HC Deb 08 August 1898 vol 64 cc523-83

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £30,726, be I granted to Her 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, 1899, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and to pay certain grants in aid.

MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

I desire to move a reduction of this Vote for the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture by £100, in order to give the right honourable Gentleman an opportunity of making a full, if not a more satisfactory, explanation than he did on Friday last. As the right honourable Gentleman is aware, the action of his Board has caused the greatest dissatisfaction in Somerset, a part of which I have the honour to represent. In fact, so strong is the feeling among the agricultural classes in Somerset, that the executive committee of the county council have taken up the matter. They brought it fully before the right honourable Gentleman, and he was asked to accede to the very reasonable request of the committee for a modification of the Swine Fever Order of this year. Now, the right honourable Gentleman may say that the reason why he cannot alter the restrictions he has made in connection with the movement of swine in Somerset is that the outbreaks of fever have considerably increased. Taking the year beginning 1895, there were 641 outbreaks, but there were only 207 in 1896, and the number fell to 72 in 1897. That would show that there was no reason for putting a stronger order in force in direct opposition to the local authorities. I am glad to notice that in the correspondence which has taken place between the county council and the Board of Agriculture the Board acknowledge the very valuable co-operation of the council in carrying out the regulations, and I know from personal knowledge that this has only been done at great trouble and self-sacrifice on the part of the members of the committee; and I cannot help thinking that if the right honourable Gentleman is not inclined to alleviate the grievance under which the agriculturists are suffering at the present moment he will not have in future all that hearty co-operation from Somerset which he says is so valuable. As practical men, the members of the executive committee know something about this matter, and I venture to say that they are as capable of appreciating whether these new regulations are or are not desirable as are the Board of Agriculture. I venture to appeal to the right honourable Gentleman as a practical man himself, and one who thoroughly understands the interests of agriculturists, to consider this matter. As an agriculturist myself, I feel that in anything affecting the interests of farmers we have a very good friend in the right honourable Gentleman, and I can assure him that in bringing forward this question I have no desire to attack him, because that is the last thing in the world I would wish to do. There is also another matter for complaint. If it were necessary to have this new Order, surely a very unfortunate time was chosen to put it into operation. It came into operation on May 27th, and, as the right honourable Gentleman is no doubt aware, there is in Somerset during the summer a great movement of fat swine fit for slaughter, and store swine are bought up by the large farmers all over the county from labourers and small farmers. The new Order was put into operation at a time when it caused the greatest in convenience and the greatest loss to the farmers of Somerset, who, as the right honourable Gentleman is aware, are to a great extent dairy farmers. Then again, the County Council of Somerset asked the right honourable Gentleman whether, if he could not entirely abrogate the Order for 1898, he could not go back to the Order of 1894 as regards the movement of swine fit for slaughter. They pointed out that the movement of swine fit for slaughter was attended with very little real risk, and under the Order of 1894 it was done effectively. I am quite aware that the argument has been used, though I think it cannot apply to Somerset, that the marks which were put on swine showing that they were going to be slaughtered were afterwards rubbed off, and that the swine were returned to the farm or sent to another farm. If that be the case, I venture to suggest that some other means of marking swine sent away to be slaughtered should be adopted. I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that there is a very strong feeling on this point. If he cannot entirely abrogate the Order, he might abrogate it as regards the movement of fat swine. Under the existing Order, if store pigs are brought in, the swine fit for slaughter cannot be sent to market for a fortnight after, and the consequence is that a farmer, who has to watch his pigs from day to day, and see that they do not increase beyond a certain weight, is compelled to keep them longer than he should, and it entails a heavy loss. It is also a hardship to the labourer or the small farmer with, perhaps, only one sow, because he is prevented from sending that sow to the boar kept by his richer neighbour. It is a very real inconvenience, not only to the large farmers, but also to the small farmers and agricultural labourers. I suppose the right honourable Gentleman will say that he is getting swine fever under. But exactly the same statement was made by his predecessors. The right honourable Gentleman himself says that the Board are grappling with it, and that they hope the next Order will do everything necessary. It is taking a very long time, and the position is very unsatisfactory. You are simply putting one Order on another, and issuing regulations which are becoming more intolerable everyday. Farmers at first readily consented to accept these severe regulations for a few weeks or months, or perhaps a year, thinking swine fever would be stamped out, but that has not been the case. I would ask if the right honourable Gentleman whether, instead of the attention of the Board being turned to more restrictive regulations, some other means should not be tried of dealing with this matter. Surely there is some other means of dealing with this disease. Certainly the position is not satisfactory at present. Very little good has come out of these regulations, and if, instead of harassing farmers all over the country, the Department of the right honourable Gentleman would turn their attention to other remedies more good might be done. I beg to move, Sir.

Motion made, and Question put— That Item A be reduced by £100. in respect of the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture.

MR. WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)

This is a very serious matter. Both my honourable Friend the Member for Somersetshire and myself took a very strong view on this subject some few years before this Government came into office, and it is one that causes a great deal of trouble to dairy farmers. In the present state of agriculture in this country, the dairy farmer, who represents almost the whole of the agricultural interest of the country, depends to a very large extent for his profit on the fattening of pigs. The recent Order which has been brought in has put an extra restriction on him. It restricts him in the mode of buying store pigs and in selling fat pigs. It was suggested some years ago that the destruction of pigs suffering from swine fever ought to be made more agreeable to the owners by some compensation being made to them for the loss. What we complain of is the tiresome restriction put upon this description of farming without any real improvement being obtained. In the Assistant Secretary's Report it is stated that there have recently been fewer cases of rabies. Now, I believe, that there are more cases than there were before. Swine fever is increasing, and has been increasing, in spite of the restrictions. But there is another point which comes under the same Department, and which I think is equally important, and that is the publication by the same Department of the dog-muzzling Orders. A curious instance of the effect of the Department's policy came before me the other day. It is rather an important case, because under the old scheme the local authorities carried on this work, and the method being unpopular, the new system of enforcing muzzling was brought in. It is a curious circumstance that both the councils in the district to which I am referring are against the enforcement of the Order, and yet it is enforced in the district. The district is in my own constituency—the Lichfield petty sessional district—and there has been no case of rabies, except in Birmingham, which is 12 miles from the nearest point of the district, and 24 miles from the farthest. According to the words of the Assistant Secretary, these districts are arranged on the principle of" the rabid dog on the march. "I do not know whether or not that means that there are certain dis- tricts which the dog would run to if it had not been killed or stopped; but I understand that there is another system of taking these districts, and that is what may be called the thickly-populated dog areas. I believe my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture considers that this is the right way to deal with these districts, but, at the same time, it does seem to me rather hard that because a dog from even a thickly-populated area should go 12 miles away, that the people not only living in that district, but even 24 miles off should have to have their dogs muzzled, and especially in view of the fact that muzzling has not yet been proved to extirpate rabies. I know that there are very strong arguments in favour of muzzling, and they are put forward in the Report of the Assistant Secretary of the Animals Department. But this partial muzzling of dogs does not seem to have been a success in this country, and if one looks at the maps, and sees the places where rabies has broken out, it is quite evident that the system is altogether unsuccessful. I hope my honourable Friend will press this matter upon the Government. I think there should be some mitigation of the Muzzling Order throughout the country, and a more understandable system introduced than that in existence.


I do not propose to support the Motion for the reduction of the right honourable Gentleman's salary, although I have been a very considerable sufferer myself from the effects of the Muzzling Order. On the whole, I think the Muzzling Orders have had a good effect, but I should like an assurance from the right honourable Gentleman that the inoculatory experiments tried on living animals are conducted with every possible precaution, in order to ensure that there is no unnecessary suffering.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I cannot quite agree with the action my honourable friend the Member for Somersetshire has taken with regard to the swine fever policy. It may be that serious inconveniences have arisen in some districts, but so far as I have followed its course, I should be inclined to give the general policy of the Board of Agriculture my support. Obviously, my honourable Friend should for one of two-things. If the present policy is to be carried out he cannot, complain of the strengthening of the regulations against the movement of swine just at the time that the outbreaks are increasing. If, on the other hand, he can adduce sufficient evidence to show that this policy does not get rid of swine fever, then there may be some reason to justify him in asking the right honourable Gentleman for a Departmental inquiry into the success of his policy. But, so far as I have been able to watch the course of the right honourable Gentleman's policy, I think the opposite has been the case, and I shall certainly be inclined to support him.


The policy with regard to swine fever was deliberately adopted at the unanimous request of the House of Commons. I have never regarded the condition of things as to that disease as satisfactory, nor has there been any substantial improvement, but nevertheless, the number of cases has decreased, leading us to hope that in time we shall be able to combat the disease. I regret that the policy has entailed suffering on the Somersetshire farmers, but it is necessary, in the interest of the whole country. I believe there is a cure, and that it is to prevent movement, so as to avoid infection through contact. We are doing our best, but we cannot stamp out a disease of this kind without interfering with the material interests of many of the breeders concerned. The honourable Member for Lichfield asked me a question about the number of dogs, and appeared to be unconvinced by the figures I had the honour to announce to the House the other day as to the efficacy of the policy we are carrying out. He seemed also to question what our officials have said as to the march of the mad dog, but if the honourable Gentleman would give one-quarter of the amount of study to that subject which the advisers of the Board of Agriculture have given to it, he would very soon learn that there was nothing to laugh at in the march of the mad dog. It is very disagreeable, no doubt, but it is what the mad dog does, and it is the case that, from close observation and examination of this insidious and most hateful disease, we learn that there is such a thing as the march of the mad dog, and it is for the reason that it tends, in a particular direction, almost invariably, that we draw our orders in a manner which sometimes seems difficult for outsiders to understand. We are justified by the result, and by the result I am content to stand. My honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Essex was good enough to express his thanks for what we have done, but the honourable Gentleman opposite seemed to think that there were some orders issued by officials of the Board of Agriculture, for which I am not responsible. I beg to assure him that he is entirely mistaken. I do not think that any detail of this policy has been adopted without my knowledge. It is possible that occasionally some small details may escape the notice of the head of the Department, but Whether they are a failure or a success, the one responsible person is myself, and if the honourable Gentleman objects, he must attack me and not those of my subordinates who are unable here to defend themselves. With regard to what has been said on vivisection by my honourable and gallant Friend, I can give him and the Committee a satisfactory assurance. All the experiments were simply inoculation experiments, in which every possible precaution was taken. Let me assure my honourable and gallant Friend that we have made, and are making, no experiments whatever on dogs. The only experiments conducted under our supervision have been experiments necessary in order to ascertain whether a dog had died from rabies or not. Those experiments were made upon rabbits, and I have every reason to believe were of a painless character, while they were necessary in order that a vast amount of suffering might be saved on the part of a large number of human beings. The mental torture through which human beings go on suspicion of being bitten by a mad dog is so great, that I am satisfied that it is necessary and justifiable that we should ascertain as rapidly as possible what it is that a dog under these circumstances has died from, so that, if possible, we may relieve persons from the agony which they would otherwise suffer. The only other experiment we have been carrying on has been with regard to the use of mallein, which appeared to be a curative for glanders. In both these oases the experiments are conducted under the closest supervision, and every precaution is taken. I believe it is impossible that anything could be better done than this work, and if the experiments are sanctioned by the law, as, of course, they are, for they are at present conducted under a certificate issued by the Home Office, and of every experiment the officer responsible has to make a full report, it seems to me that every precaution is made which it would be possible to have, taken to prevent any abuse of these powers. Of course, some special inconvenience may be caused by these orders amongst a dense population, but we endeavour to cause as little inconvenience as possible. We are satisfied that if this disease is to be eradicated, it can only be done by imposing a certain amount of inconvenience upon the people of this country, and I hope sincerely that we may appeal to them to put up with it, in order that at no distant date we may be able to congratulate them on the final result when this disease has been eradicated.

MR. WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)

I did not, in the remarks I made, in the least desire to blame any particular person, but I thought the Orders might be carried out in accordance with the office idea, though I have no doubt that the officials and the right honourable Gentleman himself are doing what they think is the best that can possibly be done. But the speech of the right honourable Gentleman has proved that it is under a, very intricate system that these Muzzling Orders are carried out, and he himself admits that it is very difficult for anybody who is not in the Department, and who has not closely studied the matter, to know on what principle they are acting. He has said that in thickly-populated districts the march of the dog is not a thing to laugh at. I did not laugh at it, but what I laughed at was that there were so many ideas given us as to the way of defining districts. I do not wish to say that the work is not done properly, but in the view of ordinary, persons it is not done to the satis- faction of the people and of dog-owners. What I wanted to get from the right honourable Gentleman was an assurance that there should be some definition of the rules, so that the grievances of those who now complain should be removed. There are serious complaints of the unequal operation of the Orders in many cases, and I think that if some idea were given to the people as to the principle on which the rules are laid down, it would diminish dissatisfaction. The people are dissatisfied because they think that these rules have been carried out in a way to give the maximum of dissatisfaction, and although they have resulted in some good they have not produced as much good as they might have done.

MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

There are two policies which may be carried out with regard to swine fever—the one the policy of the open door, and the other that of the sphere of influence. It appears to me that the one policy has been as ineffective as the other. The right honourable Gentleman, who is certainly as capable as any Minister in this House of defending the action of his own Department, has not given us a very rosy picture of the results arrived at by the method of administration, which, as he quite correctly says, was not forced upon the Board of Agriculture, but was adopted by the Board of Agriculture with the consent of the whole House. But the difficulty with regard to the whole question is that it is so easy to evade these regulations, and that evasions do so constantly take place. As a matter of fact, when a man is obliged to sell a pig or two in order to pay his rent, or to pay his tradesmen's bills, as the case may be, he must find some way of disposing of his live stock, and the consequence is that he goes as near the fair as he can drive his animals, and keeps them just outside the boundary of the town. The dealers find him in the lanes, they buy his pigs at a very low price, and he goes home, with very much less money in his pocket than he otherwise would have taken with him. Unquestionably, it is a very great hardship that this misfortune should fall with its heaviest weight upon the small people, and the question this House ought to consider in regard to swine fever—I do not raise the question with regard to dogs—is whether, as a matter of fact, it would not be just as well for us to throw into the Thames all the money we have spent in the attempted extirpation of this disease. I am bound to say that, from the tone of the right honourable Gentleman, I do not gather that these Measures have been the success that was anticipated from them, or, indeed, I would even venture to say they have not been the success which we could expect, having regard to the expenditure of the country upon them. We are in a very unsatisfactory position with regard to the whole matter. The question is, whether we should go on or go back; whether we should stick to the sphere of influence, or stick to the open door. So far as I can see at present, the policy of the open door is the only one which the House can take into consideration.


I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman if he would say if there was an increase or a decrease of swine fever in Somerset in 1895 and 1897, as compared with 1894, before his new regulations came into force? I would like to remind the right honourable Gentle-man that, in face of the new Order, which came into force on the 27th of May this year, in six weeks there have been 20 outbreaks of swine fever in Somerset, showing that the new Order has done nothing to decrease them in that county.


I cannot tell the honourable Gentleman what the particulars may be with regard to Somerset, but the figures for the whole country show that there have been 1,702 outbreaks in 31 weeks this year, as compared with 3,670 in the same period of the year before.


My question was as to what occurred before the new Order came into force, and whether it had done anything to decrease the outbreaks.


The Order did not come into force until recently. We know that, unfortunately, the disease is there, and we have tried to limit the danger of infection.

MR. LAMBERT (Devon, South Molton)

Will the right honourable Gentleman state how much it has cost to carry out the swine fever regulation?


I am sorry to say that I cannot state how much has been expended from the Imperial Exchequer, or how much from the local taxation account, but I may inform the honourable Gentleman that the cost has been about £50,000 a year.

MR. DOOGAN (Tyrone, E.)

There are restrictions which press very hard upon the poor farmers. I think the right honourable Gentleman promised to make inquiries, and that whatever restrictions were enforced he would interpose as far as he possibly could to remove them. As to the importation of swine fever in England, I may say that practically Ireland is free from it. Under these circumstances I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he took any steps with reference to removing these restrictions?


I think the honourable Gentleman refers to regulations made by the counties for their own protection. With that power we have no right to interfere. I have never suggested that I would ask these counties to take off these restrictions. I never interfere with the county councils in the exercise of their own discretion.

MR. WOODS (Essex, Walthamstow)

I am sorry to intervene in the Debate. I have a question down to-morrow on the subject. I know there is a very strong feeling against the Muzzling Order altogether. I share very largely in that feeling, and I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to explain to the House the rules by which there is this line of demarcation between the places where the Muzzling Order is enforced and where it is not enforced. I think we would be justified in dividing the House upon this Motion as a protest. I should be sorry to talk about expediency. The whole thing is made a farce. Take the county of Essex. The Muzzling Order is enforced in great portion of that county, but if you go to Southend the Muzzling Order is not enforced. It is quite a common thing for gentlemen to go down from. London with dogs, and when they get to Southend they pull their muzzles off and let the dogs go free. It is very easy for a dog with rabies to go from one district into another. If muzzling is at all necessary it ought to be applied to the whole country. We know that dogs afflicted with the disease travel very far, and therefore there ought either to be a general application or it ought to be repealed altogether. I entertain strong feelings in the matter, and when we find as many dogs going about unmuzzled as the others it is clear that there ought to be a general solution of the whole difficulty. If the Member for Somerset divides the House I shall certainly vote with him. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give us some information as to how the authorities act with regard to putting the Muzzling Order into force. Knowing the strong feeling in the country, I think there is no alternative but to divide the House—that is, unless we get a satisfactory answer.


I suppose the honourable Gentleman was not in the House when I explained the principle with regard to muzzling.


I was in the House when the right honourable Gentleman replied, and I think the answer the right honourable Gentleman gave was far from satisfactory.


That, I think, is very likely. I am afraid it is the only explanation I have to give. I respectfully suggest that he should divide the House as the simplest way of settling the question.

The House divided: —Ayes 130—(Division List No. 287.)

Barlow, John Emmott Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Steadman, William Charles
Bayley, Thos. (Derbysh.) Lambert, George Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Lewis, John Herbert Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Broadhurst, Henry Macaleese, Daniel Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Caldwell, James McEwan, William Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) M'Ghee, Richard Wedderburn, Sir William
Causton, Richard Knight Maddison, Fred. Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')
Clough, Walter Owen Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rst ld)
Colville, John Moss, Samuel Woods, Samuel
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Moulton, John Fletcher Yoxall, James Henry
Dillon, Charles Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)
Doogan, P. C. Pickersgill, Edward Hare TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Pirie, Duncan V. Mr. Strachey and Mr. Courtenay Warner.
Haldane, Richard Burdon Rickett, J. Compton
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale Souttar, Robinson
Joicey, Sir James Spicer, Albert
Aird, John Finch, George H. Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Arnold, Alfred Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy Firbank, Joseph Thomas Milton, Viscount
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Fisher, William Hayes Monk, Charles James
Banbury, Frederick George Fison, Frederick William Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Bartley, George C. T. Flannery, Fortescue Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Flower, Ernest Myers, William Henry
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Folkestone, Viscount Newdigate, Francis Alex.
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Nicholson, William Graham
Bethell, Commander Fry, Lewis Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Garfit, William O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Bill, Charles Gedge, Sydney Penn, John
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) Pierpoint, Robert
Bond, Edward Gilliat, John Saunders Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. E.
Boulnois, Edmund Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Purvis, Robert
Brassey, Albert Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bullard, Sir Harry Greene, W. R. (Cambs) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Butcher, John George Greville, Captain Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes) Gull, Sir Cameron Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W. Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Helder, Augustus Scott, Sir S. (Marvlebone, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Henderson. Alexander Sharpe, William Edward T.
Channing, Francis Allston Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hornby, William Henry Simeon, Sir Barrington
Charrington, Spencer Howard Joseph Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand);
Chelsea, Viscount Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Spencer, Ernest
Cochrane, Hon. T. H A. E. Jenkins, Sir John Jones Stanley, Lord (Lanes)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Johnston, William (Belfast) Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) Thornton, Percy M.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Kenyon, James Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Kilbride, Denis Ure, Alexander
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Lafone, Alfred Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H. Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.
Curzon, Rt Hn. G. N. (Lanc, SW) Lawrence, W. F. (Liverp'l) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Wilson, H. J. (York. W.R.)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)
Drage, Geoffrey Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)
Drucker, A. Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lowles, John Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) McArthur. Charles (Liverp'l)
MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I wish to say a few words before the Vote is passed, on the subject of the chief recommendation of the Tuberculosis Commission, which affects the Board of Agriculture. And in doing so, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Board of Agriculture is asking this year for £3,000 less for dealing with diseases of animals and grants in aid—that is to say, the Board of Agriculture is spending this year £3,000 less in reducing the diseases of animals by administrative and other action. The recommendaton of the Tubercolosis Commission is the initiation in this country of the policy which has proved so successful in other countries in reducing this terrible scourge of agriculturists. When the Committee realises that the estimate made by the Commission of the probable cost of the initiation of this policy only amounts to £5,625 per annum, I think they will see—and I have some ground in the matter of figures for arguing—that the reduction in the expenditure on animal diseases, which we see on the Board of Agriculture Vote, is an unreasonable reduction, and that, on the contrary, we ought to see the Board of Agriculture at the present rime welcoming the very important Report of this Commission, and endeavouring to develop, and as rapidly as possible, the resources of science in reducing this great scourge in this country. Now, Sir, I must complain, to some extent, of the postponement of Votes of this kind to the very last stages of the Session, when it would tax the patience of the House unfairly if we were to deal with such questions in detail. I think I am entitled to say this much, that the country ought to realise—this Committee ought to realise—what is the enormous extent of this disease. The figures which are disclosed by this Report are of the most startling and terrible nature. The Commission's Report quotes the figures of a large number of cattle slaughtered in Germany, at Leipzig, and it is seen from these that whereas the percentage of disease in cattle of upwards of one year is over 33 per cent., that is, more than, one in three, when you come to dairy cows the proportion is nearly one in two, affected by tuberculosis. This is an enormous question, and a question which we ought to deal with as promptly as possible. My friend Mr. Speir, who was a member of the Commission, has applied the tuberculin test in some of the dairy counties in Scotland, and he found in Wigtownshire that 75 per cent, of the cows were affected; in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire 75, and even 90, per cent, of the cows were affected. In only one case has he found a single herd entirely free from disease. Now, Mr. Lowther, that briefly is one essential fact which we have to consider—the enormous prevalence of this disease; and, on the other hand, we have in this Report the absolute adoption by the Commission of the principle that this tuberculin test, which has now been in operation for some years in Denmark and Germany, is practically infallible in the detection of disease. Now, without attempting to trench unfairly on the time of the Committee by dealing with the question in detail, I say that we ought to take these three facts into consideration; first, that the Board of Agriculture is actually spending less this year on animal diseases than it has spent hitherto; secondly, that we have these startling figures of the enormous prevalence of disease, especially in dairy cows, of which it is most important to secure a healthy condition; and, thirdly, that this test is scientifically established to be an accurate test for diagnosing the presence of disease in these cows. Now, I will proceed to one of the central and essential recommendations of the Commission, to which they attached supreme importance. They took the trouble to go through the districts of Denmark, where the policy of what is called the elimination of tuberculosis is being successfully carried out, and has been for some years, and they found the results were eminently satisfactory. The policy, I may just say to the Committee, is by the application of the tuberculin test to carry out the isolation of those cattle which are affected, and the isolation of the calves. It is found that when these cows are isolated, and the calves fed on boiled milk, they turn out perfectly healthy, and the result is that the number of diseased cattle is gradually reduced in these herds. The honourable Member for Midlothian, who I am sorry is not in the House, has carried out some notable experiments in his own herd in Scotland, which tend also to show the success of this Danish policy of gradually weeding out the number of diseased cows and cattle in a herd or dairy. I think that now only one in 300 calves have been found by experiment in Denmark to be affected congenitally with tuberculosis and the calves, being isolated and specially fed, grow up to be healthy cattle. In the same way, this policy of the isolation of the disease would enable us in a very few years to reduce this tremendous scourge to a minimum. Now, the Commission was presided over by the honourable Member for Wigtownshire, who is a special expert on these questions, and I have had many conferences with him on this subject, and he tells me that he has not the slightest doubt of the entire success of this Danish policy. The Commissioners in their Report say— We consider that by far the most important part of the inquiry committed to us as to what administrative procedures are available and would be desirable for controlling the danger to man through the use as food of the meat and milk of tuberculous animals lies in the direction of eliminating the disease. Now, what is the suggestion of the Commission? It is that we should start here in England, and as quickly as possible, a laboratory where tuberculin could be scientifically and carefully prepared, and that we should adopt the policy of enabling those who wish voluntarily to use the test for their cattle to do so; that we should not force this test at once upon the agriculturists in this country, but that we should adopt the policy of offering the test gratuitously to those who wish to use it for eliminating disease from their herds and from their dairies, and that the State should pay the cost of the veterinary surgeons in carrying out these tests. It seems to me that that is a reasonable and wise administrative step to take. The Estimate by the Commission, after the careful inquiry they made, results in the calculation that a sum, as I have said, of £5,625 would be enough to start this policy in this country, and start this laboratory, and pay for the veterinary aid for one year, and for that small sum we should have this policy initiated in this way and enable a large number of agriculturists to test their herds and begin adopting on their farms the sort of policy which the honourable Member for Midlothian and perhaps others are carrying out successfully. I would like, before I sit down, to draw attention to the fact that already in foreign countries many of our prize shorthorns have actually been excluded because the test had not been applied, and because cattle were not sold subject to the test. There is, therefore, a risk to this country of actual loss if this policy is not adopted. I would point out to the Government that if they adopt this policy they would be carrying out and helping to extend the policy which has already been adopted by several of the large dairies which supply London with milk. I do not think it is right in this House to advertise any of those companies which have thus guaranteed their milk, but it must be known to other honourable Members that large dairies are advertising that the tuberculin test has been applied to their cows, and I myself think that anyone who knows anything about the scientific aspects of this matter will take very good care in the future not to allow his children or his family to consume milk which does not come from dairies which apply this test. When Denmark is going ahead of us right and left in the organisation of the butter, trade, and in such matters as this, it does seem to me to be a short-sighted policy if we do not frankly and fully adopt the results of science and apply them boldly to reducing this great scourge in this country. I myself have attempted, in my own report on the Agriculture Commission, to make a calculation of the gain it would be to agriculturists in this country if this disease could be stamped out successfully, on lines adopted in Denmark, and whether it amounted to the million a year I put it at or not, it would certainly amount to an enormous additional sum in the pockets of our farmers, as well as being a great advantage to the health of the community. I would like, in conclusion, to express an earnest hope that the reply of my right honourable Friend, who, I am sure, feels very much as I do on the scientific aspects of the case, when he said that he was not willing to under- take the policy at the present time, because the Central Chamber of Agriculture has not expressed any recommendation in favour of this step, was not his final reply. I hope he will take a broader view of the question. Anyone who reads the evidence before the Commission will know very well that the British agriculturist—I am not blaming him—has not had the opportunity, or the occasion, to make a scientific study of this question. The practical farmers who came before the Commission certainly showed that they had very little knowledge, hardly any knowledge whatever, of the scientific results obtained by this tuberculin test. In the broader interests of agriculture, and in the general interests of the community at large, we ought not to let this question rest because certain of the farmers have not at the present time acquired sufficient information to enable them to support this policy. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman and the Committee to remember that this is not a question of compulsory interference with the agriculturists of this country. It is a question of using, under the recommendation of this Commission, a small sum, in order to place easily and gratuitously at the services of agriculturists the system which is being found to work wonders in the gradual, I would say almost rapid, diminution of disease in Denmark and elsewhere, and which is being largely encouraged in many other countries. Our own country is lagging far behind, but I venture to hope that the right honourable Gentleman, in dealing with this question, will indicate that the very important recommendations of the Commission on this point will be carried out in the near future.


I should like to draw the right honourable Gentleman's attention to the fact that a week or two back he promised to send out a circular to the chambers of agriculture and the agricultural associations on the subject raised by my honourable Friend. Now, I fear that a great deal of literature that goes to those associations remains either on the table or under the table. May I suggest to him, if it would be possible, at the same time to send copies of this circular to public institutions, and especially to our large public schools. Many parents in the past year have become exceedingly anxious about the health of their children, in reference to their drinking milk at these institutions, supplied, probably, from diseased cows. There is considerable agitation in some quarters with respect to that. If he would send a copy of that statement to all of these institutions, the masters and proprietors of all these schools, I think that would exercise great influence with owners of herds and induce them to take some steps to have the test applied. Again, there are others, I know—it has come under my notice this last week or two—who would be glad to have the assurance from Government of a test that would be infallible to apply to their herds. In many country districts it is very difficult for agriculturists to provide themselves with sufficient scientific skill to assure them that, the test would be efficacious. Now, if the suggestion of my honourable Friend behind me were adopted, and the Government would introduce that it would place within the reach of those who desire to avail themselves of it this security, and I think a great deal more would be done. I would especially urge the Government to send out these notices of the existence of this disease as widely as possible and not confine it to the agricultural associations only. If that is done I think great good will come of it. I do not think it is a large request to make to the President of the Board of Agriculture, and I hope in his reply ha will do his best to make the case known as widely as possible amongst those whom it concerns.


Sir, the honourable Member is under a misapprehension. What I said a few weeks ago was that I would see whether it would be possible to issue some extracts giving the information in this Report which relates to the use of tuberculin with the risks arising from tuberculosed cattle. The greater part A this Report does not apply to me or my Department. At the same time I would point out that these Reports, published in very large numbers by the Government Department, are not extravagant or expensive documents, and I am afraid, whether we send them out or whether we provide them, they are not very much more likely to be read in the future than in the past. With reference to the question raised by the honourable Member for East Northampton, I desire to say, on the part of the Government, that we attach the greatest possible importance to the very valuable Report presented by this Committee, and we are very much indebted to the honourable Member for Wigtonshire and his colleagues for the exhaustive and careful examination they made into this very interesting question, and also for their Reports. I confess I am a little disappointed in regard to that portion of their Report which deals with the use of tuberculin. What the honourable Gentleman the Member for Northampton suggests is that we should adopt the recommendation of that Commission, and should provide tuberculin and defray the cost of its application to cows by veterinary officers. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly true that the cost of this would be verysmall— £5,000 would probaby cover it. Sir, I am bound to say that as far as I have been able to examine this question, notwithstanding the fact that in Denmark a similar policy has succeeded, I very much question whether it would be of the slightest use for us to provide tuberculin for the cows of the tenant farmer and give 2s. 3d. a cow, if it is left in doubt what is to be done with his cows when they re-act. I do not think that policy would be accepted by any large section of the farmers if they realize that nobody is going to compensate them if the cows should be found to answer to the test and were condemned. That view, I may say, has been forcibly expressed both at the public meetings and meetings of agricultural bodies who have discussed the proposition. The question really is one far beyond the Agricultural Department or the agricultural community. It is asserted in this Report that there is a very large amount of tubercular disease amongst the dairy stock of this country, and that the dairy produce consequently becomes infectious and in a state in which it is not desirable that it should be consumed. As to these latter points there is still considerable doubt. I confess that in the information I have been able to get hold of I cannot find that the risk to human life is very much, but if there be risk to human life it is a questnon that goes beyond the Agricultural Department and becomes a general and national question, and it may become necessary to pay large sums of money by way of compensation to the owners for the eradication of a disease which is a danger to human life. The recommendation of this Commission has only gone part of the way. All that they suggest is that we should provide the tuberculin and the services of a veterinary officer at a charge of half-a-crown. The honourable Member for Midlothian has done this work for himself in a public-spirited manner, and with the greatest possible success, and I hope he is now able to say he has entirely eradicated the disease out of his herd. What he has done can be done by others, and I hope the matter will become more generally known in consequence of this Debate and the publication of this Report, I am quite willing, Sir, to consider further the question of circulating information on the subject, but I cannot say I should feel justified in asking the Treasury for thousands a year to spend on work of this kind, so long as I have not the smallest indication of any desire on the part of the agricultural community to put in force these powers if they had them. But, Sir, this matter which the honourable Member for Northampton has raised, is one I have not lost sight of. I do not think it is desirable I should apply to the Treasury for money to provide tuberculin and to pay a veterinary surgeon, when we believe that unless you are prepared to go further, and having found that this disease existed, are prepared to provide compensation. Therefore, as I am at present advised, I am not prepared to assent to the Report.


Sir, I wish to express the profound regret I feel at the reply of the right honourable Gentleman. He seems to have taken the measure of his aspirations from the least well-informed and most ignorant classes among the British farmers.


No, no! The British farmere is not ignorant. He is quite as able to understand what belongs to him as the honourable Gentleman is. But apart from the ignorance of the British farmer, what he says on this occasion is: if you are going to depreciate my property, you must compensate me.


The ignorance I spoke of was the entire want of information with the majority of farmers as to the success of this tuberculin test. I am astonished that the right honourable Gentleman has not referred to the most essential point of the scientific aspect of this question—that the tuberculin test reveals the very slightest disease present in the animal; so that, therefore, the agriculturist, by the use of this test, is at once placed in possession of most important information, and he can dispose of his cattle—send them to slaughter—whilethecarcase is still of value. And the other recommendation of the Commission, which I cannot deal with now, would also extend the intelligent methods of other countries to the treatment of meat, and instead of having destruction of whole carcases, as has been, and is at the present time, the ignorant and stupid method of management in this matter, we would have an intelligent method of dealing with this question, and only those portions of the carcasses in which the slightest possible portion of the disease is detected would be condemned, and the rest would remain as an asset of the farmer. But, Sir, this question of compensation in case of comdemnation is a question which, of course, will have to appear in any form of legislation. Legislation I cannot discuss at this moment, but I must express my profound regret that the Board of Agriculture, when a great scientific discovery is placed at the disposal of agriculturists all over the country, should, instead of boldly initiating this policy at the trifling cost suggested by the Commission, fall back upon the cry that the farmers of this country are not intelligent and enterprising enough to attempt, like the honourable Member for Midlothian, to rid their herds of these diseased cattle which entail such enormous loss.


I do not know whether I rightly understood the right honourable Gentleman as saying that he would go outside the agricultural associations in the circulation of this literature. He said that he would circulate it as widely as possible, but I do not know whether that included the direction in what I desired that he should circulate it. Now, it is not a question of the cost of the literature. The people do not know where to get it. That is the difficulty; it is not the question of cost. What I thought was that the health of the community, being as important as their material welfare, the honourable Gentleman might very well arrange to put up notices in the usual public places, like the Post Office does, or any other Department, with regard to matters connected with that department. I make no demand upon him. It is a matter of common interest, and if he would consider this it would be useful. May I, Mr. Lowther, add one other word? I do not know how the right honourable Gentleman proposes to circulate this information, but if he would get someone used to adapting things to the popular understanding I think that would be useful. What I mean is this—not to send the bare copy of certain paragraphs, but to put it in a form the meaning of which will be easily acquired by any person reading it.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

The Vote for this Department is more than double what it was seven years ago, and during that period the cost of the right honourable Gentleman's own office has increased by £10,000 a year. You began with a staff to which you paid £25,000 a year, and now it has increased to £35,000 out of a sum of £120,000, and I think in view of this heavy expenditure this is one of the questions upon which the right honourable Gentleman might do something to show that his Department was really worth their money. From his reply, I should say that they are evidently not worth the money. The only thing that he has said to-night is that the English farmers are so ignorant—ignorant in a sense of not understanding the danger or of what affects their own interest—and because of that ignorance the Department will do nothing. Now, what are the facts of the case? The facts show that you are having a terrible increase of tuberculosis as far as animals are concerned. Take the case of Ayrshire—why the whole herd of Ayrshire cattle are practically affected. The disease is not limited even to the Ayrshires, for the shorthorns are also suffering very severely from it. In other countries experiments have been made upon this question, more particularly in Denmark, and the subject has been brought under the notice of the Commission; but with all these facts before him the Minister of Agriculture says that he is going to do nothing whatever with regard to it. He tells us that if you do anything the farmer will require compensation. Well, you should give him compensation if you destroy his herd, but nobody proposes to do that. All that is proposed is that you can give just as in the case of the Local Government Board. They give lymph, so you will give tuberculin as a remedy for tuberculosis. By the way, the Government are opening a laboratory where they will make glycerinated lymph in one department, and with the same materials they can make tuberculin.


But suppose they got mixed up?


Well, then it would be serious if they got mixed. Now, it is well known that a large number of cows get tuberculosis by being fed by the milk from their mothers, by means of which the calves begin to develop tuberculosis. Take the case of the average English farmer; he is beginning to realise that his cows are getting more difficult to manage, and they are beginning to cease to give milk largely. Now, if you can tell that farmer: "Here is a simple test. You can apply it, and you can tell by the temperature whether there is tuberculosis or not," it will simplify matters. If it is a bull, the best way would be to get rid of it; if it is a cow, and if the farmer breeds from that cow, then he will take care, as a result of that experiment and scientific knowledge, not to feed it from its mother's milk if he is a sensible man, But you give the farmer no means of doing this and of taking this precaution. The Commissioners recommend that you give them those facilities for using this tuberculin, and that, if necessary, you pay the salary or fee of the veterinary surgeon, to do it in a proper fashion. If you do that you will be able to tell the farmer the source of the disease, and he will be able, for his own interest, to guard against it. If something is not done, the result will be that you will very soon have your shorthorn herds as bad as your Ayrshire herds. Then, again, take your dairy supplies, and the conditions under which a great many dairies are carried on, especially in the neighbourhood of large towns. Why, these conditions tend to develop tuberculosis. In the dairies near large towns they all desire to get a good flow of milk, irrespective of the cattle. All they try to do is to get a large amount of milk. They keep a high temperature, and feed the cows with brewers' grain, and the whole tendency of this is to develop a disease; and we are getting into a very sad condition of things indeed. I am afraid that you have just as bad results in shorthorns as in Ayrshires. I think something ought to be done by the Government in the way of endeavouring to carry out the Report of the Tuberculosis Commission. By about £5,000 spent in this way a saving would be effected of about £50,000, or perhaps £500,000, because, if we continue to go on like this, we shall lose our great and valuable herds on account of this disease. I do hope the Government will reconsider this matter and do something, because tuberculin can be easily applied to prevent this rapid development of tuberculosis, which is now going on.

MR. URE (Linlithgow)

There has been a very important question raised by the Report, and that is with regard to compensation to the owners of cattle found to be suffering from tuberculosis. Now, the right honourable Gentleman is aware that there is a very sharp division of opinion upon that question. I think the honourable Gentleman who presided over the Commission was in a minority, but he held a very strong view that owners of cattle affected by tuberculosis ought to be compensated when it is discovered that their cattle were suffering from this very serious disease, and there seems to be no good reason why they should not be compensated on principle. As the Government allow compensation in the case of cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and in the cases of swine fever, I think there seems to be an almost, stronger case in favour of the owner of tuberculous cattle, because there is even less chance of the owner knowing that the cattle are affected by the disease than in the case of the other two diseases. The right honourable Gentleman said that in his view the dangers to cattle suffering from tuberculosis had been very much exaggerated. Well, that may be, and no doubt among scientists there is some difference of opinion but I think that the balance is in favour of the view that the disease is communicated by the milk to the community, and that a very serious danger arises, especially among children, by using the milk from cattle affected in that way. I remember, not many years ago, that the question was most thoroughly investigated before a tribunal in the great city of Glasgow, in connection with two heads of cattle, which were destroyed because they were found to be suffering from tuberculosis. The disease was not discernible in any way except by microscopical examination, and as the result of a week's trial the tribunal decided that the cattle were rightly destroyed. Now, the owners of these cattle had no means, I believe, of knowing that they were affected with this disease, and it was a great hardship to them to destroy cattle for which they had no doubt paid a full price; and not only this, but they were saddled with the expense of the inquiry. Now, I do not profess to have any special knowledge upon this subject, but I am assured by those who know that the elimination of the disease in Scotland, at all events, is an impossibility unless the owners are to be compensated; and I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the Government have ever seriously considered this question, and whether, in their judgment, a distinction is rightly drawn between cattle suffering from tuberculosis and pleuro-pneumonia and swine fever, for in the latter case compensation is given. I should also like to know whether the Government do not think it advisable, with a view to the extermination of the disease, that the principle of compensation should be recognised, and should be given legislative effect to, in connection with tuberculosis.

MR. V. CAVENDISH (Derbyshire, W.)

rise for the purpose of urging my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture to strongly adhere to the statement he has made. I have had various opportunities of seeing this particular test in operation, and the opinion I have formed is that it is not at all certain. As an instance, I might say I heard of a cow which showed every sign of tuberculosis; the test was applied, and all the symptoms pointed to the fact that the animal had got the disorder. It was eventually discovered that the indisposition of the cow was caused by its having swallowed a lady's hat-pin. I think, before we encourage this test too much, we should wait and see the results of future tests. There is another reason why we should not be too anxious to adopt this test too freely. I have seen the test applied, and I think if it does not re-act, it gets into the system of the animal, and may do a great deal of harm. I do trust that my right honourable Friend will adhere to the position he has taken up in the matter, in spite of what comes from the opposite side of the House, and will wait before he adopts this test until we are a little more certain of it.


was understood to say with regard to the suggestion of the honourable Gentleman opposite, that the Government ought to follow the precedent adopted with regard to pleuro-pneumonia, and pay compensation for animals slaughtered. Hitherto the Government had only paid compensation when the animals had been seized by the officers and had been slaughtered in both cases. The whole question would be carefully considered together with the points taken by honourable Members with regard to the future. He, therefore, ventured to hope that the Vote would be taken in order that the Committee might have an opportunity of expressing: its views upon other matters which had to be discussed.


I wish to respect the appeal of the right honourable Gentleman, and shall therefore make my remarks as brief as possible. But I would ask him whether the administration of the Animals Diseases Act has been a success. I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman to very briefly give us his views upon that matter. If the Act were properly carried out it would be a very valuable piece of legislation, but, from causes which I need not enter into, the Act has not been a success. There is just one thing I should like to allude to, and that I shall deal with very briefly indeed, and that is the question of higher agricultural education. The Vote for that purpose under this Department is extremely small when we compare it with the amount that is spent by other countries and what they are doing in that direction, and it does seem to me that British agriculture is unfairly handicapped in this respect. I am afraid that the complacency with which we assume our own superiority in almost everything does not conduce to progress in any branch of agriculture or commercial manufacture, and if we only keep our eyes open and see what other countries are doing—I am quite sure the right honourable Gentleman has done so—we shall find that we are very far behind in this respect. But I wish to know why the right honourable Gentleman does not press the Treasury for the means to carry out agricultural education in this country as it is carried out in others. Take the case of Finland, which is a very poor country. What happened there a few years ago? The country was practically on the verge of ruin in respect to agriculture, when the Finnish Diet took the matter in hand and established agricultural schools all over the country, and agricultural institutes which give advice to agriculturists upon all kinds of subjects connected with agricultural life, and do inestimable service, making analyses of soils and manure and so forth, for a nominal sum; and the Government themselves keep 80 stallions, in order to improve the breed of horses. What they have done has already led to an immense extension of private enterprise in this direction. I will not say anything more about Finland; but in Finland and Denmark and Sweden, all those who have paid attention to the agricultural statistics of those countries know that they outstripped the agriculture of this country. Agriculture here had an annual grant to the extent of £2,000,000 in relief of the rates, but if some portion of that had been allocated to agricultural instruction, it would, I think, have been far more beneficial to the country. Without going any further into the matter, I will simply ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it would not be possible for us to do something more for agricultural instruction, especially in its higher branches?

MR. BBIGG (York, W.B., Keighley)

Having had an opportunity of seeing what has gone on during last autumn, I might say one word upon this subject to the right honourable Gentleman. I wish to say I am simply ashamed of the Agricultural Department and all connected with it. In our own Dominion of Canada, we find the exports have extended from £2,000,000 to £6,000,000, and that they are continually increasing. We are allowing other countries to outstrip us and are very far behind in this matter of agricultural education. It is not only in education alone, but they take very good care to know what is going on in the markets of the world. Now, I understand that the right honourable Gentleman is going to do away with the intelligence department, the most important department he could have under his control; that is to be done away with in order that a paltry £800 is to be saved. Out of the large amount of money spent by this Department a very small sum is spent upon agricultural education, and a considerable portion of that is given to various farms, and we want to know what is done for the money which is spent. Without going into the matter further, I may say, for my own part, I think it would be much better to spend more on the intelligence department than in spending these large sums upon persons who have lost their cattle by means of this disease. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give his attention to this matter, and so ensure that in those things that we can produce in this country we shall be able to compete with our competitors. Upon what has been done in the country I could dilate for a considerable time, but I will only sincerely urge upon the right honourable Gentleman the necessity of further education. There are several colleges in existence, but they all act upon their own responsibility, and many of them lose upon experiments which we would naturally look to the Board of Agriculture to make, to obtain the information that is required. I think one of the most important things for the Minister of Agriculture to know is what other countries are doing and follow them up so that we could reap the benefit.


said he thought both honourable Gentlemen had lost sight of the fact that the money expended for agricultural education, by the Board of Agriculture did not constitute the total sum expended for that purpose, and it was extremely unfair to draw comparisons between this country and others and at the same time ignore the fact that large sums of money were put into the hands of the county councils to be used for this and kindred purposes. The Department believed it was far better to leave this matter to the local authorities and the people themselves to apply a system of agricultural education. Honourable Gentlemen were altogether in error in this matter when they said nothing was being done. There were both stationary schools and wandering schools, which went from village to village to teach the villagers, and it was quite a mistake to suppose that the Board of Agriculture was not ready or willing to deal with the question. With regard to the particular sum which they spent they would certainly spend more if it were given to them. They had provided a good deal of money in other ways, and if more were given to them they would see it was spent advantageously.


May I just explain that I specially referred to higher education in agriculture? I had quite in my mind the work which the county councils have in hand, but what I say is that in what may be regarded as the higher agricultural education we are far behind other countries. It is true that, quite by accident, a considerable sum was placed at the disposal of the county councils, but I do not know that the county coun- cils have anybody to thank for that. But there is one element of uncertainty with regard to the county councils, because, while some are applying the money in this direction and working to the best of their ability, other county councils that I can name are applying it to other purposes altogether, and do not apply a single penny in this direction. What we ask is, and I am not saying for a moment that Wales is suffering from an unfair division in this matter, that upon general grounds more money should be spent upon higher agricultural education. I did not intend in any way to be unfair to the right honourable Gentleman.


I also disclaim any such intention, but, so far as the county councils go, I may say I have been interested in the agricultural question for the last ten years, and we have been trying to establish for the last four or five years, and we have very great difficulty now in getting farms. I am bound to say we never obtained any assistance from the Agricultural Department. Where the money has come from the county council it has been allotted by the county council itself for that purpose. I may also inform the right honourable Gentleman that before this matter was taken in hand it was the duty of the county council to make investigations for the agricultural councils in England, and it was done, and, although I have done it myself for some years, I must say I have not yet seen that the benevolent, and guiding hand of that Department has been of much assistance.


May I say, with regard to the 15th and 16th paragraphs, that a great deal of so-called commercial tuberculin is not tuberculin at all? Will the Agricultural Department supply it themselves, and will they also supply the information to the Commission?


I wish to call attention to the extravagance which takes place at the Board of Agriculture. We find in this Department, which is so recently established, the expenses have grown up enormously, and are far beyond the scale of allowances granted to the different Departments. We find that they are higher than the allowances which are made for similar work in other Departments of the State. This Department, for instance, has a secretary who has a salary of £1,500 a year, and an assistant secretary at £1,000 a year, and now, under the present Vote we are to give another £1,000 a year for another assistant secretary. Then we find here another item which is peculiar to this Department in the shape of a legal adviser, at a salary of £800 to £1,000, and not only has the Department a legal adviser, but it also has an assistant legal adviser, at a salary of from £500 to £600 a year. To me, at all events, it does seem strange that the Board of Agriculture should employ a legal adviser against any occasion that may arise, when there are the great law officers of the Crown, one of whose duties it is to advise the Departments when necessity requires. It does seem strange that, when we have to pay one secretary £1,500, and two assistant secretaries £1,000 each, that they should not make themselves familiar with the law upon this subject. Another matter to which I must refer is that this Department, in the question of salaries, is going beyond the scale, which is allowed for that particular class of work. There is a new chief clerk at £700 a year. The salary for the position is £400, rising to £600 a year, but we find in this Department that the two present clerks are actually receiving £100 in excess of the scale—they are receiving £700 a. year each. Now, it is impossible—look at the time that this Department has been in existence—that the clerk would have obtained the maximum salary at the present moment, and yet he is receiving £700, which is £100 in excess of the maximum in the scale allowed for that particular class of civil service. And we find a corresponding excess in the cases of other clerks connected with the Department, one receiving £50, and another £40, above the maximum, which they could not possibly have reached in their term of service. What I object to is the fact that they have got a scale fixed by the Commissioners, but we find the Department does not content itself with the scale, but in a great many cases gives salaries far in excess of the maximum laid down in the scale for the particular class of work. Look at the case of the veterinary inspector. There, again, you find a curious difference in the salaries of the veterinary inspectors of London and Liverpool, which are £400 to £500 a year, and the veterinary inspector of Glasgow, whose salary is £250. Glasgow is quite as important as Liverpool; of course I do not compare it with London, and it does seem strange to me that the veterinary inspector of Liverpool should receive £400, rising to £500, a year, and that £250 should be sufficient for the Glasgow veterinary inspector. Another point I wish to draw attention to is the doubling of appointments; for instance, there is a private secretary to the President; upon this Vote there is £300 for his salary, but we find, upon further investigation, that he is also an inspector drawing a large salary in respect of those duties. Now, obviously the man cannot do the two duties, and the practical result is that if the President is getting this man's time as secretary, he is not doing his duty as an inspector; and by giving him the position of an inspector you are giving him an extra £300 a year, which he does not earn. It is not right or fair, because the man cannot perform both duties. The same remark also applies to the private secretary to the secretary, whose salary is £100; he also occupies another position in the Department at a salary of £350. He cannot perform both, and so confines himself to his private secretarial duties, and receives £450 for doing it, though the salary is nominally only £100 a year. Then, again, among the superintendent inspectors you find one with a salary of £600 a year, who also draws his pay as an adjutant of volunteers.; obviously that gentleman cannot perform both duties. Another is a retired naval officer, at £350 a year. I cannot really myself see any connection between a retired naval officer performing work in connection with agriculture; but he is promoted to that particular post. In the same way we find a retired officer of the Royal Engineers, whose pension allowance is £450, and hose salary from the Department is £350. As a protest against these excessive salaries, and against the system of dual offices, which exists in this Department, I move to reduce the Vote by £500

The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 126.—(Division List No. 288.)

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

I desire to call the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture to Item B—a sum of £7,000 for agricultural dairy education. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will be able to bring pressure to bear in the proper quarter to get a larger grant for this important object. Agriculture is our greatest industry, and I would suggest that the sum of £20,000 a year should be voted for technical education in that direction. It is an industry which is of material importance to our national prosperity and our national existence. A good deal of excellent work has been done by the university colleges of Great Britain and Ireland, but what can they do, with £7,000 divided between them? The sum is insignificant. I understand the President of the Board of Agriculture has said that the county councils have at their disposal a sum of money for this purpose, granted under the Local Taxation Bill; but, as far as Wales is concerned, that money has been voted admost entirely for secondary education, and nothing has been given for technical education. There is no industry in which we are so behindhand as agriculture, and in some counties the farmers are practically using the same methods as their forefathers did 200 years ago. In these circumstances, it was not surprising that a good deal was heard of agricultural distress. Farmers were themselves to some extent responsible; but so also was the state of technical education in agriculture, which was more backward than in any other country in the world, except Turkey and Spain.


I admit that £7,000 a year is a small sum, and if I am fortunate enough to get more money I shall do my best to increase the grant.

On the Vote to complete the sum of £40,787 for the salaries and expenses of the Charity Comimission.


Mr. Lowther, I am compelled to move the reduction of the salary of the Chief Commissioner by £100, because my honourable Friend who represents the Charity Commissioners in this House has no salary himself. I am sorry to have to move to reduce the Vote, but the fact is, Sir, that the Charity Commission are not carrying out the spirit of the charity clauses of the Local Government Act of 1894. I contend that the Commissioners have shown a decided tendency to ignore and curtail the principle of that Act as it affects parochial charities. Parochial charities in this country are to a great extent under the control of the Commissioners. The Charity Commissioners have certainly not interpreted in a liberal spirit the Local Government Act of 1894. I am assured that it was the intention of my right honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton to give by that Act real representative local control. The Charity Commissioners have not, as far as might have been possible, carried out the provisions as to parochial control. They have instead tried, where they could, to introduce the ex officio element by nominating the rector an ex officio trustee. A charity has come under my personal notice in a parish where there was only one trustee. The mere fact of his ownership of a particular house gave him the sole right of being trustee of that charity. It is true that he had associated with him two churchwardens of the parish, and the scheme provides that the charity shall be distributed by the two churchwardens, but at the sole discretion and direction of the trustee, who is a layman; and this money has to be distributed by the scheme for no purpose than what is civil. When the owner of that particular house, and the sole trustee of that charity, requested the Charity Commissioners to be allowed to hand over the charity to the Parish Meeting, believing that they were the proper body to administer it, what happened was this: that while the parish were ready to receive, and the sole trustee was willing to hand it over, the Commissioners would not allow it, because they said that the charity was an ecclesiastical one, from the fact that churchwardens were the channel through which the charity was distributed, though applied to secular purposes. I think that shows the ecclesiastical tendency of the Charity Commissioners. That is a spirit of activity we must endeavour to restrict. I have another instance in a parish called Glutton, in Somerset, where three charities were proposed to be amalgamated. The parish council moved in this matter; but, as I am informed, up to the present moment the scheme has not been put in force. It is nearly three years since the Charity Commissioners began to deal with the question; but how did they deal with it? Well, there again, they went against the views of the parish council. They consulted the wishes of the incumbent and one churchwarden instead. The parish council proposed that these three charities should have eight trustees, to be nominated by the parish council. The Charity Commissioners would not hear of it; and their proposition was that the parish council should only nominate two trustees, with the rector as an ex officio trustee. There again it became an ecclesiastical question. Two trustees were to be elected on the nomination of the churchwardens and one of them was the son of the rector of the parish. This is why I say the Charity Commissioners have not dealt with this matter in a liberal spirit. In fact, I maintain that they have done all they can to curtail the working of the charity clauses of the Local Government Act of 1894. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.


Before the Vote is taken I would like to say a word or two on the subject. It is true that the Charity Commissioners are bad enough for anything; I do not want to defend them. This burden has fallen on their shoulders through the county council regulations; and, really, it must be admitted that they have a large amount of work to do—in fact, they are overworked. At the same time, if that is the case, I think I may suggest a remedy, which I do not think need be much considered. That is, that a portion of the staff of the department of the Endowed Schools Commissioners—who are still in existence, and receiving something like £5,872 per annum—should be called into requisition to assist this overworked department. These Endowed Commissioners were appointed many years ago, in order to re-organise the endowed grammar schools of the country. Well, this they did efficiently and quickly, but the time has come when these endowed schools, having been re-organised, cannot go on re-organising for ever; therefore I mention the matter in order to ascertain what has been done, and what is the effect of the Report of the Commissioners. It seems to me, judging from the work which was formerly done by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and judging by the work as it is now done, that there ought to be a considerable reduction in the staff of that department, and which, I suggest, might be very feasible, if a portion of them were to be turned over to assist the other already much overworked department. They have in the past year reduced the cost by £770, and having five Commissioners instead of six, I venture to think that the amount of £5,772, which goes in salaries, law charges, and other incidental expenses of this department, is more than is warranted by the amount of work they do. Therefore. I would strongly urge the honourable Gentleman to look into the question, and devise some means, in the way of reducing the staff of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, as a remedy.


I may point out, in reply to the honourable Member for Keighley, that the Endowed Schools Commission was many years ago amalgamated with the Charity Commission, so that they are now working conjointly all over England and Wales. The inspection of schools, established under these schemes, is to see, as is only natural, that the schemes are working well and properly. As regards the speech of the honourable Member for Somerset, who has moved this reduction, I am rather surprised to hear the Charity Commissioners charged with being a reactionary body, and in favour of very old Tory institutions. The usual charge against the Charity Commissioners in this House is that they are a Radical and predatory body, bent upon plundering the Church. But the present charge is that they do not carry out the spirit of the 14th clause of the Parish Councils Act. Well, it is not our duty to carry out the spirit of any Act, but th.9 letter of it, and the judicial interpretation of the Acts of Parliament. Now, the honourable Member for Somerset, in criticising us, should remember that under the Parish Councils Act the charities were not handed over to the parish councils, and surely the Charity Commissioners have nothing whatever to do with the framing of the Act.


I did not say that. What I said was that I could not acquit my own leaders of that.


I took it to apply to the Leaders of this House. The honourable Member complained of the introduction of the principle of co-optation, but this is a very old matter on boards of trustees, for nearly everybody was co-opted in the old days, except the vicar and the churchwardens; but the whole tendency of the Commission is now steadily breaking down the co-optative principle wherever it can get a chance to do it. Now, the honourable Member has cited two oases out of all this mass of grievances against the Charity Commission. The first was a ease in which there was a sole trustee, and he wanted to hand over his trust to the parish council, and he was stopped from doing so by the Charity Commissioners. Well, now, the only subjection under which he could possibly hand over his

Allen, W. (Newc.-und.-Lyme) Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Steadman, William Charles
Barlow, John Emmott Kilbride, Denis Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Bayley, T. (Derbyshire) Lewis, John Herbert Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)
Brigg, John Lloyd-George, David Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Broadhurst, Henry Macaleese, Daniel Williams, John C. (Notts)
Burns, John Maddison, Fred Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)
Carvill, Patrick George K. Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Moss, Samuel Woodhouse, Sir JT (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Clough, Walter Cwen Pickersgill, Edward Hare Yoxall, James Henry
Colville, John Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Crilly, Daniel Rickett, J. Compton TELLEES FOR THE AYES—
Doogan, P. C. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Mr. Strachey and Mr. Caldwell.
Joicey, Sir James Robson, William Snowdon
Aird, John Brassey, Albert Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Butcher, John George Curzon Rt Hn. G. N. (Lancs SW)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)
Banbury, Frederick George Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Bartley, George C. T. Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Drage, Geoffrey
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Drucker, A.
Bethell, Commander Charrington, Spencer Duncombe, Hon. Herbert V.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Clare, Octavius Leigh Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Bond, Edward Coghill, Douglas Harry Finch, George H.
Boulnois, Edmund Cohen, Benjamin Louis Fisher, William Hayes

trust is the first sub-section, but I do not quite understand the nature of the case——


It was given before the Charity Commissioners.


If the honourable Member will put it down in the form of a Question, I will endeavour to answer it. My honourable Friend appears to be quarrelling with the law, for section 14 expressly excludes ecclesiastical charities from the purview of that section; we have no licence to suspend and disregard the law, even though we may have a conscientious objection to it. That is the main point which my honourable Friend raised, and I do not think there is anything else to which I need refer, for in a certain sense I have, I think, disposed of his objection, and I hope now that he will not press his Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 35; Noes 120.—(Division List No. 289.)

Fison, Frederick William Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Flower, Ernest Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Russell, T. W, (Tyrone)
Folkestone, Viscount Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Fry, Lewis Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Garfit, William Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) Loder, Gerald Walter E. Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Gilliat, John Saunders Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Lowe, Francis William Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Lowles, John Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Goschen, C. J. (Sessex) Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Spencer, Ernest
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Macartney, W. G. Ellison Spicer, Albert
Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Maclure, Sir John William Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs) McKillop, James Strauss, Arthur
Gretton, John Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.
Greville, Captain Mildmay, Francis Bingham Thornton, Percy M.
Gull, Sir Cameron Monk, Charles James Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Ure, Alexander
Heath, James Murray, C. J. (Coventry) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Helder, Augustus Myers, William Henry Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Henderson, Alexander Newdigate, Francis A. Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol) Nacol, Donald Ninian Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Pierpoint, Robert Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)
Holland, Hon. Lionel R. Pollock, Harry Frederick
Hornby, William Henry Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hughes, Colonel Edwin Purvis, Robert Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Johnston, William (Belfast) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex) Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Lafone, Alfred Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Vote agreed to.

On the Vote of £132,085, for the salaries and expenses of the Local Government Board, on the return of the Chairman after the usual interval,

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

Mr. Lowther, what I desire to call attention to on this Vote is the action which has been taken by the Local Government Board, consequent upon the Report and recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Metropolitan schools. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Beard of Agriculture upon the decision he has taken to break up the huge aggregation of children in what are known as the Sutton Schools. As a result of that decision a very important question arises, and that question is, how are the children so displaced to be provided for? Now, on that issue the advice given by the right honourable Gentleman to the boards of guardians is not, to my mind, altogether reassuring. In a letter dated the 14th of March to the guardians of the unions who are inte- rested in the Sutton Schools, the right honourable Gentleman says— The Local Government Board are prepared to consider any scheme for the provision of buildings in blocks, to accommodate 60 in each block.

Now, Sir, it seems to me——


That was said after a deputation had waited upon me, and made the suggestion.


That may be so, and I thank the right honourable Gentleman for giving me that information, I was not aware of it. But still, I think such a suggestion, from whatever quarter it emanates, is open, at all events, to some criticism. In the first place, it seems to me to be inconsistent with the policy involved in the dissolution of the Sutton Schools, because, if I am correctly informed, a portion of those schools were erected upon the block system; and, in the second place, it seems to commit the ratepayers forthwith to a large expenditure upon buildings; and it will result in the placing of the children turned out of the Sutton Schools in a class of schools which will still be barrack schools, though of an improved pattern. It may be said that this is only carrying out the recommendation made by Dr. Stevenson as a result of his inquiry. I should like to point out that the reference to Dr. Stevenson was of a very limited kind.


called attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members present.


Under the Orders of the House it is not possible to take any action which would prevent Supply being finished by 10 o'clock. I therefore cannot take any action on the honourable Gentleman's intervention.


Dr. Stevenson simply pointed out what is the best form of school, assuming that children are to be massed together in schools. There is another consideration which arises, I think, very properly out of Dr. Stevenson's Report, and that is the financial arrangement. I should be the last person to say, in a matter of this kind that financial considerations should be paramount. But at the same time, I should strongly object to pay the highest price for the second-best method. We know that at the present moment the most expensive mode of providing for children is in these barrack schools. The point I wish to make is this: that if Dr. Stevenson's recommendations are carried out, the expense per child in these schools, which is already very high as compared with other modes of providing for the children, will be very materially increased. Therefore, Sir, I think the question is whether there are not other and better modes of providing for children who will be displaced from the Sutton Schools. There are various modes which are open to the guardians. For my own part, I do not desire to pin my faith to any particular method. I think that the method should be chosen in each case which is the most suitable for the child concerned. In many fields we are recognising more and more that individual treatment of men or women, or, as in this case, of children, solves many difficulties. We have recognised that to a large extent with regard to our prisons. The Bill of this present Session recognised that principle, and I hope it will be possible to carry it into effect. The system of individual treatment, I think, may very properly be adopted with regard to children. Here, then, where you have many hundreds of children displaced from a certain school, there is a great opportunity for the guardians concerned very carefully to consider the case of each individual child, and to provide for that child in the future in a manner which is best adapted to the needs of each particular case. The Whitechapel Guardians did what I suggest. I refer to the occasion when the Forest Gate Schools district was dissolved. At the time of the dissolution the Whitechapel Guardians had 76 children being educated in these schools. The dissolution threw these children into the hands of the guardians, and under the direction, and with the help of the estimable gentleman who is the clerk of that union, every individual case was gone into, with this result—which I hope the guardians concerned in the South Metropolitan district will take to heart—that out of the 76 children they found that there were 35 who could be dealt with in various ways, and by existing agencies, leaving only 41 to be provided for directly by the guardians. I think that is a most important mode, which every metropolitan board might wisely adopt. What are the other methods to which I have alluded, which are in competition with the barrack schools? There is, first, the boarding-out system. That system is, of course, by law, limited in its operation. It approaches most nearly to home life. I am one of those who think that it must be a very bad home indeed which is not better than even the best institution. When you have a system like this boarding-out system, which most nearly approaches to that natural mode of bringing up a child in the home, I hope the boards of guardians will very carefully consider it. I am aware there are objections to the boarding-out system, that it requires to be very carefully watched, or it might possibly be grossly abused. This consideration led the Sheffield guardians to adopt a method between the boarding-out system on the one hand, and cottage homes on the other. I refer to what is well known to those who are interested in the subject as what is called the Sheffield Scattered Cottage Homes. I am afraid that the system has not received much encouragement from the Local Government Board. I fear that difficulties were raised in the way of the Sheffield Guardians which ought not to have been raised. I do not know that the Local Government Board regards that system as favourably as it deserves at the present moment. For my own part, though there have been one or two small matters to which objection may probably be taken, I think they are not very serious, and that the Sheffield system has been a great success, which other boards of guardians might wisely adopt. Then there is a third system, which I must say does not receive from many boards of guardians the attention it deserves. I do not say the guardians are ignorant, but, outside the narrow limits of the guardians, gentlemen who are interested in these questions are not, I think, fully aware that there are a very large number of small homes which are certified by the Local Government Board, and to which it is open to the boards of guardians to send any child. That is under 25 and 26 Victoria, chapter 43; and there art no fewer than 223 of these small homes which are certified by the Local Government Board. The great advantage of these small certified homes has been proved. There are a large number of them, and they are situated in all parts of the country, so that it is possible for the boards of guardians to select one of these homes in a locality where the air is adapted to the health of the particular child. There is also an enormous range from which they may select the home which on every ground may suit the idiosyncrasy of the children. I should like to see a larger use made of these small certified homes. Then the last method which can compete with the large barrack schools is emigration. Emigration does not permit of being carried out on a large scale. I think it ought to be carried out on a larger scale than it is at present. In 1894 only 299 children emigrated. I think that that unwillingness on the part of boards of guardians to emigrate children does them credit. They were not satisfied with the arrangements made for the supervision of the children in Canada. But, Sir, only last year an Act was passed by the Legislature of the Province of Ontario which to a large extent removed the strong objection which previously existed. It provides a number of safeguards which might meet the objections which guardians have felt in sending children beyond the sea. My object in mentioning these various modes of providing for children is the hope that the Local Government Board, in advising the guardians, will very carefully consider individual cases of children, and not press them all in a mass into the barrack schools. There is another matter in connection with this upon which I desire to ask a question—that is the subject of epileptic children. As the Committee are no doubt aware, children suffering from epilepsy have, under the new Order of the Local Government Board, been handed over to the special care of the Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. I find from the answer given by the right honourable Gentleman in this House on the 19th July, that the Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board is in negotiation with the managers to secure Sutton Schools, and it seems to me, Mr. Lowther, rather disquieting information, because we are breaking up the Sutton Schools on the ground that the aggregation of children in the mass is undesirable. But are we to have instead of the children who are in the Sutton Schools an equal number of epileptic children placed in these schools? I should like some information as to what the scheme is. It is obvious that if you are going to use fully the present building, that would be an aggregation of epileptic children, which would be even more objectionable than the aggregation which at present exists. I think possibly there may be some explanation which would meet the objection. I now raise this question in order that the explanation may be made. Then there is a further question to which I desire to call attention. The Departmental Committee to which I have referred pointed out that for 19 or 20 years boards of guardians all over the country have been grossly breaking the law. I mean, in this respect, that they have been working as half-timers children of as low an age as eight. That was a condition of things upon which the Committee, as I think very rightly, made some strong observations. It is a really monstrous thing, seeing that we prosecute employers and parents for sending their children to work before the statutory age, that public bodies throughout the country are breaking the law in this open and wholesale way. What I want to ask is whether, since the Report of the Departmental Committee, there has been a beneficial change in this respect, and whether inspectors of the Local Government Board are very closely watching the matter. Those are all the points I desire to call attention to. I formally move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

MR. FLOWER (Bradford, W.)

I am quite sure the Committee will have listened with great interest to the speech which has been made by my honourable and learned Friend the Member for South Bethnal Green. I, for one, as interested in the question of the reform of poor law administration, must venture to differ from the conclusions at which he arrives. I most certainly shall not follow my honourable and learned Friend into the Division Lobby when the Division is called on this Vote, because my honourable and learned Friend proposes to reduce the salary of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. If I have to compare the records in the work of poor law reform this Session, as between my honourable and learned Friend and the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, my chief regret is this: that, owing to the niggardliness of our Constitution, under which private Members are not paid, I am unable to move a reduction in the salary of my honourable and learned Friend opposite. But I will present to him, as very pertinent to poor law reform, this advice: that, while he continues to dwell in a crystal palace he will do well to avoid a reckless and promiscuous use of the catapult. I rise to take part in this discussion in the interest of poor law reform, an interest which has kept me and my honourable and learned Friend opposite up for many nights this Session. There are one or two points I would mention, which I hope may produce a favourable answer from the President of the Local Government Board. In the first place, I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to take into consideration the great and growing need of increasing the powers of boards of guardians to deal with children of dissolute parents in this country. From time to time this matter has been mooted in this House, and from time to time Bills have been introduced in accordance with the Reports of the Departmental Committees. I venture to suggest to the right honourable Gentleman, who I know is anxious to meet, the views of poor law reformers, whether the time has not come for the Government to take up this great question, and by a Measure of their own deal with the large and growing number of children in this country who are at this moment unable to be dealt with by the ordinary operations of the poor law, to enlarge the powers of boards of guardians, and bring those children within the influence of civilisation and Christianity. In doing so, I venture to think that the Local Government Board would touch upon a question of even equal importance with the question of vagrancy. I saw a Return made some time ago, in which it was stated that some 13,000 children slept in casual wards on a particular day. This question needs to be dealt with. It needs to be dealt with, not by some private Member; it is a matter that demands the consideration of a great Government Department. I sincerely hope that the President of the Local Government Board will not be unmindful of the matter. Then there is an important question—no less an important question to poor law reformers than the settlement of paupers. Sir, I think the time is quite ripe for taking some fresh departure in our treatment of that question. I think that we ought to do what we can to put an end to the litigation between the different boards of guardians of the country on this question. I think we might fairly do so if we entrusted to the Local Government Board some power of arbitration upon the conflicting claims and conflicting arguments of boards of guardians upon this question. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for South Bethnal Green has touched upon the sequence of events which has followed the dissolution of the Sutton Schools. I do not think he remembers the tribute of a Blue Book to the dissolution of those schools; but the dissolution of the Sutton Schools was a matter which earned the approval of all friends of poor law reform. I venture to think that the whole Committee cordially approve of the dissolution of the Sutton Schools. Several very interesting questions arose. There was the question of the future distribution of the children of those schools. I should like to say that I feel very strongly that those who are now at the head of the Local Government Board are not the creators of the system. It would perhaps be comparatively easy to provide a complete system of poor law reform in this country. But it is by no means an easy task to draft reforms upon existing institutions, and to develop old customs in accordance with modern ideas. The dissolution of the Sutton Schools offered a great variety of useful and valuable experiments to the Local Government Board for testing various methods of dealing with poor law children. I hold, myself, very strongly by the principle of boarding out, but I do not claim it to be infallible, nor do those whose views I represent here make that claim. The first point that will occur to us in dealing with the question is the importance of the children losing all trace of the pauper taint, and so entering into their work in the community with equal privileges and equal advantages to other children. In that connection, it is well to remember the important question of emigration, especially with regard to boys. With regard to boys, it must also be remembered that technical education can only be obtained for them in trade schools, and we ask the Local Government Board to consider the importance of placing these children in localities where they may be enabled to obtain the advantages of technical education. In sending a letter to the Camberwell guardians regarding cottage homes for elder girls, the President of the Local Government Board was giving his sanction to a very interesting experiment in one direction. But I am not anxious that the right honourable Gentleman should give his sanction at this moment to an experiment in any one particular direction. I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to aim at encouraging reforms in all directions. All our experience goes to show that the training of poor law children in the artificial life of a poor law colony is not only expensive, but is also ineffective. I venture to offer the following remedies to the President of the Local Government Board. In the first place, boarding out under careful and frequent individual supervision; in the second place, the making use of the small industrial schools, of which there are 222 under the Local Government Board; in the third place, the encouragement of emigration, which has undergone a regrettable diminution. With regard to feeble-minded, ophthalmic, and other children, I think a very large measure of credit and gratitude is due to the present President of the Local Government Board for the action he has taken in this matter, which has placed these unfortunate children under the control of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. That is a great step in reform, and when the right honourable Member for Bethnal Green moved the reduction of this Vote, I hope he forgot the immense improvement in the condition of poor law children which has been effected by that change. For the other children, one can only suggest the adoption and development of the Sheffield plan of scattered homes. We want these children to lose the taint of pauperism, and to taste fully and freely of the individual life of citizenship.

MR. SIDEBOTHAM (Chester, Hyde)

I desire to ask the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board if he can make any statement regarding the enhancement of the period allowed for the repayment of loans for poor law buildings. I do not ask the right honourable Gentleman for any promise, but I should like him to say that his mind is not entirely closed on the question, and that he will give it his attention during the Recess?

MR. BRAMSTON BEACH (Hants, Andover)

I desire to make the same appeal.


With regard to the last question, I am perfectly well aware that there is in many quarters a feeling that the period for the repayment of loans for poor law buildings and other purposes should be enhanced. But honourable Members must remember the position of the Local Government Board in this matter. The Local Government Board is, to all intents and purposes, trustees for posterity. The future ratepayers have no one to protect them except the Local Government Board, and, while I am prepared to admit that there is no special virtue in terms of 29, 30, 31, or 32 years, 30 years is the period that has been decided on with regard to the repayment of these building loans. I cannot pledge myself to any specific promise in the matter, but I will say that before next Session I will make it my business to examine most carefully the reason why the present period was arrived at, and to consider whether any alteration can be made with justice to the future as well as the present. With regard to the question of giving boards of guardians greater and more enhanced powers over neglected children, I can only say that I heartily supported and entirely sympathised with the Bill which had been introduced by my honourable Friend during the present Session. There are a variety of methods by which the question of the poor law metropolitan schools may be dealt with. The old method, known as the barrack-school system, has been universally condemned, and the Local Government Board has broken up the system in one of the great London metropolitan districts. The Bill would have conferred great benefits upon the class in whose interests it was initiated, and would have promoted the cause of poor law reform. I deeply regret that owing to the persistent and unnecessary opposition of the honourable Member for Bethnal Green the passage of that Bill was inevitably put off. I protest against the statement of the honourable Member for Bethnal Green, that what we have done is, after all, nothing but the old barrack system. It is nothing of the kind. The honourable Member has asked us to adopt proposals by which the children should be individualised as far as possible. I believe in that system, but there are very narrow limits to its possibility, as the honourable Member will find out if he tries to deal with it. What are the alternatives to the old system? The alternative of boarding out has been suggested. I approve of and warmly sympathise with boarding out, subject to one condition, which is of surpassing importance—namely, that the inspection of the children boarded out shall be adequate and effective. I cannot conceive a position of greater misery and hardship than that of some poor, unfortunate little child boarded out to someone who takes care of it, not for love of the child, but simply for the purpose of making a gain and profit out of it. There must be adequate and efficient inspection, and that is one of the greatest difficulties in the world to overcome. So far as it is possible to promote that adequate inspection, no efforts on the part of the Local Government Board are wanting, and wherever it is possible to board out on those conditions the Board gives its assistance. Another system suggested is that of scattered homes on the Sheffield plan. Where that system is adequately carried out the results undoubtedly are good, but unfortunately the Board have received reports of instances of bad management which make us careful in regard to other proposals in that direction. The Camberwell guardians have approached me on the subject, and after a long conference I have agreed to accept their proposals on two conditions: first, that they satisfy me that they can get proper houses for the scattered homes; and, second, that they can be quite sure of having an adequate system of inspection. At present they have only got two homes, and are arranging for another three out of the 35 necessary to accommodate 350 children. That will show the honourable Member that this system is not so easily adopted as he considers. I have been very anxious to do anything and everything that is possible and right to meet the views of the great number of people who are very earnestly considering this question. But there are difficulties with which many of them are not acquainted, and they must give us credit that, as far as we have become acquainted with the difficulties—which are, perhaps, not altogether apparent to them—we have given them our most careful consideration with regard to the block system. There is an admirable example of it at Banstead. There were demands for the services of the girls from all parts of the country. During a visit which I paid to the place I was told that there were at that moment 1,000 applications for children to place in good situations. I have, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that the block system, provided there are not too many children in the same area, deserves our consideration. But I have no absolute power to compel boards of guardians to adopt any particular system that seems best to the Local Government Board. I can only point out to a board the system which I think

Aird, John Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Lowe, Francis William
Arnold, Alfred Finch, George H. Lowles, John
Ascroft, Robert Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H. Fisher, William Hayes Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fison, Frederick William Maclure, Sir John William
Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy Flower, Ernest McKillop, James
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Folkestone, Viscount Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Banbury, Frederick George Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bartley, George C. T. Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Monk, Charles James
Barton, Dunbar Plunkett Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. Fry, Lewis Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Garfit, William Murray, C. J. (Coventry)
Bethell, Commander Gedge, Sydney Myers, William Henry
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) Newdigate, Francis Alex.
Bill, Charles Gilliat, John Saunders Nicol, Donald Ninian
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Bond, Edward GoscheN, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Pierpoint, Robert
Boulnois, Edmund Goschen, G. J. (Sussex) Pollock, Harry Frederick
Brassey, Albert Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Purvis, Robert
Butcher, John George Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Causton, Richard Knight Gretton, John Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) Greville, Captain Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Gull, Sir Cameron Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Ryder, John Herbert Didley
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hazell, Walter Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Heath, James Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Helder, Augustus Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Henderson, Alexander Simeon, Sir Barrington
Charrington, Spencer Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol) Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Chelsea, Viscount Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Holland, Hon. Lionel R. Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Clough, Walter Owen Hornby, William Henry Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Howard, Joseph Spencer, Ernest
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hozier, Hon. James H. C. Stanley, Lord (Lanes)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Strauss, Arthur
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hughes, Colonel Edwin Sturt, Hon Humphry N.
Colomb, Sir John C. R. Jenkins, Sir John Jones Thornton, Percy M.
Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth) Johnston, W. (Belfast) Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H. Kenyon, James Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lafone, Alfred Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Curzon, Rt Hn. G. N. (LancsSW) Lawrence, Sir E. (Corn.) Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Whiteley, G. (Stockport)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)
Drage, Geoffrey Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Drucker, A. Loder, Gerald Walter E.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B. Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l) Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. Lorne, Marquess of

would be most advantageous. I am surprised that no honourable Member who has taken part in the Debate has alluded to the admirable system for the training of children which prevails on the Ex-mouth training ship. That is a system which I should like to encourage by every means in my power.


I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 48.—(Division List No. 290.)

Allen, W. (Newc.-und.-Lyme) Lewis John Herbert Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Barlow, John Emmott Lloyd-George, David Ure, Alexander
Birrell, Augustine Lough, Thomas Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Macaleese, Daniel Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Brigg, John Maddison, Fred Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Broadhurst, Henry Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wedderburn, Sir William
Caldwell, James Molloy, Bernard Charles Williams, John C. (Notts)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Cawley, Frederick Moss, Samuel Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Colville, John Pickersgill, Edward Hare Woods, Samuel
Dalziel, James Henry Pirie, Duncan V. Yoxall, James Henry
Dillon, John Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Doogan, P. C. Rickett, J. Compton TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Griffith, Ellis J. Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion) Mr. Channing and Mr. Steadman.
Joicey, Sir James Robson, William Snowdon
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Spicer, Albert
Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey Strachey, Edward

It. being Ten o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in conformity with the Standing Order, proceeded to put the remaining Votes, without discussion.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £114,773, be

Aird, John Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Haldane, Richard Burdon
Arnold, Alfred Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.
Ascroft, Robert Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H. Cripps, Charles Alfred Hazell, Walter
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Curzon, Rt Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S W) Heath, James
Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Helder, Augustus
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Henderson, Alexander
Banbury, Frederick George Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)
Bartley, George C. T. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Drage, Geoffrey Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. Drucker, A. Hornby, William Henry
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Howard, Joseph
Bethell, Commander Edwards, Gen. Sir J. Bevan Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn
Bill, Charles Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Hughes, Colonel Edwin
Blundell, Colonel Henry Finch, George H. Jenkins, Sir John Jones
Bond, Edward Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Johnston, William (Belfast)
Boulnois, Edmund Fisher, William Hayes Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)
Brassey, Albert Fison, Frederick William Kenyon, James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Flower, Ernest Lafone, Alfred
Burdett-Coutts, W. Folkestone, Viscount Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)
Butcher, John George Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Fry, Lewis Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E) Garfit, William Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gedge, Sydney Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Gilliat, John Saunders Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Lorne, Marquess of
Charrington, Spencer Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Lowe, Francis William
Chelsea, Viscount Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Lowles, John
Clare, Octavius Leigh Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Clough, Walter Owen Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Greene, W. R. (Cambs) Maclure, Sir John William
Coghill, Douglas Harry Gretton, John McArthur, Charles (Liverp'l)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Greville, Captain McKillop, James
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gull, Sir Cameron Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

granted to Her Majesty, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including certain grants in aid of local taxation."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 52.—(Division List No. 291.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Thornton, Percy M.
Monk, Charles James Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.
Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Tritton, Charles Ernest
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Myers, William Henry Sharpe, William Edward T. Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Newdigate, Francis Alexander Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Nicol, Donald Ninian Simeon, Sir Barrington Williams, J. P. (Birm.)
Penn, John Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)
Pierpoint, Robert Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Pollock, Harry Frederick Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. E. Spencer, Ernest Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Purvis, Robert Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Strauss, Arthur
Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. Start, Hon. Humphry N.
Allen, W. (Newc.-under-L.) Joicey, Sir James Spicer, Albert
Barlow, John Emmott Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Steadman, William Charles
Bavley, Thos. (Derbysh.) Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey Strachey, Edward
Birrell, Augustine Lewis, John Herbert Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Lloyd-George, David Ure, Alexander
Brigg, John Lough, Thomas Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Broadhurst, Henry Macaleese, Daniel Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Caldwell, James Maddison, Fred. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wedderburn, Sir William
Causton, Richard Knight Molloy, Bernard Charles Williams, John C. (Notts)
Cawley, Frederick Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')
Channing, Francis Allston Moss, Samuel Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Woods, Samuel
Colville, John Pickersgill, Edward Hare Yoxall, James Henry
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy Pirie, Duncan V.
Dalziel, James Henry Provand, Andrew Dryburgh TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Rickett, J. Compton Mr. Dillon and Mr. Doogan.
Griffith, Ellis J. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Robson, William Snowdon

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £26,119, be granted to Her Majesty for the Salaries and

Aird, John Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) Drage, Geoffrey
Arnold, Alfred Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Drucker, A.
Ascroft, Robert Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Edwards, Gen. Sir Jas. B.
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Chamberlain, J. A. (Wor'cr) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Banbury, Frederick George Charrington, Spencer Finch, George H.
Bartley, George C. T. Chelsea, Viscount Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Clare, Octavius Leigh Fisher, William Hayes
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Clough, Walter Owen Fison, Frederick
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Flower, Ernest
Bethell, Commander Coghill, Douglas Harry Folkestone, Viscount
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cohen, Benjamin Louis Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.
Bill, Charles Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Blundell, Colonel Henry Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Fry, Lewis
Bond, Edward Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Garfit, William
Boulnois, Edmund Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Gedge, Sydney
Brassey, Albert Cripps, Charles Alfred Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Curzon, Rt Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S W) Gilliat, John Saunders
Burdett-Coutts, W. Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.
Butcher, John George Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 57.—(Division List No. 292.)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Greene, W. R. (Cambs) Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Gretton, John Long, Bt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Greville, Captain Lorne, Marquess of Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Gull, Sir Cameron Lowe, Francis William Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hamilton, Bt. Hon. Lord G. Lowles, John Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Hanbury, Bt. Hon. B. W. Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hazell, Walter Macartney, W. G. Ellison Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Heath, James Maclure, Sir John William Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Helder, Augustus McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Henderson, Alexander McKillop, James Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol) Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Spencer, Ernest
Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Holland, Hon. L. B. Monk, Charles James Strauss, Arthur
Hornby, William Henry Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.
Howard, Joseph Murray, Bt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Thornton, Percy M.
Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Myers, William Henry Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hughes, Colonel Edwin Newdigate, Francis Alex. Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Jenkins, Sir John Jones Nicholson, William Graham Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Johnston, William (Belfast) Nicol, Donald Ninian Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) Penn, John Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Kenyon, James Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Williams, J. P. (Birm.)
Lafone, Alfred Pierpoint, Robert Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.) Pollock, Harry Frederick Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)
Lawrence, W. P. (Liverpool) Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. E.
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Purvis, Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Rasch, Major Frederic Came Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Bidley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale Roberts, John Brvn (Eifion)
Asquith, Bt. Hon. H. H. Joicey, Sir James Robson, William Snowdon
Barlow, John Emmott Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Spicer, Albert
Bayley, Thos. (Derbysh.) Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey Steadman, William Charles
Birrell, Augustine Lewis, John Herbert Strachey, Edward
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Lloyd-George, David Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Brigg, John Lough, Thomas Ure, Alexander
Broadhurst, Henry Macaleese, Daniel Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Caldwell, James M'Ghee, Richard Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Maddison, Fred. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Causton, Richard Knight Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wedderburn, Sir William
Cawley, Frederick Molloy, Bernard Charles Williams, John C. (Notts)
Channing, Francis Allston Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Moss, Samuel Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')
Colville, John Moulton, John Fletcher Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Woods, Samuel
Dalziel, James Henry Pickersgill, Edward Hare Yoxall, James Henry
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Pirie, Duncan V.
Griffith, Ellis J. Provand, Andrew Dryburgh TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Haldane, Richard Burdon Rickett, J. Compton Mr. Dillon and Mr. Doogan.
Back to
Forward to