current financial year; the area the Commissioners are going to vest in the second quarter; what steps they are taking to enable them to vest a further area before next autumn; and what it is that prevents more rapid progress?

The number of parcels of untenanted land vested as separate holdings by the Estates Commissioners during the first quarter of the current financial year in purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts is 143. Allottees of untenanted land are placed in possession thereof as soon as practicable after such lands are acquired by the Commissioners, but the allotments are not vested in the purchasers until the improvement works thereon have been completed and all questions affecting title and other matters have been disposed of. It is accordingly impossible to state beforehand the number of holdings which will be vested in any given period, but, as I have already stated, the Estates Commissioners are using all possible dispatch in the resale of lands purchased by them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not they are actually increasing the number vested?

I have here the figures, which I will send to the hon. Member, showing that 143 in one quarter is a very good average, and will make up quite as large a number as they were able to do in larger years. In 1910–11 there were 647, in 1911–12, 615, and so on, showing that 143 is quite up to average. I will endeavour to press the matter forward as far as I can.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the obliteration of party distinctions to redeem his pledge and assurance of 16th October, 1912, that land purchase in Ireland should be completed at the earliest possible date by introducing for that purpose now a Bill which from its source would be non-contentious?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to his question on this subject on the 29th April last.

Does not the formation of the Coalition make any difference in this matter?

Not in the necessity of subordinating all matters involving expenditure of public funds to the successful prosecution of the War.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will inform the House of the class of work in which the secretary of the Irish Industrial Development Association has been engaged; his efficiency therein; the circumstances in which he has been expelled from the sphere of his operations by the military authorities under the Defence of the Realm Act; the system of shadowing by which a continuance of his work in any part of Ireland has been rendered impossible; whether he has ever been convicted or accused of any crime; and what the Department has done to counteract the loss of this official to the cause of industrial development in Ireland?

The gentleman in question was not an officer of the Department. The Department have no information regarding the matters mentioned in the hon. Member's question.

Has not the Department knowledge that he was engaged in work corresponding to and in co-operation with the Department, and the knowledge that he has been expelled?

No, Sir. He was not in any way an officer of the Department. He may have been engaged in doing what the hon. Member calls correspondence, but we have no control over him, no knowledge of him, and I am not very much interested in him.

Was he or was he not expelled?

I must have notice of that. I know nothing about it.

The question is on the Paper.

I am asked as President of the Department what has happened to this man, and I say I never heard of him.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he has exercised any pressure, or proposes to do so, on the town council of Dunblane to institute a Police Court in that burgh, in view of the fact that it is the only burgh of that standing in West Perthshire that has not such a Court, and that it would have the effect of reducing the work for a Procurator-fiscal in that neighbourhood?

The answer is in the negative. I am not aware that I have any authority to exercise pressure in the direction desired by my hon. and learned Friend.

asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether the representatives of a deceased investor in Ireland whose estate includes a holding in Consols or other public stock raised for purposes of the United Kingdom and in no way specially related to England as distinct from Ireland are involved, when completing their title to the estate, in English court dues and English solicitors' bills on the ground that the National Debt is distinctively English estate?

A grant of probate of letters of administration obtained in Ireland requires to be resealed in England in respect of property which can only be dealt with there. The cost of doing this is small. Consols are transferable at the Bank of Ireland, and therefore resealing in England of the Irish grant is not required in respect of Consols so transferable.

asked the Postmaster-General, whether there is any instance in this country of a cottage used as a sub-post office being held by a caretaker's tenancy?

There is no record of the nature of sub-postmasters' tenancies.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in advising His Majesty with respect to an appointment to the vacant Bishopric of Newcastle, he will have regard to the importance of securing a continuance of that enforcement of the ecclesi- astical law which has characterised the administration of the bishop who has just resigned?

I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 12th May last year.

May I ask the Minister of Munitions to state what the Business will be for next week?

On Monday, we propose to take Supply—the Insurance Commission and other Votes.

On Tuesday, we shall take the Report stage of the Finance Bill, and, if possible, make, progress with some other Bills.

As to Wednesday and Thursday, the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday.

When do the Government propose to take the Report stage of the Pensions Bill? I think that we should all know that—when it is fixed. Could it be taken on Wednesday?

It has not been decided yet. Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask on Monday.

Is it the intention to get all the stages of the National Registration Bill to-day?

Yes; we hope to do that to-day.

You ought to.

I beg to move, at the end of the Resolution, to add,

"Provided that the expenses for the year 1915–16 shall not exceed a sum of £100,000 for England and Wales, of £20,000 for Scotland, and of £10,000 for Ireland."

This Amendment is part of a similar Amendment previously moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. He has moved Amendments of this kind on principle. It is a perfectly sound principle that we should know how much we are going to spend upon the various matters that we pass through this House. This principle is adopted by all local authorities. No chairman of a finance committee would be able to make any statement unless he knew exactly how much money he had to provide. I certainly was staggered the other night when the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think that he could give a blank cheque to the Local Government Board with regard to this Bill. This is not the time to give blank cheques to any Department, as we learned in a debate the other day in another place, where they were very anxious that all the spending departments should be overhauled so that wherever possible expenditure should be curtailed. It would have been better if the Government had made a frank statement and estimate as to how much the administration of this Bill is likely to cost. As they have not done so, we have had to help ourselves to try and form some idea as to how much it will cost. The National Register is a sort of Census, and it will be in the recollection of the House that I put a number of questions, consequently, as to what the cost of the Census would be, or rather what the cost of the last Census was in 1911. I asked that question of the President of the Local Government Board, and he replied that the cost approximately of England and Wales was £147,000. The Member for the College Division of Glasgow then asked how that would compare with the cost of the Registration Bill. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the cost of the Registration Bill would be infinitely less now. He reiterated that opinion when we discussed this Motion in Committee on Tuesday night. The right hon. Gentleman said:—

"The expenditure usually incurred in connection with the Census is somewhere about £200,000, spread over a period of four years, and is mainly expended in paying collectors and distributers: whereas, in this ease, there is every reason to believe that a great part of the work, if not the whole of it, will be done by voluntary agency. Therefore the cost will be infinitely less than what has been customary in the case of the Census."

So that the right hon. Gentleman adheres to his opinion, and he uses the same favourite adverb. I asked the question also with regard to the cost of the Census in Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland said that the cost of the Census was £37,243, and in reply to a supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland said that he hoped the cost of the National Registration Bill would be considerably smaller than has been the case with regard to the Census. Then I asked the Chief Secretary a question with regard to Ireland. He informed us that the cost of the Census in Ireland was £18,945 4s. 10d. Evidently he knows to a penny what it costs now. My hon. Friend then asked if he considered the expenses of the National Registration Bill would be considerable or infinitely less, and the Chief Secretary replied that he would be much disappointed if it were not considerably less. After those replies from these right hon. Gentlemen I consider that I have put very reasonable limits into this Amendment with regard to the expenditure on this Bill; in fact the reasonableness of them were acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself on Tuesday night. He said:—

"I certainly should not expect anyone to go to the Treasury and say that the object of the limit proposed by the House was that we should expend anything like £25,000 for Scotland or that £12,000 be spent in Ireland. I am not sure that £50,000 would be sufficient in England. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) thinks it will."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1915, col. 340.]

Those were the figures I had in my Amendment in Committee, but I have made them more generous. Since then with regard to England the amount for which I have increased to £50,000, and as the Chancellor said that £25,000 for Scotland and £12,000 for Ireland were not required, I have reduced them to £20,000 and £10,000 respectively. It is quite evident from the Chancellor's statement that my limits are generous. The question now is what is the meaning of the language of those right hon. Gentlemen. One of them tell us that it will be "considerably less" with regard to this Bill than with regard to the Census, and another says "considerably smaller," and another "infinitely less." The Chief Secretary for Ireland will be disappointed if it is not considerably smaller. With regard to Ireland he knows that as a matter of fact the inclu- sion of Ireland in this Bill is a bogus inclusion—it is a make-believe, and consequently there will not be anything like £10,000 required. I would appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. If they do not it is perfectly clear to the House that they have no faith in their own declaration. These limits are generous to a fault. If it works out that they are not sufficient they have their own remedy by coming to the House later on with a Supplementary Estimate.

I beg to second the Amendment. The object of it is to place a limitation on the expenses in connection with this measure. My hon. Friend in Committee proposed an Amendment to the same effect, except that the figures he then proposed were lower than those he proposes now. In Committee his total limit was £87,000 for the first year, and with that magnanimity which characterises my hon. Friend, he has raised his figure to-day to £130,000. He has reminded the House that the expenses incurred in the Census of 1911 were in all, during three years, £203,000. I therefore think the figure he has taken is certainly a fair sum. These Amendments proposing a limitation to Financial Resolutions are by no means new to the House. They have for several years been persistently moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury). Again and again he has sought to limit the figures, and on several occasions he has succeeded in getting limitations inserted. I have taken the liberty of turning up a page of the history of the hon. Baronet, that page which deals with Amendments as to limitations. I find that on several occasions during the last eighteen months he has not only proposed limiting Amendments, but he has insisted on the Government adopting them. I shall be very pleased to know, and the House I am sure also, what has brought about the change in the hon. Baronet. The page in his history reveals these facts. On the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, in the year 1913, there was a limiting Resolution proposed and heartily supported by the hon. Baronet, who said:—

"I decline to give a blank cheque to any person, whoever he may be."

This Mental Deficiency Bill, which was of much interest to many of us, he said:

"A few nights ago a limiting Amendment was accepted, and there are other precedents for that course within the last year."

But the case which bears out my contention and calls most loudly for the sup- port of the hon. Baronet was one which deals with the Mall Approach Improvement Bill, on 28th April of this year, so that it is quite up-to-date. In Committee on that measure he himself took the initiative and proposed that the expenses should be limited to £38,000 and carried that Amendment. Thus we have the precedent of the guardian of the public purse, the hon. Baronet, to back us up in this. Unfortunately the mantle of looking after the public purse has fallen from his shoulders. I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough) has taken it up, but he is not in any way wedded to any particular figure. He simply desires a limitation of whatever figure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put in. I think if the right hon. Gentleman will suggest a figure the House will acclaim his action. These are certainly not times for extravagance, and the Local Government Board and other offices should not be given blank cheques. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton has pointed out that there has been this week, in another place, a very interesting discussion as to the extravagance of Governments generally, and a Motion was in in that place carried that in view of the War immediate steps to reduce the Civil expenditure of the country should be taken. During that discussion the fact came out that in the last twenty years the expenses of the office which the right hon. Gentleman now adorns have risen from £181,000 per year to £271,000, an increase of £90,000, or 50 per cent., so that he cannot claim that the office over which he presides is an economical office, because the expenses have risen to such an extent. I hope he will see his way to accept this Amendment or at least to accept a limiting figure.

I confess I am a little disappointed that this Amendment should have been moved, as the question involved has already been debated in this House, and, as far as I know, there is not a single remark made by either the Mover or the Seconder to-day which has not been made at least three times in the speeches delivered on the previous occasion.

The page of history of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is quite fresh.

I have no doubt that that is new matter, and I withdraw my remark as far as that is concerned. But although the hon. Member has succeeded in finding some fresh quotations, he has not altered the fact that the hon. Baronet has not placed any such limitation upon Financial Resolutions since the War began. [An HON. MEMBEH: "Yes."] Since the outbreak of the War the Government have had to incur very heavy expenditure, and this is the first protest we have had from hon. Gentlemen sitting behind me against the action of the Government in asking the House to trust them in this matter. We have had quotations from speeches made yesterday, and we have had the statement repeated that a blank cheque is being given to the Local Government Board. That is entirely an error. No blank cheque is being given to the Local Government Board, as the scale of expenditure has to be settled between the Local Government Board and the Treasury.

The Mover of the Amendment said again that the Government have not made a frank statement. That is not correct. There has been no attempt at concealment of any kind. We have told the House most frankly all that we know and what we believe. We believe the expenditure will be considerably less than that incurred when the Census was taken, and the proposed limitation was rejected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It is unreasonable to ask us to impose a limitation which might be inconvenient, although we believe that the sum named will more than cover the amount likely to be required. It is really a little difficult to carry on these Debates when hon. Gentlemen, on the same side of the House, professing the same desires, take entirely different lines. I was pressed yesterday by many hon. Members sitting behind me to make it perfectly clear that no part of the expenditure incurred in connection with this register by the local authorities or by the central authority would fall on the local rates. If I accepted this limitation, and the expenses exceeded the amount named, the rates would have to bear the difference, and the desire that rates should be protected could not possibly be fulfilled. I earnestly hope that we may now be allowed to pass to the practical consideration of the Bill, the passage of which is of vital importance, because we have to get it into operation, and the sooner it is passed the sooner we shall be able to do that.