of the Commissions which, as stated in head; therefore it might not amount the explanatory note, were not "speci- to £12,000. If that was the case, he fically provided for," especially when would ask him whether the cost of the they were asked to vote so large a South African Constitution Committee, sum as £20,159, leaving altogether un- which was understood to be about £4,000, explained a balance of about £9,000. He might not be £13,000. He was only thought the House should have some asking for information, for there was information as to the other Commissions nothing in the explanatory note to show which had been sitting, and as to how the House what the £9,000 was for. that large sum of money had been ex- With regard to the sum put down for the pended. There was an increase of £1,200 Department of Agriculture, he thought for the Poor Laws Commission. He it was simply a matter of book-keeping. asked whether that included the cost of If the whole of this £9,000 was spent the Poor Laws Commission in Ireland, and, it was fair to assume that it had gone if so, whether any information could be on some other Commission not explained given as to how much of the total of in the Vote. He was sorry that the Chief £7,272 was for the Irish inquiry. It was Secretary for Ireland was not present a very large sum for an inquiry into a to answer these points. They were subject which was almost matter of com- voting money for a Commission to inquire mon knowledge as far as Ireland was into the working of the Department concerned, where there had been an of Agriculture in Ireland which had been almost absolute breakdown of the Poor permitted to carry on its operations under Law. He hoped sincerely that the the régime of the previous Government, appointment of the Irish Commission and that Commission had taken evidence did not mean that the matter was to be all over Ireland. Its main object was shelved indefinitely. He did not suppose to reform in some way the Board of that any of the Commissions was more Agriculture in Ireland. He thought it important than the one which bore on the was only due to the House that some intricate and difficult matters of the Poor explanation should be given as to why the Law in Ireland. If this money was to Commission was appointed and what the be spent on Commissions and nothing result of its deliberations was likely was to be forthcoming in the future, it to be. He would like to know how would be very unsatisfactory. The sums much of the £1,800 was spent in the travelfor Commissions in England and Ireland ling expenses of the Commission in were lumped together, so that they Ireland and how much of it went in other could not ascertain what proportion expenses. They all took a deep interest of the expenditure was due to the in the matter and he regretted that the inquiry in Ireland. They had nothing Chief Secretary had not thought it to show what real efforts had been necessary to be present in order to made to inquire into the weakness give the information he desired. [The of the system in that country. If Chief Secretary entered the House at this only some £400 or £500 out of the stage.] As the Chief Secretary had now £7,272 was to be put down to Ireland the taken his seat on the Treasury Bench he House would readily grant that she had would have to amplify his remarks. not been fairly treated in the matter. On the other hand, if half or one-third of the sum had been spent on the inquiry in Ireland, then at least the House would know that the Commission had had sufficient money to enable it to undertake duties most onerous but most necessary in the interests of the poor of that part of the Kingdom. With regard to £3,000 for the Commission on Congestion in Ireland, he asked whether the £3,000 might, judging from the wording of the estimate, amount to £12,000. The hon. Gentleman shook his *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member does that, I shall have to call his attention to the Standing Order which deals with repetition. CAPTAIN CRAIG said he would not transgress the Speaker's ruling, but would leave it to his colleagues to repeat his points for the information of the Chief Secretary. *MR. SPEAKER: That would also be out of order. CAPTAIN CRAIG, in conclusion, said he | one-third or one-fourth. You have,: hoped they would have a proper explanation of the expenditure to which he had referred. : THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs) The hon. Member for North Armagh has made a serious charge against two Members of the Government and against a Lord Justice of Appeal. The hon. Member said that two Members of the Government attempted to interfere with the Royal Commission sitting in regard to the Welsh Church. His suggestion was that they were attempting to influence the members of the Commission in regard to the drawing up of their Report. It was an offensive reflection upon the learned and distinguished Judge at the head of the Commission that he should be open to any interference of that kind. The best answer I can give to the charge is that there is not a shadow of foundation for it from beginning to end. If I had not got up immediately and repudiated such a charge, not only on behalf of the Government, but also on behalf of one of the most high-minded and distinguished Judges in our Courts, I should have felt I was not doing my duty. There has been no interference at all. The matter has been purely one of procedure. If there was any attempt to interfere there is no man who would have repudiated it more strongly than Lord Justice Vaughan Williams. I cordially agree with what the hon. Member for East Glamorgan said. This is not a Commission to inquire into the question of disestablishment-that is a matter that we regard as settled as far as the Welsh people are concerned. You cannot have a Commission appointed to inquire into a political controversy-the Commission is inquiring into certain facts bearing upon that controversy. In every great question that comes to be settled in this House you can always refer to some official statistics, but in regard to this controversy you have not those figures. You have in regard to this controversy at present to depend upon rival figures supplied by partisans on both sides. One set of partisans would say that the Church represented one-half of the population and others that they represent only therefore, nothing to which you can refer, and this Commission has been appointed purely to inquire into figures of that kind which can be proved upon evidence of witnesses under crossexamination. *MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.) said he understood that this Vote included the expenses of the Viceregal Commission on the Irish Poor Law, whose Report had He would like recently been issued. to know if there was any possibility of a visit being paid to Ireland by the Royal Commission which was now conGreat Britain. He would strongly desidering the state of the Poor Law in The Viceregal precate such a step. Commission had made a very careful survey of the conditions peculiar to Ireland, and he thought their Report had met with the general approval of all persons who were really conversant with the problem of Irish Poor Law administration. There was a very strong feeling in Ireland that the Government should as soon as possible give effect to the Report of the Viceregal Commission, and he did not think it was either necessary or desirable that the Royal Commission brief visit to Ireland, to go over the same should attempt, during a necessarily ground. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury) said he could not refer to the policy of the Irish Government on this Vote, but his hon. friend might take it that what he had said in regard to the Royal Commission would not be overlooked by the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member for South Antrim was anxious to know where the money had gone to, but if he would read the note at the foot of the Estimate he would get all the information he required. There had been a large number of Commissions sitting during the last twelve months, and the various items were mentioned in the Note. The control of the Treasury over Royal Commissions was very slight, but in so far as they could control their expenditure the Treasury did so. They kept down their travelling and secretarial expenses as far as possible, and there was nothing which 1485 was not already covered by the particu- | lars given in the original Estimate. The hon. Member for North Armagh was anxious that the Government should in no way allow Royal Commissions to call in outsiders in the process of their deliberations; but that was the proper business of Royal Commissions. They could call in and accept evidence from whom they liked. It was very desirable that in that respect Royal Commissions should act independently of the Executive Government, and their Report would be of no value whatever if the Government controlled their deliberations after they had been appointed. The hon. Member for Sutherland wished to know how the money spent on Royal Commissions in Ireland had gone. Up to the 31st of January £388 8s. 11d. was spent in salaries, not one penny of which to the Commissioners. The sum had gone of £1,145 went in travelling expenses in Ireland, travelling being no cheaper there than in this country; £4 odd for incidental expenses, and £473 for shorthand notes. Of the whole expenditure of the Congestion in Ireland Commission not one single penny had gone to the members of the Commission, and none of the Royal Commissioners appointed by the Government had received any remuneration for their services. The Commission hoped to conclude their labours about September, 1907. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had asked a question about the Feeble-minded Commission. That was not a matter which concerned the Treasury. It was appropriate in part to the Local Government Board and in part in the Home Office. The Commission was originally set up by the late Government, who, before they went out of office, extended the reference so as to include an inquiry, not only into the care of the feeble-minded, but also into the treatment of idiots and epileptics. If the hon. Gentleman would refer to Vacher he would find that the Commissioners were asked "To consider the existing methods of dealing with idiots and epileptics, and with imbecile, feeble-minded or defective persons not certified under the Lunacy Laws; and in view of the hardships or danger resulting to such persons and the community from insufficient provision for their care, training and control, to report as to the Amendments in the law or other measures which should be adopted in the matter, due regard being had to the expense MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's): I think the Commissioners who are inquiring into the condition of the feeble-minded have done good work, and I do not grumble at the extra expenditure, because I know that a great part of the work depends for its efficiency on the officers who carry it out. I think the extension of the terms of reference was not done by the late Government. It the present was effected by my successor, Home Secretary. I have nothing to say against that extension. The Commission has been extremely useful, and I think the right hon. Gentleman did well to extend the reference so as to include an inquiry into the Lunacy Commission. I think the extra expenditure has been occasioned by a different class of experts being required to do the work. MR. DILLON asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SIR F. BANBURY moved to reduce the Vote by £100. MR. T. L. CORBETT seconded the Amendment. MR. RUNCIMAN: On a point of order, may I ask if the hon. Member for the Clynes, J. R. Ainsworth, John Stirling Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Ashton, Thomas Gair Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Beale, W. P. Beck, A. Cecil Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Bethell, SirJ. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Boland, John Branch, James Bright, J. A. Brunner,J. F. L. (Lancs.,Leigh) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Mr. Akers-Douglas. Findlay, Alexander Flynn, James Christopher Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Ginnell, L. Cremer, William Randal Dalziel, James Henry Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Goddard, Daniel Ford Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Halpin, J. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Holland, Sir William Henry Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Johnson, W (Nuneaton) Kekewich, Sir George Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Lewis, John Herbert Nolan, Joseph Norton, Capt. Cecil William O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Pearce, William (Limehouse) Lough, Thomas *Lundon, W. Lupton, Arnold Lynch, H. B. Lyell, Charles Henry Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Maddison, Frederick Mallet, Charles E. Manfield, Harry (Northants) Meehan, Patrick A. Money, L. G. Chiozza Mooney, J. J. Morrell, Philip Morton, Alpheus Cleophas] Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Abraham, William (Rhondda) Baldwin, Alfred Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Power, Patrick Joseph Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Rendall, Athelstan Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Robson, Sir William Snowdon Shackleton, David James NOES. Balfour, RtHn.A.J. (City Lond) ) , Rt. Hon. John Soames, Arthur Wellesley Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.) Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E Walker, H. Del R. (Leicester) Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Wilson, Hon.C.H.W.(Hull, W.) Yoxall, James Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Mr. | Boyle, Sir Edward Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. |