CLASS II. (Hansard, 11 September 1893)

§ CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND (Colchester)
said, it was somewhat unfortunate that the Debate on this Vote was brought to a somewhat premature and abrupt conclusion. He trusted that the Government would understand that it was entirely owing to their own action that they had to listen to his remarks at a somewhat late hour. There were two reasons why the policy and administration of the Board of Agriculture should be thoroughly discussed. One was that they had to discuss not one year's administration, but two, as there was no discussion last year on the Agricultural Vote. The other was that a new President of the Board of Agriculture was in Office. The present was a period of deeper agricultural depression than had ever been known before, and it was accompanied by the depopulation of the country districts and the over-population of the towns. The crops were smaller this year than they had ever been before. While cattle, sheep, and swine had increased by about 700,000 head, the price of corn had gone down until it was now about 27s., and altogether the agricultural outlook was about as dark and disastrous as it could possibly be. Under these circumstances, it became extremely interesting to inquire what the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Gardner) intended to do; what were his propositions and what was his policy; what had he done, and what did he intend to do? As far as could be understood from what the right hon. Gentleman said the other day, he had done nothing, and intended to do nothing; he had no policy, and had no propositions to put before the House. He was among those who at first thought it was not necessary to pay the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture out of the taxpayers' money; but he changed his view when he saw the valuable work done by the late President, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire. Again, however, he had had to change his mind on the point, for the present holder of the Office had done nothing but transact Departmental duties. It had been asked what the right hon. Gentleman should have done, but it was not the duty of the Opposition to find a policy for him. There were, undoubtedly, a great many things left undone which he could have accom- 927 plished; but, of course, he would be out of Order if he were to tell the House what he conceived would have been the right policy to have adopted. All the right hon. Gentleman had done had been to pass two small Bills—one as to pigs, and the other in regard to manures. He seemed to entertain some extraordinary-views upon agriculture. The other day he told the farmers that the game of corn growing was practically up.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
I never said anything of the kind.

§ CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND
said, he was quoting from memory, but that certainly was what the right hon. Gentleman said.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
I never said anything of the sort, or anything that could be interpreted in that direction.

§ CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND
said, that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were so interpreted by at least 400 people, and it was only an hour previously that he read an extract of the speech. But if the farmers were to give up corn-growing what were they to do? He supposed that they were to cultivate cucumbers, gooseberries, raspberries, and onions. If they took up that occupation they would be departing from agriculture altogether, and that certainly they would all deplore. He had to complain that the administration of the right hon. Gentleman had been out of all sympathy with agricultural interests. There were 100 measures he might have brought forward, but he had only produced two, one dealing with swine fever, and the other with the fertilisation of feeding stuffs. There were some diseases of animals to which he wished to draw attention. Two of them had spread considerably of late. The first was authrax, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, was due to the entrance into the blood of a minute bacillus, which infested certain localities. He would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to do with reference to that disease? Would he direct that the bodies of diseased animals should be burned in quick lime, instead of being cut up to the great danger of human beings? Would he bring in an Act, if necessary, to do that? Again, with reference to sheep, was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give Local Authorities power to prevent the removal of sheep to places within their own 928 jurisdiction. They already had power to prevent the moving of sheep into their own district, but the extended powers were, he contended, necessary, and would do much to aid in the extirpation of certain diseases. Now, he found, on reference to the Estimates, that provision was made for an additional private secretary. The late President of the Board was content with only one private secretary; the right hon. Gentleman wanted two apparently.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
Perhaps it will shorten the hon. and gallant Gentleman's discourse if I say I have only one private secretary.

§ CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND
The Estimates show two. The private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman, and the private secretary to the secretary.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
There is no private secretary to my secretary, but there is a private secretary to the Secretary to the Department, who is a permanent official. I may add, as the hon. Member is so interested in economy, that my private secretary only has £150 a year, while the private secretary to the late President received £300 per annum.

§ CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND
said, he was equally devoted to economy as the right hon. Gentleman, or he would not be speaking at that hour. There was still another grievance he desired to bring forward, and that was that the right hon. Gentleman had not a seat in the Cabinet, whereas his predecessor had. Surely, that showed that the present Government did not take as much interest in agriculture as the late Government. Why was it placed in such a position of inferiority this year, as compared with last year. In conclusion, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, did he propose to do anything at all for agriculture, and if so what? Half a loaf was better than no bread at all, and they would cordially welcome any proposal he had to make.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,) Essex, Saffron Walden
I deeply regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks were cut short the other afternoon, but, at any rate, we have now had the pleasure of listening to him. I will reply to his criticisms to the best of my ability. With regard to my not having a seat in the Cabinet, I think the hon. 929 Gentleman would have taken a rather strong course in moving to reduce my salary. Surely he ought rather to have moved a reduction of the salary of the Prime Minister. I had occasion when the Vote was under discussion to thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the kind sympathy shown me, both inside and outside the House, in my administration of the Agricultural Department, and I only regret that I have failed to give equal satisfaction to the hon. and gallant Member. With regard to anthrax, I issued an Order on the subject last December; since then I have issued cautions to County Councils and Local Authorities, and within the last few days I have sent out another Circular which I think will meet the views of the hon. and gallant Member. As to the diseases among sheep, I have not got the Orders by me at the present moment, but I will refresh my memory on the subject; and if anything can be done to carry out the views of the hon. Member I shall be happy to do it. Finally, as to the private secretaries, I may again explain that the second private secretary referred to is the private secretary of the Secretary to the Board, who, like all permanent officials of the same standing in other Departments, is allowed a private secretary.

§ CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND
said that, in regard to this matter, he should 930 like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury, if some additional grant could not be, made to this Office? He was told that if a further £500 or £1,000 were allowed the work could be done much more expeditiously, and afford greater convenience to all interested in Friendly Societies.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham
If the hon. and gallant Member had been here on Saturday, he would have heard an explanation of the whole matter. He will find the report in The Times, and I must refer him to that.