[MR. TURTON in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £30,000,000 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet expenditure arising from the Government control of Railways in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871." [Note. £30,000,000 has been voted on account.]
Major BARNES: Before this Vote is passed I should like to say I am not at all satisfied with the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade yesterday with regard to this item "extra wear and tear." My complaint is that here is an amount that I understand has not yet been claimed, and yet the whole principle of it is admitted by the two gentlemen appointed as auditors who have signed this account. I submit that this claim falls quite outside the agreement made in 1914, when the arrangement was arrived at with the railway companies. The arrangement was that they were to receive net aggregate receipts. That had a quite definite meaning; it was related to the form of accounts under Statute which the railway companies were obliged to present. The whole claim during the period of control has been made out in that form of account. No provision was made in the agreement for such an item as "extra wear and tear." There is provision for maintenance, and provision is properly made for arrears of maintenance. If the railway companies had any claim at all, it should be presented under this head. It must be clear to everybody that the railway companies have realised that they have made a little bit of a bad bargain, and they must find some way of converting this profit by the Government into something which will be more to their advantage. The main thing which I think objectionable is that a claim of this sort, not yet formulated, should have its principle admitted by the auditors. What position are the auditors in to decide this matter? They are accountants, and eminent accountants, but they are not technical people, not engineers, and what position are they in to say that this matter is one which could have approached the figure of 156 £40,000,000? The only advice they could have had would be that of the engineers of the companies themselves, who are to benefit by this amount. It is extremely objectionable that the auditors should have gone far beyond their province. The utmost that should have been said by them is that such a claim was pending. For them to admit it, and to use words such as "The above net receipts are subject to provision for extra wear and tear," I contend is a matter going entirely outside their province. It is a most unfortunate thing that the President of the Board of Trade should have endorsed that opinion. In so doing it seems to me he has not been regarding the interests under his charge. I feel quite sure that if he had been acting in a fiduciary position for any private individual, the first step he would have taken would have been to have refused the claim and allow it to be presented under another formula. There is a great amount of public money at stake here, and at a time like this, when huge expenditure is going on, what is practically going to be a present of £40,000,000 to the railway companies should not have been maintained in the way it has been done. It should have met with the utmost resistance, and if anything was disputed it could have been settled by some impartial body outside, such as the Railway and Canal Commission.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): We have no control over the auditors or what remarks they choose to make in a case like the one referred to, but I should like to say that I do not think it is fair to say that the railways have no claim at all to any extra wear and tear. The original arrangement was that they should be paid certain provisional sums based on the expenditure for maintenance and arrears of maintenance incurred by the companies in 1913. But the actual arrears, of course, were more than that, especially where there was on certain lines an abnormal amount of very heavy traffic due to the war. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that it would not be fair to take the year 1913 as a fair basis for maintenance and wear and tear of a railway which was having double or treble the number of engines and wagons going over it that it had in pre-war time. It was an arrangement made by the Treasury with the railway companies. They gave them an assurance that they would recognise "that the railway companies will have a claim against His Majesty's Government at the end of 157 the period of the war or at the end of the period of control in regard to arrears of maintenance in the case of works falling within the scope of the general agreement and not included in any special arrangements that may be made for the payment of deferred maintenance." Of course, it is impossible to give any estimate as to the amount it is likely to be. As I said before, no claim has been sent in. Whatever claim is sent in will be carefully examined by the Board of Trade. If we think it excessive, then the Railway and Canal Commission will arbitrate on the subject. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be satisfied with that. He will recognise that this £40,000,000 does not come in the Estimate we are now discussing; it merely happens to be a note of the auditor in the White Paper which was given to Parliament.
Major BARNES: I am glad to have the assurance that this £40,000,000 is not to fall on the Estimates this year. I take it that before it is paid it will come into next year's Estimates, and that we shall have another opportunity of dealing with it.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should not like to say for certain that there may not be some slight amount in the Estimates this year, but, as I say, the claim has not yet been presented, and it is extremely unlikely that it will come into account this year.
Major BARNES: In regard to what was said by the hon. Gentleman as to the arrangement about maintenance and arrears of maintenance, I am not complaining about that at all. That is presented in the accounts, and the railway companies have a claim both for maintenance and arrears of maintenance. But this goes further than that. It is an account for something which is more than maintenance and arrears of maintenance. I am not a railway engineer, but I have had a considerable amount of experience in the carrying out of works of various sorts and in dealing with repairs, and, speaking as a man with some professional and technical experience, I may say I know what repairs are and what maintenance and deferred maintenance are, but for the life of me I do not see how anybody is to draw a distinction between what is necessary in order to repair a thing properly and something over and above that. In any case, my submission, whatever the claim may be, is that the auditors, by their note, and the President of the Board of Trade by his endorsement, have prejudiced the opposition of the Government 158 to the claim. That is really the matter I take exception to.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £1,183,337 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the contribution towards the expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the salaries and expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police expenditure."—[Note: £800,000 has been voted on account.]
Captain STANLEY WILSON: I should like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. Bart. (Col. Sir H. Greenwood) on his new appointment. Before he takes up his new duties he might, perhaps, answer one or two questions on this Vote. I do not think I have any particular fault to find with it, but as all the Votes that we are considering show huge increases, and there is something which I do not altogether understand about this, I think the hon. Gentleman might give us a little further explanation. I hope he will inform me what is represented by "Grants in respect of Police Expenditure." I do not quite understand that. The increase of £675,000 on last year really represents a very great sum, and I should like to ask him, as I have asked other Ministers, whether there are any prospects, now the war is over, of our seeing reductions in any of the Votes that are in his charge, The country is showing a very grave anxiety at the present time with regard to the expenditure of the Government, and everybody's ideas are turning towards economy. Therefore I should like to ask if the hon. Gentleman can hold out any hope that the Department, which he was representing but no longer represents, will be able to reduce the Vote in the near future?
Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Department of Oversea Trade): I appreciate the congratulations of my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope the Committee will give me some indulgence, as I speak to-day not as the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, but because I am on the Committee as Under-Secretary for the Home Office, and my 159 hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird), who succeeds me, is not on the Committee, and therefore cannot take the Vote. As to the first point, namely, can I hold out any hope that there will be a decrease in the Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, I can hold out no hope of any decrease. The increase in Pay and Pensions of the Police and the certainty of a still greater increase as a result of the Desborough Committee, which will be reporting at an early date, make it impossible for me to say other than that the Police expenditure will be increased and cannot decrease. In regard to the next point, namely, can I further explain the explanatory note under Sub-head E—"Grants in respect of Police expenditure"—I admit it is rather difficult to understand that, although it is technically correct. Police expenditure is now derived in any Police area, except the City of London, which we may leave out for the moment, as to half the expenditure from the rates, as to another portion from what are known as Exchequer Contributions, which include a series of small duties and charges, and if these are not sufficient to make up the total expenditure in the area, then a Grant is made by the Home Office, and it is this Grant—this extra Grant—that the Home Office is now estimating for. I hope I have made that clear to my hon. and gallant Friend.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £473,000 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies, Including a Grant-in-Aid of certain expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners." (Note.—£500,000 has been Voted on account.)
Mr. MORRISON: I should like to draw attention to the very heavy increase in this Vote. I see that for the last pre-war period, 1913–14, the Expenditure under this heading was £670,000, and this year it has gone up to £973,000, which is a very large and serious increase. I believe there has been a remarkable diminution of crime all over the country, and I should like to know the reasons for this very heavy increase of expenditure.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I quite appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and I am 160 very glad to be able to say that there is a decrease of crime. Before I leave this point may I reinforce what the hon. Member has said by a few statistics. There has been a steady decrease from 1913–14 in the total number of our prisoners. From 18,236 in 1913–14 the number has dropped to 9,199 in 1918–19, and there has been a decrease in ordinary prisoners and convicts, especially the two classes which swell these totals. We have estimated in the coming year for a great increase, and we have done that because we have the precedent which followed the Napoleonic War, when there was a great growth in the number of prisoners convicted and sent to prison. But up to the present I am glad to say there has been no increase in the number of prisoners, and I hope myself, for various reasons, that that increase will not arise. One reason why there has been a great decrease in the number of actual prisoners is because under the First Offenders' Act it is made possible for magistrates and others not to send first offenders to prison, and, secondly, because, under a more recent Act, a person is given time to pay the fine very often, and therefore does not go to prison at once as an alternative to the fine. All this is very satisfactory. The increase is very largely due—in fact the amount of £246,370 under the heading of "Pay and allowances to officers"—is due to increased pay and war bonuses granted last September to prison officers. The remainder of the increase, approximately £50,000, is accounted for by the advance in the cost of materials and labour. I do not know that I can add anything further on the point raised by the hon. Member.
Mr. MORRISON: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the Committee how many aliens are prisoners in His Majesty's prisons?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I could not give the exact figures. I am told there is not a large number, but we have the records. If the hon. Member is interested and asks a question in the House, I could give statistics. As the Committee is, no doubt, aware, when an alien is now sentenced for a crime and the magistrate makes an order for his deportation, such an alien is deported. The chances are, therefore, that there will be a decline in the number of alien prisoners.
Captain S. WILSON: I should like to ask whether the Government has made up its mind as to what it is going to do in the matter of war bonuses. Are they going to continue to pay them now that the war is over? I should like to ask for an explana- 161 tion as to the meaning of the classification "Warders, convict scale, Grade II.," at the bottom of page 30. There appears to have been all sorts of classifications at very different wages last year. Now we find them all classified under one heading with wages from 28s. to 33s. a week. This appears to me to be a new system of placing the Estimates before the Committee. Are all these men—warders, messengers, stokers, etc.—now classified under "Warders, convict scale, Grade II."? The same thing applies all down the page, and affects women as well as men.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: With regard to war bonuses, I have no doubt—in fact, I know—that war bonuses will disappear, but a very considerable increase in pensionable pay will appear. The mere doing away with the war bonus will not decrease the total expenditure under the Vote. As regards the classification of warders and other personnel, these Estimates are made out in a manner which is intended to simplify them, and the scale of pay of each of the persons classified on page 30 and other pages simply represents the starting pay of that particular person or number of persons. The number in the left-hand column represents the number of persons employed in a particular grade.
Colonel STEPHENSON: Why have we "Temporary Officers, Male and Female"? They certainly do not show an increase, but what is the idea of keeping temporary officers, assuming that there may be a reduction of prisoners?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: These persons are generally retired policemen or retired wardresses, who are engaged in assize towns, where a large number of prisoners are congregated, and they are employed on light, though important, duties for controlling prisoners inside and out of prison. The Committee will notice that there is a decrease in the estimate for "male and female temporary officers," but for "male and female temporary officers as night patrols," there is a slight increase. These grades are "temporary," because they are not always employed, but only when occasion arises.
Sir EVAN JONES: Does the statement the hon. Gentleman made mean that it is the settled policy of the Government that the existing War bonus is to form part of the permanent wage? If so, does that apply as a 162 general policy throughout the country, or only to the warders?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: What I said was that the War bonus would disappear qua War bonus, but there will be an increase in the pensionable pay of the officers who come under this Vote. I cannot say that the Government has any policy that the pensionable pay will be equal to the War bonus, or that any policy, if made, will apply to any other departments.
Mr. GALBRAITH: Is there any likelihood of the wage of women typists being made equal to the wage of the men, if they are found as efficient?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am in favour of the formula of "Equal wages for equal output," but I cannot say what the Department will do in this particular matter. I will refer the question to the Department with the approval of my hon. Friend.
Brigadier-General COLVIN: Is there going to be any increase in the female police, and will they have uniforms similar to the male police?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware that women police are going to have a similar uniform to that of the police force, as we understand it. With regard to the question of increase, the whole question of women police is in an experimental stage, and, if it is justified, there will no doubt be some increase, but I should not think it would be a very great one.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £285,332, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to repay the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the expense of the maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial and Day Industrial Schools, and in places of detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain." [Note.—£220,000 has been voted on account.]
Captain S. WILSON: I should like to ask a question with regard to industrial schools. 163 This is the item which shows the greatest increase in this Vote. I see on the first page of the Estimates that there is an increase in this section to the extent of £44,800. I turn to the explanation of the Vote, and I find that, not only with regard to industrial schools, but everywhere, there is a temporary additional capitation grant of 2s. 6d. a week. With regard to industrial schools, the increase is a very great one—from £34,000 to £81,300. In "Short Term Industrial Schools" there is an increase in the capitation grant from £2,500 to £6,400. There is a similar increase in nearly every one of these schools, and I think the Committee might well ask for some explanation.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am told that these large increases in what are called maintenance grants for the various industrial schools are entirely Estimates to meet the rise in prices. The capitation grant is a grant per head on the number of boys and girls in any given class of school. The Estimate is increased to meet the rising prices.
Mr. MORRISON: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if he could give us any general information on the whole Vote, which is nearly double what it was in pre-war years? Is the enormous increase due to the increased numbers in the schools? I am quite aware that in all industrial institutions the cost of maintenance has gone up, but the hon. Gentleman will see that the Vote is nearly double.
Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is an increase in the total population of these schools, and that, of course, involves a great increase in the cost of maintenance. There is also a slight increase in wages and salaries of personnel connected with the schools. I admit that the increase is very large, but might I say that there have been beneficient results from the establishment, continuance and growth of the schools? I, personally, think that this money is invested in the best way under the present system. It is one of the most hopeful parts of the present system.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £46,875 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1920, for the expense of 164 the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Criminal Lunatic Asylums at Broadmoor and Rampton."—[Note.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £1,164,797 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote." [Note.—£600,000 has been voted on account.]
Mr. MORRISON: Is it not usual for the Foreign Office to make some statement on a very important Vote of this sort? It is one of the most important Votes.
The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Harmsworth): I was unfamiliar with the procedure of this Committee, and did not come prepared to make any elaborate statement. This Vote deals only with the Diplomatic and Consular Services which are in charge of the Foreign Office. The Committee will note that there are some increases. For instance, under "Salaries and rent allowances," there is an increase of £178,000. That is due to two or three causes. In the first place, there has been during the war a very large increase in staff at Embassies and Legations of His Majesty. For instance, I am told that in the case of the United States, the Embassy staff numbered perhaps some seven or eight persons, and during the war it rose to something like 80, the extra officials being required to meet the extraordinary pressure of work due to war conditions. The Committee will realise that the institution of the blockade alone led to a very largely increased staff in many legations of this country. A more important fact still is that during the war large extra charges were lumped in with the Vote of Credit, and it is not to be assumed that this increase of £178,000 is a net increase rising within the last twelve months. It has now become necessary to resort to more exact accountancy. The Vote of Credit is no longer available, and all these sums have to be accounted for in the Estimates of the Foreign Office and of the Departments. Then there is another factor. The Committee will be aware that steps have been taken recently to establish the salaries of the Gentlemen employed in the Diploma- 165 tic Service on such a basis that they can live without the necessity for private means. It has been a subject of some complaint in the House and in the country that the Foreign Office required from all candidates an assurance that they had private means, and the House and the Treasury have approved of the establishment of this service on a proper basis. This increase of £178,000 is therefore not to be ascribed to extravagance on the part of the authorities, but to the causes which I have briefly explained. If there are any incidental points which the Members of the Committee would like elucidated, I shall be happy to do my best to clear them up.
Brigadier-General COLVIN: May I ask for an assurance that all Consuls and Vice-Consuls are British-born subjects?
Mr. HARMSWORTH: I much regret that my hon. Friend Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, who has just resigned the position of Director of Overseas Trade, is not here this afternoon. I think that I am right in saying that in the case of all salaried Consuls it is now required that they should be persons of British birth. In the case of non-salaried Consuls, the rule, of necessity, is much less strict, but I understand that the policy of the Department of Overseas Trade is, so far as is practicable, in every case to secure the services of British-born subjects. It is not possible, I understand, in the case of some of the smaller posts, where there is no salary and where it would be probably an extravagance to set up a salaried position.
Mr. MORRISON: How much of this is war expenditure, and what will be the Estimate in normal years? I take it that the greater part of this Vote is a war vote. Turning back to the last pre-war year, the whole Diplomatic and Consular services cost only £690,000. In the Vote which we are now asked to pass, the Diplomatic Services cost £740,000, and the General Consular Vote £663,000. That is an enormous increase. It is inevitable in the time of war, but I would like to know how much of this is due to the war, and how much is normal expenditure. Then there is a very heavy item in the Diplomatic Vote, which I suppose was inevitable — "Special missions and services" under heading "K." Does that include the Peace Delegates in Paris? Then I would like some explanation of the very large increase in Vote "L" for "Outfits."
Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am afraid that I cannot give anything approaching an esti- 166 mate as to how much of this increase is due to the causes which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I have not any figures which would show even approximately the greater amount for diplomatic bodies in virtue of the war.
Mr. MORRISON: The Secretary of State for War, when introducing the Army Estimates before Easter, gave us an approximate idea of the services of the war included in the vote, and what his idea was as to peace time requirements. I thought the Foreign Office might do the same thing.
Mr. HARMSWORTH: Then with regard to "K."—
Mr. MORRISON: There is nearly a quarter of a million increase for "Special missions." Is that the special Peace Mission in Paris?
Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have not anything approaching the exact figure as to what proportion of this increased sum for Diplomatic Services is due to the increase of staff during the war, but I may be able, before the meeting of the Committee closes, to give some sort of estimate. In regard to the Special Missions and Services, these are almost exclusively war time services. How far some of them will continue after the settlement of the Peace it is impossible to say. I may tell the Committee briefly what those missions are, the first four special missions are those to Russia, Siberia, Poland and Prague. The Russian mission is that at Archangel. The Siberian mission is that at Vladivostock. The Polish mission under Sir Charles Wyndham is at Warsaw, and there is the Prague mission of Mr. Gosling. Some of those missions will altogether cease to exist when the conditions of Russia assume a more settled aspect. It would not be customary to maintain an expensive diplomatic mission at Vladivostock or at Archangel. As regards the Polish and Prague missions, I think they may be regarded as being temporary substitutes for established diplomatic conditions. We have not, of course, in either place at present, set up, as we shall no doubt in the future, settled diplomatic institutions, which in themselves will naturally be expensive. In regard to the Peace Congress at Paris, I have before me a detailed list of the expenditure. From April to September the cost is approximately £50,000. The Committee will observe that that does not include the hire of hotels in Paris, nor the catering for the Members of the Peace Delegation. These are items which fall respectively on the First Commissioner of 167 Works and the Ministry of Food. The item we are dealing with here relates to salaries, travelling expenses, and extra allowances to Members of the Delegation to meet the enhanced expense of things in Paris; outfits and allowances, miscellaneous expenses and the cost incidental to, perhaps somewhat irrelevantly, Sir Esme Howard's mission to Poland. The items are: Salaries, clerical staff, £11,000; office messengers £2,500; police £1,500; travelling expenses £6,000; incidental expenses, newspapers, etc. £500; allowances to Members of the Delegation and staff for extra expenses, hotel gratuities, etc., at 20 francs a week per head, £13,500 outfit allowances £9,000; Sir Esme Howard's Mission to Poland £4,000, and miscellaneous expenses £2,000. Then there is a somewhat small item for the Rationing Commission at Paris, £1,500; the Special Mission to the Vatican; the International Commission of Control in Albania; the Bureau of International Court of Arbitration at the Hague; Washington Trade Department; the Idrissi Senussi Negotiations; International Maritime Slave Trade Bureau at Zanzibar; Inter-Allied Commission at Stockholm; the Commissioner for the Navigation of the Danube; the salary of British Representative, Greek Finance; Propaganda Expenses Abroad; Peace Celebrations; Boundary Commissions (after Peace Congress); and unforeseen Missions and Services. It may be said, I think, in general, of almost all these items of expenditure, with the exception of Propaganda Expenses Abroad, that they are items of expenditure which we may hope will disappear from our Estimates in future years, not necessarily next year, but almost all of them will, I think, be found due in one way or another to either warlike conditions or the conditions in establishing Peace. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will desire me to make a more lengthy statement, or whether he will put any special question he may desire to have answered.
Brigadier-General COLVIN: As to the outfit allowance of £9,000, that is an unusual allowance, is it not? Could we be told what the outfit consisted of, and the reasons that made it necessary?
Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes. It will be understood, as I daresay some of the Members who have been to Paris in connection with the Conference know, that it was necessary to take over there a very large secretarial and clerical staff, and it was thought that, 168 as in the case of the outfit of a young officer, or, I think, following precedent going back to former Peace Conferences, it was only fair that the junior officials, men and women, should be given an allowance in order that they might not be put to an unreasonable charge, and that they might worthily sustain the reputation of our country in Paris. The allowances were as follow:—In the case of women, Grade 1 superintendents, secretaries, etc., they were granted an allowance of £30; Grade 2 shorthand typists, etc., £25; and Girl Guides, £10. In the case of men, delegates and clerical staff, £30—I think I am right in saying that this only applies to what I may describe as the secretarial staff; the leading delegates were not given any gratuity of any kind—men delegates and clerical staff, £30; printing staff superintendents, office messengers and inspector of police, £15; boy messengers, police sergeants and constables, £10; total, £9,000. An arrangement was made between the Foreign Office and the Treasury, and of course it was sanctioned by the Treasury.
Major McKENZIE WOOD: What was the total staff, secretariat and all?
Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am sorry I cannot answer that. I have not the figure. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question down. A great many persons present in connection with the Peace Conference did not represent the Foreign Office.
Major McKENZIE WOOD: Are we to understand that this Vote only represents the expenses of those who did represent the Foreign Office.
Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think so. These figures only represent, as I understand it, the expenses of those ladies and gentlemen who were connected, either permanently or temporarily, with the Foreign Office. I assume that there will be on the Naval and Military Votes the expenses of their delegation.
Major McKENZIE WOOD: There was mention made of two dates—April to September. Are we to understand that those expenses were incurred only during the period from April to September?
Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes.
Major McKENZIE WOOD: Of this year?169
Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, that is so; from April to September, 1919.
Major McKENZIE WOOD: Then it is an Estimate?
Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes.
Mr. MORRISON: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman other questions. I see in these Estimates provisional figures for all the smaller German Courts. In the interests of economy, whatever may be the future of Germany, I think it would be a very great advantage to cut out those posts. I see they are put in Saxony, Bavaria and other places. I do not think this Committee 170 of only six Members ought to allow the Foreign Office Vote to pass. I beg to call attention to the fact that there is not a quorum.
Attention called to the fact that twenty Members were not present; Committee counted; and twenty Members not being found present—
The CHAIRMAN: Attention having been called to the fact that there is not a quorum present the Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday next.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Five of the clock till Tuesday, 15th July, at Four o'clock.
THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE—
Turton, Mr. (Chairman)
Greenwood, Sir Hamar
Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil
Jones, Sir Evan
Morrison, Mr. Hugh
Wilson, Captain Stanley
Wood, Major M'Kenzie