Commons Sitting of 13 July 1906

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Cardiff Gas Bill. Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next.
Cheltenham Gas Bill; Huddersfield Corporation Bill; London and South Western Railway Bill; London County Buildings Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Manchester Corporation Bill. Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill; North East London Railway Bill; Peterborough
1182
Gas Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Newport Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Devon, & c.) Bill [Lords]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kesteven, & c.) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords], As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Pier and Harbour Provisional Older (No. 3) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways Bill [Lords].
Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, " An Act to amend the law respecting Appeals in Criminal Cases." [Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Glasgow and South Western Railway. [Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, " An Act to make further provisions for the management of the English and Welsh estates devised by the Trust Disposition and Settlement of John Patrick Crichton Stuart, Marquess of Bute, deceased." [Bute (English and Welsh) Estates Bill [Lords.]
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read

1183
the first time; and ordered, under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 308.]
Bute (English and Welsh) Estates Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Doveridge; East Coker; Gunnersbury; Hersley Woodhouse; South Stainley; Stapenhill; and, Watford; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Two Petitions from Partick, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petition from London and other places, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Hednesford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (CONSTITUTIONS OF THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONIES).
  Petition from Cape Colony, for enfranchisement of the coloured races; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Chard, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
    Return presented, relative thereto [Address July 9th; Mr. Herbert Samuel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed, [No. 255.]
    EGYPT (No. 2, 1906).
    Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting the Turco-Egyptian Frontier in the Sinai Peninsula (with a Map) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline. Volumes I., II., and III, Minutes of Evidence. Volume IV., Index and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered May 22nd; Mr. John Robertson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 256.]
    INCLOSURES (COUNTY OF SURREY).
    Return ordered, "Showing (1) the number of Inclosures of common land made under the Incloaure Acts from 1845 to 1899 in the county of Surrey; (2) list of parishes within which such lands are wholly or partly situate; (3) total acreage of such Inclosures; (4) average acreage of such Inclosures."—(Mr. Murnhum.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  National Physical Laboratory.
  SIR BENJAMIN STONE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that commercial, mechanical, and physical tests, such as the determination of the tensile and compressive strength of structural materials, the determination of the electrical conductivity of materials, the determination of melting points of solids and liquids, the determination of the calorific value of fuels, and the photomicrographical examination of metals and alloys, are being undertaken at the National Physical Laboratory, or are included in the circular of charges of the laboratory; that, under the heading of testing of materials of construction, they offer to test shafts, joints, ropes, and chains; and, if so, whether such competition with private practitioners

  1185
  will be stopped, in view of the recommendations of the Treasury Committee in 1898, that it would neither be necessary nor desirable to compete with or interfere with the testing of materials of various kinds as now carried out in private or other laboratories.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The National Physical Laboratory was established as a public institution for standardising and verifying instruments, for testing materials, and for the determination of physical constants. The mechanical and physical tests referred to in the Question form part of the work of such an institution and were contemplated when it was founded. The last sentence of the Question is not one of the recommendations of the Report of 1898, but is taken from Clause 9 and should be read in connection with the rest of the Report, which clearly contemplates such tests. The Committee have always borne in mind the desirability of not interfering with work which is or can be satisfactorily done outside the laboratory; but there is considerable difficulty in laying down a precise definition of the classes of work which may properly be undertaken by the laboratory. I am, however, in communication with the Royal Society on the subject, with the view of ascertaining whether The existing regulations require amendment.
  SIR BENJAMIN STONE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether commercial tests of any kind (with the exception of the standardisation of instruments) have been or are being undertaken for private firms or individuals or public companies at the National Physical Laboratory; and whether the full and complete results of all such tests (with the exception of the standardisation of instruments), which may have been undertaken for private firms or individuals or public companies, have been published.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Mechanical and physical tests are undertaken for private firms at the National Physical Laboratory. The general practice has been in cases in which the results appear likely to be of scientific interest to ask permission to publish before undertaking the work; and in no case has permission been refused. The point shall be considered in connection with the other
  1186
  matters referred to in the Answer to the preceding Question.

  Raiding of Warehouse of Messrs Jaffe & Company, of Manchester.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that The warehouse of Messrs. Jaffe & Company, of Manchester, was recently raided in the night time by ex-Superintendent M'Kenzieand Inspector Vaughan, while a police sergeant and constable kept watch outside; will he say whether this was done under the direction of the chief constable; whether anything of an incriminating nature was found; whether a search warrant had been obtained; and what explanation is forthcoming as to the action of the police.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I understand that the incident in question occurred more than seven years ago, and was the subject of an informal arbitration by his honour Judge Barry, whose decision was accepted by all the parties concerned. In any case, the Home Secretary has no responsibility in the matter, as the Watch Committee is the police authority for Manchester.

  Police and Cab Loitering.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that James Scott, cab proprietor, Pakenham Street, Gray's Inn Road, was fined 2s. 6d. and his licence endorsed, on July 6th, at the Marlborough Police Court, for the driver causing obstruction when, having returned from a long drive, he walked his horse a short distance along Piccadilly; and whether he can take any steps to secure that the police shall show more consideration in future for cabmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) It is not the case that James Scott, a cab proprietor, was fined and his licence endorsed in the circumstances stated, but a driver employed by him was convicted and fined for loitering in Piccadilly, after having ignored a caution given him by the constable on duty. Every consideration is extended by the police to cabmen, but it is absolutely necessary, if the traffic of London is to be kept in motion at all,

  1187
  that the regulations should be strictly observed in congested streets like Piccadilly. The general question is under the consideration of the Select Committee on Cabs.

  Newspaper Distribution by Cyclists.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call the attention of the Commissioner of Police to the reckless way in which cyclists distributing newspapers ride in the streets of London; and whether he will give directions that this traffic shall be regulated in such a way as to consult the safety and comfort of pedestrians using the thoroughfares.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have called for Reports from the police upon this matter, and when I have received them I will give it my careful consideration.

  Great Northern Railway (Ireland).
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway is the only railway in Ireland which refuses to take third-class passengers on mail trains; and whether, in view of the inconvenience thus caused to Irish business men, he will make representations to the railway company on the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I have communicated with the railway company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and am informed that they do carry cross-channel third-class passengers, holding through tickets, on the mail trains to and from Kingstown. The company add that local third-class passengers are not carried on the mail train, but a through train is run following each of the mail trains within thirty minutes by which such passengers can travel, and they explain that their object in not carrying local third-class passengers on mail trains is that the punctual working of the mails may be maintained.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland will be directed to the total lack of sanitary accommodation
  1188
  on many of their long distance trains including, amongst others, the train leaving Bundoran at 7.20 a.m., arriving at Dundalk at noon.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I have communicated the hon. Member's Question to the railway company, and have received a reply of which I am sending him a copy.

  Education Bill—Compensation for Teachers Discharged.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the only compensation secured to any teacher in a voluntary school who may lose his employment through the passing of the Education Bill would be that secured to him under Clause 7 (4), by which clause he is entitled to continue contributions to the deferred annuity fund for six months longer than he would in any case be entitled to do under the rules now in force in pursuance of the Superannuation Act of 1898.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer is in the affirmative, but I think that the Government will alter the six months to thirty months. If any reasonable scheme can be devised in the future to mitigate the difficulty the Government will give it their friendly consideration.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,)moved:—" That until and including August 4th Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any standing order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11." He did not know whether any serious objection would be taken to this Motion. It might perhaps be said that it was made too early in the session, but he did not think that according to precedent that was so. As he mentioned the other

  1189
  day, the session began rather later than usual, and it was proposed to finish this portion of the session rather earlier than usual; but apart from that, although for the last four years the Motion had been taken on an average nearer the end of the session, yet for the previous four years it was taken twenty-four days before the end, and it was now twenty-one days before the proposed adjournment. On the small point of precedent, then, there was not much to be said. No doubt Members would be anxious to know what use the Government proposed to make of the extended powers they were seeking. The Bills they proposed to deal with wore mostly departmental Bills, or at all events non-contentious, non-party measures. He knew the fallacy lurking under the expression non-contentious, but he gave a general indication when he mentioned such Bills as Plural Voting—as an example to the contrary—or the Merchant Shipping Bill, or the Workmen's Compensation Bill; those were not Bills to which the attention of the House would be directed during the remaining weeks of this part of the session. Several of the Bills to be dealt with were legacies from the late Government, and from these it might be assumed the venom of contention was withdrawn; and another Bill included among those with which the Government wished to proceed had the distinction of being backed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—the Musical Copyright Bill. The object was by a little extra overtime to secure the passing of some useful measures. He would give the list of these measures. The Government did not limit themselves to this list; there might be other Bills of the same character which they would proceed with. First, there were routine and departmental Bills, the Post Office Sites Bill, the Isle of Man Customs Bill, the Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Bill, the Open Spaces Bill, the Dean Forest Bill, the Crown Lands Bill, the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill, the Marriage with Foreigners Bill, the Infectious Diseases (Ireland) Bill, the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, and the Land Tax Commissioners Bill. These were Bills which would meet with the approval of the vast majority of the House. Then there were non-party Bills which had been through Grand Committee. There were three commercial Bills of considerable
  1190
  importance, the Marine Insurance Bill, the Prevention of Corruption Bill, and the Bills of Exchange Act Amendment Bill. There were two agricultural Bills, the Dogs Bill, and the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Bill; and there were also the Fatal Accidents (Scotland) Bill and the Labourers (Ireland) Bill. The only Bills which remained on his list were the Musical Copyright Bill, the Revenue Bill, the Colonial Marriages Bill, the Judicature (Ireland) Bill, the Trade Disputes Bill (which he admitted was of a somewhat different character, but it was quite understood that it would be taken before this portion of the session terminated), the Public Trustee Bill, and the Street Betting Bill, a most useful measure which had come down from the House of Lords, and which the Government had adopted as their own. There might possibly be two or three other minor measures of a similar kind. It would be a distinct addition to the useful work of the session if they were able to pass these measures in the few days that remained before the adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That, until and including August 4th, Government Business be not interrupted under the Provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there were some portions of the right hon. Gentleman's brief statement to which he did not take exception. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman had quite misunderstood the present position of business, and the parallel he had drawn between the present session and previous sessions was wholly misleading. If he really was going to ask the House to spend the time remaining to them before the adjournment in doing work other than that of Supply and the Education Bill, he would be violating the spirit and the letter of the understanding that was come to upon an earlier occasion. ["No."] He raised no strong objection to the Government's taking Bills which did not divide

  1191
  parties or excite general opposition. But if the right hon. Gentleman was going to take a measure of the first importance like the Trade Disputes Bill in the small hours of the morning in July he asked the House to consider whether that was a reasonable proposal. It would be unreasonable in any circumstances; it was grotesquely unreasonable when they had an autumn session before them. They had not had a clear authoritative statement as to how the time of the autumn session was to be occupied. It was true that the Trade Disputes Bill passed its second reading without a division, and no one denied that it dealt with a subject that ought to be dealt with, for the existing state of the law could not and ought not to be allowed to continue. But the Government had two different and inconsistent solutions of the question, and they required very full consideration on the part of the House. The Bill dealt with the interests of the great trade unions, the general conditions of industry in this country, and the relations between employers and employed. With an autumn session before them, this was not a proper Bill to be taken in the small hours of the morning. Apart from the merits of these Bills, he submitted that the time at the disposal of the House ought to be devoted to Supply and the Education Bill. The Government had followed the single precedent of last year by giving only twenty days to Supply instead of the maximum of twenty-three which the Supply Rule permitted. Last year when the late Government gave only twenty days to Supply what course did the Prime Minister pursue? He did his best by Questions across the floor of the House to protest against such a limitation of discussion in Committee of Supply. Not only so, but the right hon. Gentleman moved that twenty-three days be given instead of twenty. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told them ten months ago that the Supply Rule had broken down because within twenty-three days they could not get through an adequate discussion of Supply, and now the same right hon. Gentleman was a party to restricting discussion in Supply to twenty days. He had not felt disposed to raise violent objection to this restriction this session until he learned the course the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Army
  1192
  Estimates, because he recognised that the Estimates were in the main the Estimates of the late Government. But the discussions in Supply were not mainly discussions on particular financial proposals; they afforded the great opportunity which the House had of criticising the administration of the Government. There were great needs of criticism which the Government had brought upon themselves. One related to South Africa and the other to the Army. There were questions of the utmost importance connected with the new Constitution of the Transvaal, which could only be discussed, as far as he knew, on the Estimates. They constituted a great claim for additional time. Since last night a new necessity had been thrown upon the House for commenting upon the great proposals made by the Minister for War. The Secretary of State made two able and interesting speeches which occupied three hours and ten minutes. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman could have made them any shorter. He granted that, and it was part of his case. Of the time occupied by the whole debate less than two hours were occupied by Members of the Opposition.
  MR. J. WARD: There were only three of you present part of the time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that so long as the Government were of opinion that Members could devote themselves to dinner and debate at the same time that phenomenon would often repeat itself. But the fact remained that of the single night given up to the exposition and discussion of a plan of Army change, which involved the destruction of ten battalions as well as other important alterations, only two hours wore allowed to the Opposition for expressing their views. Could anyone say there was a Parliamentary precedent for such a restriction of liberty of debate as that implied?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The statement of policy of my right hon. friend had nothing whatever to do with this year's Estimates. It was a statement of his prospective policy, which it was thought respectful to the House to make at this early period, in order that

  1193
  they might have the whole autumn to examine and familiarise themselves with it and criticise it when the time comes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman's interruption filled him with greater surprise than he had before, and he would tell the House why. The right hon. Gentleman was not present last night when an earnest appeal was made for more time. They asked for time in the autumn. They recognised that it was difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to find time at a reasonable hour in the evening before separating in August, and what they humbly put in a request for was that they should have an opportunity of considering and commenting upon the plans of the Secretary of State for War before the right hon. Gentleman carried out his scheme or took such steps as would prevent him from withdrawing it. If the Prime Minister meant, by his very courteous interruption, that they should have time to consider the scheme in the privacy of their own chambers, in quiet meditation, or to prepare their speeches for next year's Estimates, of what use was that for attacking the scheme if they thought it to be wrong or of modifying it if they could persuade the Secretary of State that it required modification? If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to give in the autumn such privileges as the late Government invariably gave when great Army changes were suggested, he would not say another word on the subject of the Army Estimates.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it is very likely that, if the right hon. Gentleman and his friends wish to sit a day or two longer than they otherwise would have to do in the autumn session, we might afford them an opportunity of doing so. I think it is reasonable that a certain amount of intellectual steam should be let off on the proposals.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman means by intellectual steam. If that is his polite way of describing a debate in this House—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I thought steam was a motive power?
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: Not when it is let off. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give us days for this discussion?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A day. [" Oh."]
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought that one day was neither in accordance with precedent nor with the necessities of the case. One day was better than nothing, but he earnestly trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to give more than that. But, at all events, let that opportunity, whether it was one day or more, be before the Government were really committed to the work of destruction, as he and his hon. friends thought—of change, as all must admit— which was adumbrated in the speeches of the Secretary of State for War yesterday. So much for Supply. Now he turned to the Education Bill. It would not be in order to dwell on the insufficency of the time given to this Bill, except by way of a premiss to the conclusion that if there was more time it ought to be given to the Education Bill. Let him remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he considered the Parliamentary pledge which was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the debate on the closure resolution. In reply to a question put by himself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that they must be up by August 4th, and that if they were to be up by that date, with the exception of three Fridays, the Government were prepared to give the whole time between then and the date stated to the Education Bill and the necessary business of Supply, and he added that two of the Fridays were private Members' Fridays, and that the third Friday would be devoted, it might be to the Trade Disputes Bill or to some other Bill—he was not in a position to say which. That was a statement made argumentatively in order to show that the Government, however desirous of giving more time for the Education Bill, could not do so. The letter of that pledge would prevent their even carrying those small administrative and uncontroversial Bills to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He did not press them to keep that part of the pledge. He did not for a moment desire

  1195
  to exact the strict letter of the law and have his pound of flesh. But he was quite unable to see how the Government, in face of the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could make such a proposition as that of using the time after 11 o'clock for such a measure as the Trade Disputes Bill. He did not know what the views of the Labour Party might be. No doubt they were anxious to have the Bill, but he could not believe that they would desire that the measure, the importance of which they would be the first to recognise, should be passed through the House without adequate discussion. He did not think that by trying to force on the discussion of such a measure after 11 o'clock the Government would make much progress. They would certainly arouse an unnecessary bitterness of feeling on a Bill which deserved full and fair discussion, and which ought in no sense to be made the battleground of parties.
  MR. LEHMANN: Why not discuss it after 11 o'clock on its merits?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if they were not competent to discuss Supply after 11 o'clock they were not competent to discuss the Trade Disputes Bill after 11 o'clock. He was not in the House at the time, but he understood that the Labour Members most earnestly pressed the Government to restrict the hours of debate to 11 o'clock; and the very gentlemen who now wished to discuss the Trade Disputes Bill after 11 o'clock were those from whom the 11 o'clock rule was devised. The Government had wasted many days this session during which they might have got on with this measure. [An HON. MEMBER: What days 1] Well, they spent two days over a fiscal resolution which they could not explain, and they spent another day over a minute analysis of the wit of a learned Judge. There were three days which might have been better spent on the Trade Disputes Bill. After 11 o'clock the House was not nearly so well qualified to deal with controversial subjects. He hoped the Government would feel that he had made out a case. He did not raise objections to the uncontroversial Bills; but considering that only twenty days instead of twenty-three had been given to Supply, and that
  1196
  in the Education Bill they were dealing with a vastly controversial measure under a system which did not enable them to discuss half the Bill, he must say that the Government were precluded from dealing with such subjects as the Trade Disputes Bill after 11 o'clock. Small Bills if they liked; but it was not in the interests of the House that the right hon. Gentleman should use his great majority in order to pass such important measures as the Trade Disputes Bill at inconvenient hours in the morning.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he did not know that he was in order in again rising, but he asked leave to make some explanations which he hoped would disarm some of the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman. After all, the strong point in his objection to the proposal of the Government was the position given to the Trade Disputes Bill. But the Government did not intend to take more than the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill before the House adjourned, and their intention was to take that on a Friday between 5 and 11 o'clock. In that way there would be time for the discussion of the really one point in that Bill which excited strong feeling. The Report stage and the Third Reading would be taken during the autumn session, during which those who had taken strong views on the subject would have an opportunity of expressing them. Then the right hon. Gentleman complained of the comparatively small amount of time given to Supply. But how did they stand in regard to the amount of Supply that had been taken this year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not refer to money, but to policy.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that none the less money was of material importance in this matter. He found that this year at the end of the fourteenth allotted day 71 per cent. of the whole sum involved had been passed, whereas in 1905 at the end of the eighteenth day only 61 per cent. had bee a passed, and in 1904 at the same time only 55 per cent, had been discussed. They did not stand badly, therefore, in that matter this session. As to the Army Estimates and Army questions generally, five days had

  1197
  been given to them this session, so that there again there was no ground for complaint. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer as saying that the time of the House up to the adjournment would be given either to the Education Bill or to Supply, with certain exceptions. Well, that was true. The time of the House, according to the Standing Orders of the House, would be so devoted ["Oh"] but now they asked for the suspension of those Orders in order to find time for certain other uncontentious, departmental, useful measures which they thought the House ought to pass. He thought that was a complete answer to the whole case of the right hon. Gentleman, and they would be prepared to leave a certain opportunity for the discussion of the great Army question in the autumn session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he now understood the right hon. Gentleman to promise that they should have an opportunity of discussing the Army scheme before the Government were absolutely committed to the practical steps of that scheme.
  SIB H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas understood to dissent and to say that the Secretary of State had already stated that he could not consent to refrain from action until his project had been further discussed.
  MR. A. .J. BALFOURsaid that at any rate he hoped there would be no attempt to take the Trade Disputes Bill after eleven o'clock.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYasked for information as to whether the Government intended to bring in any new Bill. He thought they ought to receive an assurance that no now Government Bill of an important character would be introduced at this period of the session or in the autumn session. The right hon. Gentleman had made reference to some Bill of the first rank as being free from controversy, and as being legacies from the late Government. There was one in which he was personally interested, viz., the Dogs Bill. He hoped that every opportunity would be given to get that Bill passed, although it had met
  1198
  with considerable opposition on the Ministerial side of the House. He thought that everybody would admit that the discussion which they had had in regard to Clause 4 of the Education Bill was one which was justified and one which was likely to be properly renewed upon Report. He thought they would also be justified in asking the Government whether they could take it that no further public bills would be introduced, and that they would not take such Bills on Supply days. They ought also to know what the business of the autumn session was.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked the indulgence of the House in order to explain two things. Then was a little ambiguity in regard to the word "steps" and he did not want there to be any misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he understood that there would be no "steps" taken for carrying out the policy of the Secretary of State for War until the autumn session. H" did not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "steps," and, as his right hon. friend the Minister for War said yesterday, he could not restrict himself in regard to taking steps in the matter. Therefore he did not think they could at all admit that he was restricted in this matter. He trusted that the opportunity that would be given would be in time for the enforcement so far as it could be enforced of the general criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. To talk plainly upon the matter, in the case of the reduction of some battalions, some steps might be taken, and he could not promise that they would not be taken. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down made a great point of nothing being taken except Supply on Thursdays and Supply nights when overtime was worked. He found, however, that in 1900 ten bills were proceeded with after this Motion was carried; in 1901 four bills; in 1902 nine bills; in 1903 four bills, and in the next year he thought five bills. Some of these were highly contentious measures.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not rise to deal with the question which the right

  1199
  hon. Gentleman had raised. Indeed he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He wished to call attention to another matter. The right hon. Gentleman now said that he could not pledge himself that something would not be done by the Secretary of State for War before the autumn sittings. Rumours had reached him that something had already been done before the House heard the scheme. He would not be in order in complaining of that now, but on another occasion he would complain of it seriously. He merely rose to express the hope that as little as possible would be done before the House had had an opportunity of considering the whole question, and that that opportunity would be given as early as possible in the autumn session.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)said he did not understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "as little as possible." It was very undesirable that an undertaking should be given in any vague terms, as there might be a dispute afterwards as to its meaning. He therefore thought they must leave themselves free.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that, as one who had strongly advocated the new Rules under which the House rose at eleven o'clock, he wished to give unqualified approval to the proposals which the Government were now making. He trusted that the Resolution would meet with the general support of the House. He would remind hon. Members, especially on the Opposition side of the House, that the discussion of the Trade Disputes Bill certainly need not occupy any great amount of time. The Bill had been discussed so often and the principle of the new clause was accepted unanimously by the House upon the Second Reading. Prolonged discussion therefore did not seem to be necessary, as the only point remaining to be decided was the words which would best secure the carrying out of the intentions of Parliament to give protection to trade unions. That being so the time offered by the
  1200
  Government with reasonable limitations as to the length of speeches and in regard to repetitions, would be amply sufficient for the purpose of enabling that measure to pass.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERasked what the effect of this Motion would be in regard to private business, both opposed and unopposed. He did not understand that there was any intention to interfere with private business.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not think that private business would be interfered with by this Resolution. If private business was unopposed it would be taken first, but if it was opposed it would have to come on at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means might fix. Of course if it happened upon a d"y allocated to the Education Bill it would have to be taken after half past ten after the closure was concluded. If the private business came upon a Supply day it would be taken at a quarter past eight o'clock.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Secretary of State had told the House that he was going to take them fully into his confidence as to these changes in the Army. He now said he was going to destroy ten battalions of the Regular Army, and these battalions consisted of 3,000 men belonging to the regular artillery. The right hon. Gentleman was about to break up the Militia garrison artillery: to destroy the Royal Arsenal Volunteers and to make other changes of very great magnitude which when once made could not possibly be repaired. Were they to understand, in view of the statement of the Secretary for War that he was going to take them fully into his confidence, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered it a compliance with that pledge that before one of these very important details had been discussed in the House he was going to make the whole of the changes?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he had only repeated what the Secretary for War had

  1201
  said that he could not be limited in this matter.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether he was correct in understanding that the reduction of the Army was going to take place without further consultation with the House of Commons. [OPPOSITION cries of " Yes."] Were they to have no opportunity of discussing the matter?
  SIR H. CAMBPELL-BANNERMANsaid the Secretary of State for War was perfectly entitled to take any steps upon his own responsibility without consulting individual Members of the House of Commons.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTinquired if the right hon. Gentleman could disband the whole Army upon his own responsibility? If he was entitled to disband 20,000 men without consulting the House of Commons he supposed he could disband the entire force.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked if the hon. and gallant Member supposed that 20,000 men could be disbanded from the Army between now and the months of October or November.
  SIR FREDERIC BANBURYinquired whether the Prime Minister thought that in pursuing that policy he was restoring the supremacy of the House of Commons which was said to be one of the mandates received by the Liberal Party at the General Election.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That, until and including August 4th, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11.— (Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) [ADVANCES].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the repayment to the Ireland Development Grant, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such annual sum as may be advanced out of that fund, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to Labourers in Ireland, and to make provision with respect to the application of portion of the Ireland Development Grant.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  Order for Consideration of the Lords Amendment read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Lords' Amendment be now considered."
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that in his opinon, the Bill was of much greater importance than appeared on the face of it three or four months ago when it was first before the House. Since that time various new facts had come to light in regard to this question of wireless telegraphy, and he was anxious to submit certain points upon the subject to the Postmaster-General. Since the Bill was hurriedly passed in the first few days of the session, the facts which had come out threw a different complexion upon the attitude of the Government. In the first place the Admiralty had responded to a request and had published its agreement with the Marconi Company, and the Postmaster-General had given a statement as to the licenses in vogue under the Act of 1904. They had, moreover, had the advantage of hearing the views of Lloyds Shipping Company and other commercial concerns which were vitally interested in the subject. The character of the Bill had been changed three times, and the measure had been materially altered in the course of its discussion here

  1203
  and in another place. He was convinced that if it passed as it now stood very serious danger would be involved, not only to this country but to the commercial interests of the world generally. The Bill continued for a third period of three years what was virtually a monopoly to a private company, and the Marconi Company would under it receive a position of complete supremacy in this country although a great deal of progress had been made since they first started. There were now other companies in the field whose apparatus, he was told by scientists, was as efficient from the telegraphic point of view as that of the Marconi Company. The Indian Government had adopted a system which was working with extraordinary success.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Nothing of the kind.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid his information upon the matter was that the system was working with success.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I know it is not so.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that had he known that the debate on taking the time of the House would have concluded so early he would have provided himself with the official statements of the Blue-book in which it was stated in black and white that the system adopted by the Indain Government had been carried on with great success. That was one of the new facts which had arisen since the Bill was in Committee in this House, and he did not like the idea of this monopoly being carried on for another three years, especially in view of the fact that at the present moment the company was trying to bring litigation before the Courts in order to establish the validity of its patents. He suggested that three years was too long an extension of time to give to the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904. The Act had only been in force for two years and science had revolutionised the whole system of wireless telegraphy and in the next three years the result might be still more marked. Therefore he thought it was unwise on the part of the Government to tie their hands for too long a
  1204
  period. There were good reasons from another point of view why this should not be done. In three or four months time an international congress was to be held to consider the whole question. Why should they tie the hands of the British Government a few months before the congress took place? Let them wait until the congress was over and the litigation had taken place and they saw whether the Marconi or the Forrest patents were the correct patents before they tied their hands for another three years. He ventured to suggest to the Prime Minister that no harm could possibly be done by including the present Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for one year; that it would give the competing companies time to fight out their quarrels in the Law Courts and enable the Government to discuss the whole matter in the conference without being tied down to a particular system. He moved that the Lords' Amendments be considered this day three months.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and add the words ' upon this day three months.' "—(Lord Balcarres.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid he was a little astonished at the line taken by his noble friend considering that the agreement was originally made and forced upon the country by a Government of which his noble friend was a member.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
  The House was counted, and forty Members being present,
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid the Marconi agreement had been approved by the late Government and by this House. He himself had no interest in the Marconi Company and cared very little which side won in the litigation which might take place. But the facts were these. If the present agreement was thrown out, the Marconi Company would be placed in a better position, and he had

  1205
  authority for saying that they would rather welcome the defeat of the Bill. The Bill really protected the interests of the Postmaster-General and the Government, and had nothing to do with monopoly. The Marconi Company under this Bill enjoyed no monopoly whatever.
  MR. J. D. WHITEsaid that on a previous occasion he gave his reasons for objecting to this Bill and those reasons applied with still greater force to the original Act of 1904. He pointed out that the responsibility for the Act of 1904, or the continuance of it, so far as it created a monopoly—and it did—really rested with the late Government, of which the noble Lord was a Member. Another point the noble Lord did not allude to was this. Although he mentioned the Admiralty agreement, he made no mention of the agreement between the Postmaster-General and the Marconi Telegraph Companies concluded on August 11, 1904. It seemed to him that that agreement must be read with the Act, which was contemporaneous with it. That agreement, which was made at the time when the Act was passed, gave very great powers and privileges to the Marconi Companies. If it did not give them a monopoly, it at least gave them a very strong preference over any other competitors who might undertake wireless work, and must, if developed, prove a serious barrier to the progress of wireless telegraphy. The noble Lord had said it was unwise to tie our hands for too long a time. What had the late Government done in that respect? The first and master patent of the Marconi Companies would expire in 1910, but by that agreement made with them on behalf of the late Government, the privileges given to the Companies were to extend to 1919, so that these preferences were extended to a term of nine years after the expiry of their master patent. British patents, moreover, did not extend to the Channel Islands, but the privileges granted to the company under the agreement extended to those islands. This agreement, which had been entered into by the late Government, was one of the most improvident that any Government had ever made. More than eighteen months passed after it had been entered
  1206
  into before it was brought before the House, and the House had to thank the present Postmaster-General for making it public. Had it not been for the right hon. Gentleman they would never have known what the agreement contained. He asked his right hon. friend to bear in mind how much the hands of the Post Office were tied in this matter. He reminded the House that the Act of 1894 had been passed on the plea of national defence, but by the operation of the agreement it had become to no small extent a source of profit of a private company instead of the country. That he considered was very regrettable. No doubt his right hon. friend would bear all these matters in mind when the international conference on wireless telegraphy took place, and he would no doubt be in a position later to afford the House ample opportunity for discussion when the question came before the House again. They might in future see some modifications of the measure designed to promote wireless telegraphy and extend its usefulness in every way for the benefit of the country.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said the noble Lord seemed to assume that he (Mr. Buxton) was forcing on this Bill contrary to the general feeling of the House, but he must point out that the Bill was only carrying out the-policy of the late Government with regard to this matter, which was the putting of wireless telegraphy under the control of the Postmaster-General. It was necessary that the measure should be extended for three years because the subject was now under a great process of expansion, and also owing to the meeting of an international conference which he hoped would make a considerable alteration in the basis upon which these questions had been placed. But it was necessary, in order to maintain the present position,, that this Bill should be passed for a limited period. In three years the Government then in power would have to deal with the question on a larger basis. The real object of the Bill was to enable the Postmaster-General to maintain some control over the system of wireless telegraphy, and it was not intended through it to give a monopoly to

  1207
  any one company. He intended to do his best to encourage all the varied forms of wireless telegraphy, so that the country might have an opportunity of making experiments with reference to its use, and thus in the end to be able to adopt the best system.
  MR. LUPTONsaid he was glad to hear the statement of the Postmaster-General that he did not propose to give a monopoly to any company. He did not see why the Government should have any control over wireless telegraphy in times of peace. In time of war, of course, all the rules of commerce were in abeyance. It was not to be supposed that in time of war the Government would allow any telegraphic signals to go to and from the country except such as they desired. That, however, was no reason why the Government should control wireless telegraphy to-day. Another invention of great hope and promise, the telephone, had retarded to a very unfortunate extent, and was still because the Post Office had monopolised it. Any attempt on the part of science or of enterprise to come between the Post Office and its monopoly was ruthlessly "squashed."
  LORD BALCARRES: On the assurance of the Postmaster-General that his policy is actively to encourage all forms of wireless telegraphy I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  LORD BALCARRESasked whether, as there was to be an International Conference in October, and very important litigation was pending between several companies, it was not possible, instead of passing this Bill for three years, to put it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act for twelve months? By the end of a year litigation would probably be completed, and the Conference, he presumed, would have been held. The
  1208
  position of the companies would have become much more clearly defined after the litigation, and the position of the Government would be made clear both in relation to the wireless telegraph companies and, what was still more important, in relation to the Governments who were represented at the International Conference.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was afraid he could not accept the suggestion, and he thought on the noble Lord's own argument it would be a mistake if he did so. If they once got an Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act it was likely to continue there. The objects of the noble Lord would be better secured by passing an Act for three years, at the end of which period the question must be considered by the Government of the day. If it should be thought necessary to move in the matter before the end of three years there was nothing to prevent their doing so. If necessary the Government could introduce a Bill with regard to any question whether there was an Act on the Statute Book or not. The noble Lord was very sanguine it he thought the litigation was likely to be completed in twelve months. Litigation in respect of wireless telegraphy had continued since the commencement of its invention and was likely to last for all time. He hoped under the circumstances the noble Lord would not press his objection.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. CALDWEIX (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1906–7.

  CLASS II.
  On the Order of the Day being read, there was a short pause, the Deputy-Chairman not having the necessary Papers to proceed with the Votes.
  SIR P. BANBURYmoved to report progress and ask leave to sit again owing to the extraordinary position in which he said the Government were in in not having got the Papers of what was really the first business, the Bills which had so far occupied the attention of the House having been very small matters.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press this Motion. It was a pure accident that the Paper on which they had to proceed had not arrived, the reason being that they had got through the business with exceptional rapidity. When the hon. Member for the City was re-elected to this House they hardly expected that they would get through the business so quickly. The hon. Gentleman always took so intelligent and so keen an interest in the business of the Government. However, the Paper had now come in.
  SIR P. BANBURYsaid he would withdraw his Motion, but he might be allowed to say that only a few moments before the right hon. Gentleman himself had said that the Opposition were doing the right thing in obstructing the Government. If he had ever been guilty of such a proceeding, which he did not admit, he had only been following the example of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question proposed, " That a sum not exceeding £75,335 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYcongratulated the lion. Baronet on his position as representing the Board of Agriculture, but tit the same time he
  1210
  thought the hon. Baronet's feelings of duty to his country must be somewhat harshly mingled with the feeling that the principle which he had always advocated with such zeal in this House had been in his case reversed. On more than one occasion in this House they had had attention called to the fact that if agriculture was to have the real voice which it ought to have as the leading industry in the country, it should be represented in this House by a Minister of Agriculture who was both a Member of this House and a member of the Cabinet. He was sorry to say that right hon. Gentlemen opposite had never followed that principle. The Department of Agriculture was represented in this House by one who was not responsible, who had no power to act on his own account, and who was obliged to refer to another place in any action he might take.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. EMMOTT, Old-ham, who was now in the Chair)said he did not think the question of the appointment of Ministers could be touched on this Vote.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he regretted very much that owing to the absence of the representative of the Board of Agriculture from this House they were constantly being placed in an extremely difficult position with regard to agricultural policy. They had a very good instance of that in the debate that took place earlier in the session upon the importation of foreign cattle. He doubted whether any hon. Member could recall a subject which excited more interest on a private Member's day, and yet there was nobody to answer directly for the Government, though the Board of Agriculture was the only possible authority that could be a judge of the question of foreign disease and the difficulties and risks connected with it. With reference to the Vote before the Committee he would like to ask a few questions of the hon. Baronet upon a subject in which he had always taken great interest, namely, the policy of the Board of Agriculture with reference to various diseases of animals. Strong representations had bee n made to the President of the Board of Agriculture with regard to glanders and sheep scab, and he

  1211
  hoped they would receive some information upon this point of a definite character. With regard to glanders, the country was in an extremely favourable position provided that the Board of Agriculture could put pressure upon the Treasury. In that case, glanders could be dealt with as effectually as any other disease, because it was found within certain limited areas and arose in very few spots. The local authorities were willing to act and spend money to get rid of these diseases. Glanders was a disease which affected, not only animals, but human beings, and therefore there was all the more reason for putting pressure upon the Treasury to provide funds for the elimination of the disease. With reference to sheep scab they were very much in the same position, although the outlook was more favourable than in former years owing to the strong action of the Department and the Act which had been passed. It was clearly proved that this disease also arose in certain districts. It had been shown that compulsory dipping could be carried out, and he thought that the time had now come for dealing with this matter in a comprehensive manner. The only objection was that people did not like being placed in the scheduled area, but if they had a general regulation, and made no distinction between different parts of the country, nobody would feel any stigma, and they would be able by strong measures to get rid of a disease which had undoubtedly caused a great deal of havoc and considerable annoyance. He was sure the extinction of this disease would be extremely welcome to the agricultural population. A Committee had also reported upon other diseases connected with sheep, although the matter was of a certain technical nature. Nevertheless he felt that the Department was on right lines in permitting scientific inquiries into these diseases. In the past but little had been known about them, and this Committee was throwing a great deal of light upon the subject. The cost of these scientific investigations was not great, and they were content with slow progress because the researches took a long time, but it was necessary that they should go on. They ought not to grudge the expenditure, because a very great advantage was being obtained from these scientific researches, and
  1212
  therefore he hoped that the hon. Baronet would be able to say that they were to be continued. Then there was another subject which came before the Sheep Scab Committee, and that was foot rot, and he thought there might be some inquiry into that question. In asking for further help in favour of agricultural education and for further support to agricultural colleges, he pointed out that there was one institution which had never yet received any State aid, although it was the most valuable institution of its kind —he referred to the Institution for Agricultural Research at Rothamsted— which was carried on with great advantage to agriculture generally. It had a most eminent agriculturist at it head, and it stood in a unique position from its long experimental experience. In order to insure that it should be worthy of the country, he thought the Board of Agriculture ought to see that it did not languish for want of funds, and some consideration should be paid to it to make sure that it would be able to continue its good work. The Board of Agriculture had a good staff and was an excellent department, and they ought not to grudge the funds necessary to keep it going. He hoped they would be assured that the scare and panic about the introduction of foreign disease had been entirely dispersed, and that there was no fear of the Department yielding to the agitation that the flocks and herds of the country were in danger.
  MR. SOARESsaid he wished to refer the Report of the Departmental Committee which dealt with preferential rates on railways for agricultural produce This was a matter which had occupied the attention of agriculturists for a great many years past. Again and again when this Vote had been brought forward the question of preferential railway rates had been discussed, and everybody knew the intense interest the farmers took in the question. It was the usual practice of every Government when in a difficult position to appoint either a Committee or a Royal Commission. This Committee was appointed under such circumstances. He was sorry that its

  1213
  Report was not more satisfactory, but one thing the investigations of the Committee had proved was that the agricultural community suffered under considerable injustice with regard to the carriage upon agricultural produce.
  MR. HOUSTONcalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
  House counted, and forty Members being present,
  MR. SOARESsaid it had been asserted that those who advocated a more equitable adjustment of railway rates were in favour of protection, but as a strong free trader he wished to repudiate that suggestion. To his mind, this question of preferential railway rates had nothing to do with protection in any shape or form.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this question comes under this Vote.
  MR. SOARESsaid the Report he was dealing with was issued by a Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture, and he did not think that upon this point they ought to be accused of being protectionists. All he contended was that when they granted a monopoly, as they did in the case of railway companies, they ought .to see that that monopoly did not injure the general community. Special privileges carried with them special rights.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member -appears now to be discussing legislation, .and that is not in order.
  MR. SOARESsaid this Departmental Committee accused some of them of pressing for something of a protectionist nature, and all he wished to say was that they were doing nothing of the kind. The Report gave instances of very great grievances to agriculturists. The rate for agricultural home produce from Leith to Glasgow was 7s. 3d., whereas for foreign produce it was only us., which showed a clear preference of 2s. 3d. He was Aware that the railway companies contended that they were not to blame, but the shipping| companies, but he would be
  1214
  able to show that it was the fault of the railway companies. On page 3 of the Report there was the evidence of a Mr. Drysdale, which showed that 70s. per ton was charged for fresh meat and only 45s. per ton for frozen meat on the railway. That could have nothing to do with water carriage, and was a clear instance of preferential rates.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. Member can show that that state of things can be remedied without legislation it will not be in order upon this Estimate,
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid the Report made certain suggestions as to administration, and he contended that it was therefore in order to discuss the railway charges.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Barnstaple had made certain allegations which he understood were ruled out of order. He wished to know if he would be in order in answering the allegations which had been made.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet cannot answer what is out of order. So far as the allegations are in order he can answer them.
  MR. SOARESsaid the Board of Agriculture by closer communication with the Board of Trade and by representation to the Board of Trade Committee could considerably help the farmers in this matter without legislation.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that for ten minutes the hon. Member for Barnstaple had been making remarks which conveyed certain imputations upon railway companies. Surely he would be allowed to answer those allegations.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It depends on whether those remarks were out of order. If the hon. Member will bring his observations into line with what has been laid down by the noble Lord and deal with matters that can be dealt with by administration, then he will be in order, but he cannot deal with questions which can only be dealt with by legislation.
  MR. SOARESsaid he would give an instance which came within his own knowledge in the town of Barnstaple, where the railway companies charged 38s. 4d. per ton from Barnstaple to London as against 17s. 6d. for foreign meat from Southampton to London. The Report also said that the railway companies made a profit of 18s. 4d. per ton by traffic to Barnstaple, whilst they made a profit of 7s. a ton on other traffic. He was aware that that had been denied by the railway company. All he wanted was that the President of the Board of Agriculture should put himself in touch with agriculturists in order to bring these questions forward. The Board of Agriculture had in one case in the past taken the part of the farmers and had brought these matters before the Board of Trade. He wanted the Department in every instance to make it known to the farmers that if they had a grievance of this kind, they should send to the Board of Agriculture and it would be taken up. He thought farmers ought to look upon the Board of Agriculture as a place where they could lay their grievances. If the Board found that a farmer had a grievance in this matter, then they ought to bear the expense of any action which might result from it. The proceedings before the Railway and Canal Commissioners were of a very complicated character. The Report said—
  "The result was that the farmer at Barnstaple who paid 38a. 4d. per ton for 2 ton consignments, or 34s. 2d. per ton for 3 ton consignments, found himself in full competition with a rate of 17s. 6d. per ton on foreign meat from Southampton on the one side and a rate of 25s. per ton from Liverpool on the other."
  What, the Report practically said was that the farmers ought to combine to send their goods to places where they could be handled more expeditiously. Time and again in these discussions co-operation among farmers had been advocated. He was sure they would all cordially agree in urging the fanners to cooperate. He believed that as time went on, fanners would more and more co-operate with each other in these respects. He. was not entitled at present to go into questions of legislation, but he might say that he did not see how agriculturists could be helped in this matter of cooperation without .legislation. He
  1216
  sincerely hoped that the Board of Agriculture would in the first place impress upon farmers the advantage of co-operation, and in the next place that they would prove to the farmers throughout the country that they had in the Board a real friend who would take up the question of railway preference rates and fight the battle on their behalf.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he regretted that more agriculturists were not present on both sides of the House whilst this debate proceeded. Having regard to the statements made in the discussion of the Land Tenure Bill by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they represented the views of the farmers of the country, he thought they might at least have found it possible to be present to-day in greater numbers. He wished to draw special attention to the findings of the Departmental Committee and to ask the hon. Baronet representing the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. one or two questions in connection with it. First of all, however, he would like to point out that the whole findings of this Departmental Committee on Railway Preferential Rates were really in favour of fiscal reform. Free traders had constantly attacked their opponents in connection with this question, on the ground that agriculture was not so much handicapped by free trade as it was by unfair rates imposed by railway companies. This Committee was appointed to inquire into the very question, and,, although he did not altogether agree-with its findings, and although he agreed to some extent with the hon.. Gentleman who had just spoken that it had not altogether treated agriculturists fairly, still at the same time they must remember that it was a very representative Committee and that its findings said that it was impossible to impose restrictions upon railway companies and cause them to give better rates than at present. Therefore, the whole-of the argument of the average free trader, that agriculture was handicapped more by the unfair rates of the railway companies than by anything else, fell to the ground. He would like to refer to the Minority Report of the Committee, signed by Mr. E. G. Haygarth Brown, who, he understood, was at the

  1217
  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and he hoped the hon. Baronet would see his way to carry out some of the suggestions made by that gentleman, because, he ventured to think, his suggestions were, on the whole, more valuable than the findings of the majority. One of the most important suggestions was as follows—
  "In existing circumstances agriculturists have no practical means of ascertaining whether such preference exists in any particular case, and no practical means of testing the question whether such preferential treatment, if it exists, amounts to undue or illegal preference."
  That, surely, was a most important point. The average farmer, whether in Sussex or n Devonshire, had no means of finding out whether rates charged were illegal or whether rates showed undue preference or not. The third suggestion made by Mr. Brown was that the Board should obtain, when requested, for the information of agriculturists, particulars of rates for imported traffic and the division of these rates into charges for sea and land traffic and for dock, harbour, shipping, and carting charges. It would be of great value if that suggestion were carried out. At present, in most cases, it was absolutely impossible for farmers to find out these things and to make complaint where undue preference did exist. Another good suggestion was No. 7—that the Board should have power, subject to the sanction of the Treasury, to pay a part or the whole of any expenses incurred in connection with the bringing of cases of alleged preference before the Board of Trade. He did not suppose for a moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to that suggestion, or that the Board of Agriculture would be given any money for the purpose, but he thought it would be a good thing if it could be done. The expense of bringing forward these cases of undue preference pressed heavily on the farmers. Another suggestion in Mr. Brown's report was that—
  " A report of the proceedings in such cases before the Board of Trade be laid before the Board of Agriculture mid Fisheries, and that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries should report annually to Parliament on all cases of alleged preferential treatment in connection with which they have rendered assistance to agriculturists."
  That, again, was a most important recommendation, and one which he hoped the
  1218
  hon. Baronet would see his way to carry out. As the hon. Member for Barnstaple had said, agriculturists were constantly having dinned into their ears that they did not co-operate enough for the purpose of disposing of their produce, or buying what they required. Although he agreed that sometimes they did not co-operate sufficiently, he thought rather unfair accusations were brought against them on this question of co-operation. It was impossible for farmers to make up their produce in very large quantities, and certainly it was impossible for them to forward their produce in the large quantities which came from the ports. It was only in accordance with common sense to suppose that produce should be sent in larger quantities from the ports than from country stations. This had become increasingly the case in the home counties of Surrey, Sussex, and Kent. There were many parts of the country which were mainly residential, consisting mainly of villas with 30 or 40 acres around them farmed for pleasure. There might not be more than three or four farms in the district which were carried on for commercial purposes to each station. It was impossible where there were only three or four farms to each station to make up a sufficient quantity in one consignment in order to get the benefit of the rates which the railways companies allowed where consignments were made up in large bulk. It seemed to him that something should be done in connection with this matter. It was not fair to accuse the farmers of not cooperating, for in many cases it was impossible for a sufficient quantity of produce to be made up to gain the advantage of being conveyed at the minimum rates. He thought that everybody who had to do with the land was tired of these constant accusations of unbusinesslike methods on the part of farmers. A great advance had in recent years been made in the direction of co-operation. He did not think agriculturists had always been well treated by the railway companies. In some cases they had treated them well. In his own constituency there was a society of sixty farmers who supplied milk to the south of London, and they had not been well treated by

  1219
  the London and Brighton and the London and South Western Companies— in fact they had been most unfairly treated. He thought it would be well if the Board of Agriculture had more powers, or rather if they would exercise more freely the powers which they already possessed for bringing pressure to bear on the railway companies, and so imitate the example of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in Ireland. If the Board of Agriculture in this country did more in the same way as the Irish Board he thought the farmers generally would gain some advantage.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the railway companies had no wish to make accusations against the farmers. It was to the interest of the railway companies that large consignments should be sent by the farmers, and they were only too anxious to get traffic. There seemed to be an impression that the railway companies put obstacles in the way of traders. If those who thought so knew more of the inner working of railways they would know that the first object of railway directors and servants was to encourage trade and obtain traffic. The hon. Member for Barnstaple had said that the subject of preferential rates to foreigners had occupied the attention of agriculturalists for many years. It was quite true that there had been vague and unfounded rumours among agricultural people on that subject. When the hon. Member regretted that the Report of the Departmental Committee was not more satisfactory he did not know what was meant by that. A report to be satisfactory must be true upon the facts of the case. He did not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would say that the Committee had not got at the facts of the case. The fact that the Report was in favour of the railway companies was not a proof that it was not satisfactory.
  MR. SOARESsaid that what he stated was that the Members of the Committee mistook the terms of the reference. They said they only had power to deal with questions where certain differences in the rates amounted to undue or illegal preference.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he could only deal with the Report. In regard to the first statement of the hon. Member that this subject had occupied the attention of agriculturalists for many years, he would call attention to paragraph 3 of the Committee's report—
  "The response to the invitation to supply evidence was very meagre. For some time very few replies were received, and the Committee were informed that this was due as regards chambers of agriculture to the fact that the next meetings of the chambers would not be held till October. Except to take the evidence of an inspector of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Committee found it necessary to adjourn till October, and as it was then found that scarcely any witnesses were prepared to give evidence, a further adjournment to February of last year became necessary. By that time the Committee had received the names of various witnesses who had been deputed by chambers of agriculture and other associations to give evidence, hut most of them still required time for the preparation of their evidence. Some of the witnesses so deputed subsequently wrote that they were unable to give evidence. The general unpreparedness of the witnesses caused the inquiry to make very slow progress, and the Committee found that they could take evidence on only eleven days between February and June."
  This showed that there was a sort of indefinite idea in people's heads that they were being treated unfairly, but that when the facts were gone into they had nothing to substantiate it.
  MR. SOARESsaid a farmer was not in a position to fight a railway company, though he knew that the rates were killing him in some respects. He knew a case where a man bought the product of an orchard, and the railway rates killed him. This man was not in a position to say what the rates ought to have been, and he did not think he gave evidence.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the paragraph which he had quoted did not relate to single farmers, though there would have been no difficulty in a farmer, if he wished, giving evidence before the Committee. it was the Chambers of Agriculture which did not come to give evidence. It was surely not contended that the Chambers of Agriculture were not willing to give evidence before the Committee if they had any to give. T he hon. Member opposite had said something about the evidence of Mr. Drysdale with regard

  1221
  to the conveyance of fresh meat and frozen meat, but he did not read the answer given by the railway company. The answer showed that it was impossible to carry different classes of meat on the same conditions. The Report said—
  "The witnesses for the Caledonian and North British Railway Companies in reply pointed out that fresh meat and frozen meat were not carried under the same conditions. Fresh meat was hung up in specially constructed vans, and the average loading per van was only 15¾ cwts. in the summer and 27¼ cwts. in the winter. Frozen meat was not hung, but packed so closely as to load upwards of 5 tons 10 cwts. per truck. Frozen meat was conveyed from London to Glasgow, but not from Glasgow to London. The rate of 45s. per ton was put in operation because the shipping companies trading between America and Glasgow wished to try to secure a portion of the frozen meat traffic which came from America direct into the Thames. This object had not been attained. Railway rates operated in both directions, and the result had been that any want of meat in Glasgow was supplied from London. The average of 27¼ cwts. per van for fresh meat worked out at 2 95 per van per mile compared with 4.10d. per truck per mile for frozen meat assuming a loading of only 3 tons per truck, so that if there was any preference it was largely in favour of the home producer. "
  While the railway companies were most anxious to give facilities, no!, only to farmers, but to all traders, they must make a profit; they did not exist for philanthropic purposes, and it was absurd to suppose that a railway company should haul a truck with five ions of frozen meat at the same rate as a van with one ton seven cwts-of fresh meat. The railway companies did not make undue profits. That was shown by the fact that the average return on the enormous amount of money invested in the railways was only 3¼ per cent. The Report of the Departmental Committee at page (i, referring to the Great Northern Railway, stated that—
  "Mr. Dennis alleged that there was a through rate for potatoes from Hamburg via Boston Dock to London of 14s. 2d. per ton, out of which the railway company paid the shipping company 6s. per ton, and in addition the dock dues and services performed at the dock might Joe taken at 1s., thus leaving 7s. 2d. per ton for conveyance to London, as compared with the local rate charged by the railway company of 9s. 2d. per ton.
  Mr. Oliver Bury, in reply, said that the rate for potatoes from either Boston dock or station was 9s. 2d. per ton for 4- ton lots or
  1222
  8s. 4d. for 5 ton lots, that this rate was , charged on all potato traffic whether imported or not, that no through rates were quoted by the railway company from Hamburg, that the company could not prevent shipping companies quoting any through rates they pleased as long as the full railway rate was paid, that the shipping company performed the services at the dock, and that the only payment made by the railway company to the dock company out of the rate was 4d. per ton for the use of the dock line and sidings."
  He did not wish to say a word against Mr. Dennis; he probably was honest in endeavouring to elucidate the facts, but the evidence showed conclusively that he was mistaken in his idea. There might possibly be some slight preference in a case where a ship came to a dock, and would not unload if the railway rate did not make it worth while to do so. In such a case the ship would go round by sea, and, as the goods came to London all the same, what difference did it make to the farmer? He really felt that it was necessary to put the case of the railway companies before the House. It was quite a mistake to suppose that they were endeavouring to be hard on the people, and especially the English people, who used their lines. He thought that the salary of the private secretary should be the same whether his patron was a Cabinet Minister or not.
  MR. BECKsaid that, on behalf of the Cambridge shire fruit growers, he appealed to the lion. Member for Somersetshire to arrange for periodical reports during the season as to the condition of the fruit crop in Holland, France and Germany. He thought the Board of Agriculture should meet the wishes of the fruit-growers in this matter in the coining year. This was one of the few agricultural industries which was really flourishing and increasing. For instance from Wisbech alone they sent out each year from 14,000 to 15,000 tons of fruit and had despatched as much as 380 tons in one night. He sincerely hoped the hon. Baronet would help these people in the way they desired. In 1905 a Departmental Committee recommended that a bureau should be established to supply information as to fruit culture at home and abroad and as to the condition of foreign crops. He did not see why the Board of Agriculture should not

  1223
  obtain and circulate that information from time to time in regard to not only fruit culture but every other branch of agriculture, including the wool clip and potato crop. It would be a good thing if farmers in this country could obtain reliable information from abroad in regard to all these questions, although he understood that the Board of Agriculture felt the responsibility of attempting to give such information. He wished to point out that the interests of agriculture had been neglected under the last Government, and his constituents felt strongly on the question; and he ventured to press strongly on the hon. Member for South Somerset the necessity of those small practical reforms which were matters of very great importance to them. He also wished the hon. Baronet to look into the case of the outbreak of an epidemic of swine erysipelas in his constituency. The yards were closed and the pigs were killed but the unfortunate owners got no compensation whatever. He understood that the officers of the Agricultural Department exceeded their powers in shutting the yards but kept within them in refusing compensation. The Isle of Ely farmers and owners of small holdings had seized every opportunity of helping themselves in all possible ways and they ought to be encouraged by the Board of Agriculture.
  MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he wished to draw attention to the wages paid to the gardeners in Kew Gardens, which, he alleged, were less than those paid to gardeners in the neighbourhood. They all knew that Kew Gardens were a credit to the nation and they all took a delight in visiting them when the flowers were in bloom. He thought that a great many of the men in Kew Gardens who did really skilled work were paid only 21s. a week, while men in the neighbouring district of Richmond who had much less valuable plants to attend to were paid 25s., and the men employed in public parks and gardens under the London County Council received 27s. and 28s. a week. The rate of living at Kew, too, was very high as compared with other places, and he hoped that the Government would recognise that they were bound to give some consideration to the case which he had brought forward.
  1224
  Then, again, there was the case of the constables who, at Kew, worked a seven day week all the year round. It was true that they had got 2s. a week advance, but they never got a Sunday off, and he thought they ought to have that privilege accorded to them at all events occasionally. He also thought that the amount which they were being paid should receive consideration.
  MR. GARDNERcalled attention to the report, which was filling agriculturists with terror, that one of the Channel Islands was about to erect abattoirs for the reception of live cattle from Argentina, and proposed to export dead meat, hides, and skins directly to England. He wished to know whether the Board of Agriculture had any authority over proceedings of that kind, and if not, whether they would promote legislation to give them powers of regulation. The protection of our flocks and herds from disease was a most important question for agriculturists, and anything that threatened their safety ought to be obviated at all costs. On the question of railway rates, the Great Western Company, which served his area of country, treated the farmers very fairly indeed, and he could not see why other districts should not be able to obtain equally favourable terms.
  DR. COOPERsaid that he quite agreed that all cattle admitted into this country ought to be free from foot and mouth disease, but as the exclusion of foreign cattle very closely affected his division he thought he was justified in calling attention to the unemployment in Deptford and Bermondsey caused by the continued exclusion of sheep and cattle from European countries which had been officially declared free from foot a ad mouth disease. All the sheep skins and hides were now kept abroad, with the result that a very large number of men who would be employed in dealing with them in this country were thrown out of work. Formerly the Deptford Foreign Cattle Market had had brought to it more cattle and sheep than any other market, upwards of 750,000 sheep used to be killed at Deptford every year, and over

  1225
  100,000 cattle. More than 80 per cent of those hides and skins came to Bermondsey and found work for a large number of tanners and fellmongers When this prohibition took effect a large number of these men were thrown out of employment. The cattle yard belonged to the city corporation and it was a very fit and proper place for the slaughtering of cattle. All the meat was inspected after slaughtering and the Londoner enjoyed the great advantage under that system of being able to purchase freshly killed meat which had been properly inspected. Part of their grievance was that nearly all of the hides from the American cattle were by agreement with the American cattle owners salted down and returned, to America and did not benefit the English tanner. Of course they had no objection to the importation of cattle from the United States, if it was free from foot and mouth disease, and they recognised that cattle from countries in which there was foot and mouth disease should not be allowed to enter. When, however, countries like Holland and Denmark and the whole of the German Rhine provinces were officially declared by their Governments to be free from foot and mouth disease, it was singular that preference should be given to cattle from the United States. He believed that no case of foot and mouth disease in England had ever been traced to cattle brought from Denmark or Holland. These countries were in this matter quite as careful as England, and inspected all cattle and sheep before shipment. The prohibition was an unnatural and artificial restriction of trade to the advantage of the American cattle exporter, the English farmer, and ultimately to the English landowner. At the present time the cattle shipped came from the United States and Canada, but the greater portion came from the United States. When there was an out-break of foot and mouth disease in five of the New England States two or three years ago the Government, instead of prohibiting importation from the whole of the United States as they had done in Europe, allowed it to go on as long as the United States Government drew a cordon round the infected States. Immediately the United
  1226
  States declared those five States to be free from disease, importation from them was allowed and we were having cattle from those States, although importation was not allowed from Denmark and Holland, which had been for eighteen months absolutely free from foot and mouth disease. He pointed out that owing to the restrictions against Denmark and Holland and other countries, the Americans were in the habit of holding back their cattle to keep up the price of meat in the market. By its action the Board of Agriculture gave an opportunity to the Americans to rig the meat market. The daily papers gave ample evidence of this. On one day last week they kept back 1,300 simply because the price was not favourable. If importation was allowed from Holland and Denmark, the Americans would not be able to hold their cattle back, and the Londoner would immediately benefit in having cheaper meat. He thought that the Board of Agriculture was following the wrong line because the Department was protecting the farmer and the land owner at the expense of the working man.
  MR. GEORGE FABERexpressed surprise that any hon. Member should advocate the free importation of cattle or sheep from abroad. Foot and mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia were much too serious to the agricultural interest of the country to be played with. He appealed with all the energy his language could command to the representative of the Board of Agriculture to take no steps to relax the present precautions. Any such relaxation would be unfair to the greatest standing industry that the country possessed. He could not speak with any confidence of the action of the President of the Board of Agriculture, for he could not forget that during the recent debate on the subject of the importation of Canadian cattle, the hon. Baronet who represented the Board sat in the House all day, but never gave the slightest indication of what the opinion of that Department was on a matter which vexed the country from one end to the other. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman and the Department he represented would take their

  1227
  courage in both hands and forget for the moment that they represented a Party, and try to remember that they represented the State. With regard to the subject of railway rates, the difference had been pointed out between the low rates for goods conveyed from the ports to London and those coming from inland towns. But obviously the reason why the rate from the port was low was that the sea rate and the railway rate together enabled the freighter to quote a low through rate. If the rates were unfair, there were the Railway Commissioners to be appealed to, a body established for the purpose. He agreed with the hon. Member for Barnstaple that it was a matter of expense to go to them, but if the Government were to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion and the Board of Agriculture were to pay the expenses of every farmer who was unfairly rated in taking his case before the Railway Commissioners, it would amount to a very serious sum in the course of a year. Agriculture, as they all knew, was in a submerged condition. Why? Because agriculture could not live in this country against the present competition with foreigners. That was the bed-rock of the whole matter. Let the Minister for Agriculture do whatever he liked, everything would be a mere palliative. At the root of the whole matter were the conditions on the other side of the Atlantic and in various parts of the world where there was virgin land on which men were able to produce corn and meat at a much lower price than we could hope to do here. As to the gardeners at Kew he heartily supported every word which had been said about them. He took a great delight in those gardens, and he thought those employed in them should be paid a proper wage.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYin reply to the various questions asked during the discussion said that he forbore to go into the question of the importation of Canadian cattle, believing that the action of the Government had given general satisfaction. In reference to the disease of glanders, the position had been explained by the President of the Board in reply to a deputation. It was a matter of pounds, shillings, and
  1228
  pence, but the Board of Agriculture were quite in sympathy with proposals to stamp out this terrible disease. The Treasury, however, regretted that they were unable to provide the necessary funds in the current year. He hoped, however, that when the Treasury was in a position to give assistance that, with the continued co-operate on of the London County Council, more effectual means would be taken to stamp out this disease. He was glad to be able to state that the action of the Board had decreased by more than one-half the outbreaks of the disease of sheep-scab. Very satisfactory results had endued owing to the action that had been taken by the Board in this matter, although he confessed that the stringent regulations had given rise to a certain amount of irritation in individual cases. The necessity of those regulations for the eradication of the disease was, however, generally recognised at present and they were being carried out with little or no friction. As to further inquiry into the origin and remedy for other diseases of live stock, the Board of Agriculture were most anxious where possible, and where they could get assistance from the Treasury, to make inquiry into the best method of stamping out any disease which affected our flocks and herds. A Departmental Committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject of Epizootic Abortion, and was conducting a most important inquiry. It would be premature to make any statement as to their labours, but the appointment of that Committee had already been amply justified by the results of its investigations up to the present moment. Then the Departmental Committee upon Railway Rates which was appointed a short time ago by Lord Onslow had been referred to. Complaint had been made, and not un-justly, of the Report of that Committee. The hon. Member for the Horsham division of Sussex complained of the Majority Report, and indeed it was only defended by the junior Member for the City of London. For himself, as with other Members, his own feeling was that the Minority Report was much the more valuable, but the suggestions in both Reports would be carefully considered by the Board of Agriculture.

  1229
  It was certainly the desire of the Board to be in close communication with farmers throughout the country, and farmers might with confidence feel that they had a friend in the Board, anxious to assist them, and knowing how difficult it was for the agricultural interest to fight the powerful combination of railway companies. He reminded hon. Members that the Board had not the same power as to railway rates in this country as could be exercised in Ireland. The hon. Member for the Wisbech Division had referred to the question of fruit-growing, and had asked for the issue of statistics on the question of fruit-crops at home and abroad. The hon. Member also said that his constituents would like to know how long they should hold their wool-clip and to have other general advice. As a farmer himself he would always be glad to have advice as to his business, but it was not possible for the Government to give advice on such speculative matters. They could give information from time to time from statistics which they had been able to prepare, but such information had to be founded on the most reliable information. The length of time which a man ought to hold his wool-clip was not, such information as a Government ought to give. His hon. friend had also expressed the hope that the present Government would not neglect the agricultural interest in the way the late Government had. Without going into such a controversial matter he might be permitted to say that he knew to what his hon. friend referred, and lie could assure him that the present Government had no intention of following the example of the late Government and they had shown that they were not unmindful of the interests of agriculture. With regard to the wages paid to labourers at Kew, referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, the Board would be quite ready to inquire into any allegation that the payment was below the current rate in the neighbourhood. But the wages of the labourers had been increased only two months ago from 21s. to 23s. a week. Reference had been made to the threatened invasion of the Channel Islands for the purpose of setting up a great cattle wharf in Alderney to which cattle could be brought from the Argentine
  1230
  and other countries to be slaughtered So far as he understood the matter it was simply a Stock Exchange-scheme. A syndicate appeared to think it would be a profitable thing to have such a wharf in that island for the slaughter of cattle. All he could say now was that the Board of Agriculture were fully alive to the matter, and were carefully watching it. It was very undesirable to go into the question of what powers the Board of Agriculture had to deal with a matter of this kind, but the hon. Member might rest perfectly assured that the resources of the Board of Agriculture were quite sufficient to deal with it if the proposal threatened to become a standing danger not only to this country but to the important industry of cattle breeding in the Channel Islands. The hon. Member was no doubt aware of the fact that there was a great industry in cattle breeding in these islands and that for over 150 years no cattle had' been allowed to be landed in the Channel Islands in order that the purity of the breeds there might be maintained. Such importation as had been suggested might have the effect, if not of destroying, at least of endangering to a very great extent this important business of cattle breeding. He could assure the hon. Member that all the facts were well-known to the Board of Agriculture, who might be relied upon to look after the interests both of this-country and of the Channel Islands. He hoped the people of the Channel Islands would take steps to-safeguard themselves and would not do anything to facilitate the entry of foreign, cattle into Alderney. With regard to-the observations of the hon. Member for Southwark, he could only say that it would be highly improper for the Board of Agriculture to relax the regulations against the importation of European cattle and sheep merely because Holland1 and Denmark had been free from foot and mouth disease for one year. Foot and mouth disease existed in other parts of the Continent. It was one of these insidious diseases which, after lying; dormant for while, broke out suddenly and spread with great rapidity. Therefore they could not take any particular country on the Continent and say that foot and mouth disease did

  1231
  not exist there, and that, therefore, the cattle of that country might be admitted here. They must take the Continent as a whole. It was a very infectious disease, and it did not respect scientific frontiers, and could be carried very readily from one place to another on the clothing or the boots of a person. The last case that appeared in London was at the Metropolitan market, and within thirty-six hours the disease appeared in the Edinburgh market, evidently carried there by a person who had attended the London market and then gone back to Scotland. The restrictions must be maintained, and he could not hold out any hope of relaxation unless the condition of things on the Continent altered very much. It would not be right to relax those regulations having regard to the enormous loss our farmers and ratepayers had suffered in the past owing to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he had been requested by the Holderness Agricultural Club to bring forward one case of swine fever. In most cases when an outbreak of swine fever occurred an inspector of the Board of Agriculture presented himself and ordered the pigs to be slaughtered. The case of this one farmer was different. At the commencement of May last a Mr. Doubleday was the proud possessor of a collection of 124 pigs; at the present moment he possessed something less than twenty. This was due to an outbreak of swine fever, which occurred on May 15. The farmer reported the outbreak to an inspector of the Board of Agriculture, and the inspector refused to slaughter the pigs. The inspector was of opinion that swine fever was put about by the carelessness of farmers in importing tainted animals into their stocks, but this was not the case here because this man hail not imported any pigs on to his farm since September, 1905. Two of his neighbours had had outbreaks of swine fever and in those cases the inspector had entered and ordered the slaughter of the pigs. He understood! in the case of slaughter the compensation paid was half the value when the pigs were diseased, and the whole value in the
  1232
  case of sound pigs. He failed to understand the action of the Inspector in this case, and could not see why one man should be treated differently from another. The best way of stamping out the disease, which had been very prevalent in the East Riding, was by slaughter.
  MR. ROWLANDSdid not think the hon. Baronet had quite grasped the view of the Member for the Wisbech Division of Cambridge with regard to the question of the culture of fruit. What the hon. Member really desired to know was whether something more could not be done to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which considered this question and reported on it last year. One or two of the recommendations were very important indeed. One of them was that someone should be appointed by the Board of Agriculture to act as the kindly adviser between the consignors and the railway companies. Another was that there should be an extension of the Market Gardeners' Act, which could be done by making Section 4 retrospective. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the answers he had already given, and was glad to hear that the wages of the Kew gardeners had been increased.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYpromised to look into the question put to him by the hon. Member for Holderness on the question of swine fever, and with regard to what the hon. Member for Dartford had said, he would only say that the recommendations of the Fruit Committee were receiving careful attention. Some of them required legislation and others required money, but his noble friend had quite recently received a deputation on the subject and had expressed the desire of the Board to do all they could on behalf of the fruit industry.
  MR. HICKS BEACHcongratulated the Government upon the opportunity they had given to the Committee to discuss the Vote for the Board of Agriculture. The hon. Baronet had referred to the Report of the Committee on Preferential Rates and had given the Committee the startling information that he was going to be guided by the Minority

  1233
  Report of the Committee, which was signed by one member, instead of by the Majority Report which had been signed by six members. He hoped the hon. Baronet had good ground for the rather startling attitude he had taken up on the matter. But other topics had interested the agricultural community of this country for many years more than those that had been mentioned, and none interested them more greatly than the question of the reform of local taxation; and, therefore, he would be glad if the hen. Baronet could give some information to the Committee as to when the Government were going to take this matter up. Another matter which should be forced on the attention of the Board of Agriculture was the butter question. There had been, a Committee sitting to inquire into the circumstances attending the sale of butter in this country, and he would like to ask the hon. Baronet whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation with regard to the sale and production of butter so that it might be safeguarded from adulteration.
  MR. BARNARDpointed out that the hon. Baronet in the course of his reply had stated that a good deal depended upon proper help being forthcoming from the Treasury. In this regard he asked the Committee to compare the amount given by the Treasury to the English Department of Agriculture with that given to the Irish Board of Agriculture. He did not take exception to Ireland receiving the large sum she did, but he thought it would be only reasonable if under the circumstances the English Department was better treated. Members from rural constituencies knew perfectly well that certain sums were placed at the disposal of the county councils out of what were called the " whiskey moneys " for technical education, but when it came to the matter of experiments and utilising these moneys for experiments in agriculture the county councils were confronted with restrictions of the Local Government Board auditors.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the Question did not arise on this Vote.
  MR. BARNARDsaid he would not go into the matter further; he only desired to
  1234
  suggest to the hon. Baronet that the English Board of Agriculture was not treated in at all a generous way, and he hoped he would bring this matter to the attention of his colleagues in the Government and if possible effect a change for the better.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he wondered if it had ever occurred to the Government that if there; was no compensation there would be very little or no swine-fever. People had only to feed pigs on maize, give them little water, let them lie dirty, and there would be as much swine-fever as the Government cared to pay for. He could not help thinking that the Government would do a great deal better by paying no compensation.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that under the provisions of the Scab Act the Board of Agriculture had power to dispense with its operation- under certain circumstances. In one of the islands in his constituency there were only sixteen sheep which were moved from the island only once in six or seven years, and it was an abominable hardship that they should have to dip those sheep twice a year. It took seventeen or twenty men to catch them when they had to be dipped. In another case it was even worse. There was a larger and more populous island. There were 300 or 400 people on it and there were about as many sheep. Those sheep never left the island and during a portion of the year they lived entirely on seaweed. Sheep disease of any sort had never been known on the island, and yet they were afflicted with this abominable hardship. They had sent a petition to the hon. Baronet which had not, he thought, received the sympathetic consideration it deserved, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would take this matter now into his earnest consideration.
  MR. REEScalled attention to the damage done to crops by motor cars. The dust raised by motor cars, he said, possessed some particularly irritating quality which injured the stock which grazed on a crop which had been smothered by it, and subsequently wetted by the dew.
  THECHAIRMAN: How can the Board of Agriculture deal with this question?
  MR. REES: I do not know, Sir, and if the Board of Agriculture cannot, I will try the Local Government Board.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked the hon. Baronet to be very careful how he abrogated any of the regulations with regard to the sheep scab. Everyone recognised that the Board of Agriculture had always done its best to initiate legislation when required. There were, he thought, one or two things that were now pressing in that regard. One in particular was a Bill dealing with fertilisers and feeding stuffs and their adulteration. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would enforce the recommendations of the Committee in that matter.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid that the term preferential rates was used as implying that they were given on equal quantities of commodities. Many loose statements had been made and in fairness the matter should be cleared up. In one case between two points the rate was stated as per 2-ton lots, but in the other case the rate from the shipping port was given only for train loads and very large quantities. He held no brief whatever for the railway companies; he would rather join with agricultural Members in getting all possible railway facilities, but they ought to have the actual situation placed fairly before the country. It had been stated that the present embargo upon live animals coming from abroad was not protective. If anyone wanted evidence as to its protective character, he had only to look at the case of Iceland sheep. There had never been a case of disease from Iceland, but Iceland sheep were kept out of this country. They had been of great advantage indeed to many northern farmers to put on the moors and less fertile land, and they realised a very handsome profit. They were no longer available, and in that way much injury had been done to the agricultural industry. He did not accept the statement, that the agricultural industry was satisfied at the exclusion of foreign cattle. Many agriculturists throughout
  1236
  the country felt it a very great hardship that they could not have the liberty to carry on their trade under safe conditions, as they would have under the free importation of cattle. The result of the exclusion had been that dead meat had been brought into the country—tinned, preserved, and chilled—and while disease had been kept out in the live animals, it had come in in the form of dead meat. In straining at the gnat they had swallowed the camel. The Board of Agriculture should seek to have the power restored to them of deciding whether live cattle should be admitted or excluded as the circumstances required.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  SUPPLY [24TH MAY] [REPORT].
  Resolutions reported:

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
  1."That a sum, not exceeding £2,053,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  2."That a sum, not exceeding £275,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Med cal Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,. 1907."
  3."That a sum, not exceeding £14,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at Home and Abroad, which will come in

  1237
  course of payment during the year ending on;31st day of March, 1907."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £165,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £65,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £426,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve (including Seamen Pensioner Reserve), and the Royal Naval Volunteers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £482,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."

CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS VI.
  8."That a sum, not exceeding £358,969, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, for Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees."
  9."That a sum, not exceeding £122,644, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for making good Deficiencies on the Income Accounts of the Funds for Trustee Savings Banks, Friendly Societies and Post Office Savings Banks."
  Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [21ST JUNE]. [REPORT.]
  Resolution reported:
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1906–7.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,490,741, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs.
  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [28TH JUNE], [REPORT.]
  Resolution reported:
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES 1906–7.

  CLASS II.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £110,146, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants in Aid."
  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [7TH JUNE]. [REPORT.]
  Resolutions reported:

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
  1."That a sum, not exceeding £2,111,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Quarterings, Transport, and Remounts, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  2."That a sum, not exceeding £4,492,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Supplies and Clothing, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  3."That a sum, not exceeding £775,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Ordnance Department Establishments and the Supply and Repair of General Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  4."That a sum, not exceeding £2,543,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Armaments and Engineer Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the31st day of March, 1907."
  5."That a sum not exceeding £2,353,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Barrack Construction; for Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad (including Purchase of Land), and for the Staff in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  6."That a sum, not exceeding £132,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for certain Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  7."That a sum, not exceeding £77,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Sundry Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  8."That a sum, not exceeding £1,094,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, Wounds Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  9."That a sum, not exceeding £1,681,000, be granted to His Majesty, to
  1240
  defray the Charge for Chelsea and Kilmain ham Hospitals, and the In-Pensioners thereof; for Out-Pensions and for Gratuities awarded in Commutation and in lieu of Pensions; for the Maintenance of Lunatics for whom Pensions are not drawn; for Pensions to Schoolmistresses and Nurses; for Rewards for Meritorious Services; for Victoria Cross Pensions; and for Pensions, etc., to the Widows and Children of Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  10."That a sum, not exceeding £180,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassion Allowances and Gratuities, also for Payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES 1906–7.

  CLASS III.
  11."That a sum, not exceeding £26,953, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Pay and Expenses of Offices of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before .Five o'clock till Monday next.