§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present session to encourage the formation of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—(i.) the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the salaries of the chairman, and of each of the other members of the Land Court; (ii.) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—(a) the salaries and remuneration of the Agricultural Commissioners and other persons appointed or employed by them, and by the Land Court, and the expenses incurred by the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners in the execution of their duties; (b) an annual sum not exceeding eighty-five thousand pounds for the use of the Agricultural Commissioners; (c) compensation in certain cases to members and officers of the Crofters' Commission."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
§ *MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)
said that the general expenditure under this Bill ought to be reviewed as a whole. The Land Court, the Agricultural Commission, and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland were practically part of one organisation, and therefore it was necessary to take the whole subject of expenditure under review. After all, the Agricultural Commissioner was to act as the State Ground Officer in the scheme of expenditure on small holdings; he took the work in its first stage, and the Land Court would take it in its second stage, and then would come in the new Board of Agriculture. All these were, as he had said, very closely connected, and one organisation; and he could not see how they could deal with the question of finance without reviewing all the authorities set up by the Bill—the Land Court, the Agricultural Commission, and the Board of Agriculture. The work which those bodies were to 1237 undertake was to regulate the tenure of land in Scotland. Money would be required for all their operations. There would be the work of carving out the farms into small holdings, and the creation and equipment of small holdings. The Land Court would also have to deal with the whole question of intensive cultivation, in regard to which no provision was made for enlisting the assistance of the local authorities, and therefore that would have to be paid work. Then there was the question of making provision for sylviculture out of the grants; of promoting the efficiency of small cultivation and of agriculture generally. The cost involved was like the methods of the Bill—somewhat hazy, and he thought that the different items of expenditure ought to be more completely defined at the present stage. If not now, he did not know when. The system of finance was defended as being the cheapest way of dealing with the question. But they should look at the facts before they could say that it would be the cheapest. Clause 3 of the Bill which set up the Land Court was not in the Bill of last year, and they ought to be told why that clause had been found to be necessary. There was an item of £6,000 for salaries of the members of the Land Court; but they ought to know why that new provision had been found necessary. A Land Court had not been found necessary under the Crofters Act, and he did not know why it was necessary here. The Land Court would not be recognised as a judicial authority, because the State being the managing director in the co-partnership, the Land Court would be regarded more in the light of an agency than of a judicial body. The expense of the Crofters Commission had been very considerable, and the work of the Land Court would be very much greater than that of the Crofters Commission. Under the Bill leaseholders were added, and the Crofters Acts were extended to all holdings below £50 rent or under 50 acres—which might mean holdings up to £500 rent, and on pastoral farms in the West Highlands up to 1,000 acres. The expenditure, therefore, might be very much greater than the £6,000 here provided. The Court would have to superintend and authorise the gifts and the loans that were to be made for equipment. It would have to 1238 conduct valuations for the incoming and outgoing tenants, which would be very numerous among a mobile population. They were no longer dealing with a residential but with an industrial population, and the whole of the valuations would be much more complicated. They would have to value individual holdings instead of townships, and the litigation that would ensue would be enormous. Valuations would have to be made of the existing equipments. Calculations would have to be made as to whether the loss would not be too great to incur. The new equipment would have to be set up by aid of the State, and that equipment would have to be supervised, or there would be an immense waste of public money. In fact, when, in an industrial district, a man went out of his holding, there would be the most intricate basis of valuation that could possibly be imagined, especially when free sale was excluded. The Lord Advocate had admitted that in some parts of Scotland litigation was carried on with the greatest vehemence. He had heard of two litigants who were disputing as to whether a march fence should have two or six wires on it. The case was carried from the Sheriff Court to the Outer House of the Court of Session, thence to the Inner House, and eventually to the House of Lords. As a matter of fact the litigants were the proprietors of only 130 acres each. He thought it would be wholly unwise to assume that the litigation would be comparable with that under the Crofters Acts. It was assumed that a great number of tenants would be able to agree with the landowner and would not come before the Land Court at all. But the rating immunity under the Bill would force the small holders before the Land Court. That was the only way to get relief for the rating of their fixtures. That rating was a very serious item. The reduction of 3d. of the income-tax was a flea bite compared with the 5s. involved in local rates. If a man could build a house in Lewis or Sutherland-shire for £400 or £500 and escape rating on it, the inducement to escape from the incidence of that rating would be sufficiently great to force every tenant to go before the Court. Perhaps that point could be cleared up under the valuation proposals of the Government. The work also of initiating small holdings must necessarily come before 1239 the Court. It would be for the Court to take the initiative. The local authorities would not do it; and the owners could not do it. It was said that ownership was not touched by the Bill; but His contention was that the Bill destroyed ownership. The Court must, therefore, find their way out, or they would be making ropes out of sand. He did not think that the cost of the Court would be less than three times the salaries; or, say £20,000 a year. Regarding the Agricultural Commissioner, he had to direct the whole land policy of the Government; to conduct inquiries throughout Scotland as to the requirements of the districts for small holdings, and as to the land available; to present his reports to the Land Court; to make plans and new steadings; to devise methods of utilising the old equipment; and to supervise the expenditure. If the small holdings were to be a success they would have to take part in the establishment of land banks and co-operative enterprise, otherwise the small farmer would not be able to compete with the large, nor with the Danish co-operator, in which case he would be an economic failure. He would have no financial difficulty in regard to the extension of intensive cultivation, but he would have the entire arrangements to make for it. He would have the supervision of the expenditure of £65,000 a year, and that meant something like £3,000 a year, taking the average cost of management at 4½ per cent. The Agricultural Commissioner himself could not possibly superintend the management of all the scattered holdings and the scattered investments throughout the country. He would have to have deputies in the different localities; and while there would be a large central office in Edinburgh, there would have to be local offices for the State factors. Private factoring in Scotland cost about £250,000 a year, and the whole of that factoring would conflict with that of the State. He could not think, therefore, that the cost of this Department would be less than £20,000 a year. His next point was the cost of the new Board of Agriculture. The cost of the Irish Board was £190,000, and he thought they ought to be told what the cost of the Scottish Board was to be. The Secretary for Scotland said they ought to have £200,000 a year.
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,) Forfarshire
No; what I said was that if we spent money upon agriculture in Scotland at the rate they did in other countries we should have to spend £200,000 a year.
§ *MR. MUNRO FERGUSON
said that appeared to be the sum which would be needed if the expenditure was of a satisfactory character. But they ought to be told what they were going to spend. It could not be limited by the salaries of the proposed Commission in Edinburgh, as the existing powers of the Board of Agriculture would have to be transferred to the new body, which would want a staff, laboratories, and the services of experts, so that the experiments might be conducted which were much wanted for small farms and the general working of agriculture. Then the new Board would be entrusted with sylviculture, and many hon. Members had expressed themselves in favour of afforestation being dealt with. He wished to know, however, whether the words which had been uttered upon that subject were mere words or would result in the creation of timber; whether they were simply words in the air, or population on the soil. It was possible to spend £250,000 a year upon afforestation, and unless £25,000 were expended they should achieve no results at all. Then there was the question of the cost of housing all these bodies and of the provision of the laboratories, which with the expenditure upon the central local office, must be very large. He thought it would absorb about £100,000 a year to give the Bill a start. If the objects of the Bill were not developed by the money they voted and that £100,000 was wanting, it would mean the ruin of the Bill. In addition £65,000 for the equipment of small farms was sufficient for the experimental work in regard to them, but would be wholly inadequate to meet the demands of the system established by the Bill. The land system in Scotland, whether it was satisfactory or not, was very highly equipped, and the capital now invested would be diverted, probably to the extent of £1,000,000 a year, by the passing of this Bill. On the average in 1875 it had taken about 20 per cent. to equip land on a rental of £8,000,000 as it then was. Now the 1241 rental was far nearer £5,500,000, the equipment more costly, and the occupiers could not meet the deficiency with regard to equipment. They had to take into account the fact that the State might be called upon to make up a large part of that deficiency, or else the agricultural equipment of the country must deteriorate. Then there were one or two contingent liabilities which they would incur by the Bill. There was the security for the owners' rent under the Bill, because he had security for seven years or for the end of a lease. An assurance was given to the owner that there should be no loss under the working of the Bill, and he did not know whether that meant that his rent would not be reduced for a still longer period, but at any rate it would involve liability upon the State of the owners' loss which was to be made good, and he did not think it was provided for.
§ MR. SINCLAIR,
on a point of order, said his hon. friend had arrived now at a question which would have to be discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill, and which had only a remote connection with the finance of the measure. He would, therefore, ask the guidance of the Chairman on the matter. The discussion on the point must be renewed, and if it were continued they would be committing the Committee to a Second Reading discussion of the Bill. He was anxious not to do that and thus involve the House in the inconvenience of a duplicate debate.
said he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member very carefully. His argument was that the provisions of the Bill being so and so, the expenditure under the Bill would be likely to be such and such a sum. That argument was in order, but he did not know whether that particular point he was on at the moment was. He did not think it was in order; the hon. Member seemed to be addressing himself to a Committee point.
§ *MR. MUNRO FERGUSON
said be did not know whether he was in order or not, but surely what he was entitled to point out was that, besides the Resolution they had under discussion, the clauses made it clear that there were certain liabilities which were a necessary 1242 consequence of the Bill and which they had to bear in mind in grasping the whole scope of the financial proposals.
said if that was the case and the liabilities in question were not included in the financial Resolution, he thought they ought to be dealt with in Committee rather than on that occasion.
§ *MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)
asked what provision would be made for dealing with these contingent liabilities.
§ *MR. HAROLD COX
was afraid he had not made himself clear; would these contingent liabilities have to come before the House in Committee of Ways and Means, because if there was in the Bill a contingent liability on the State, that should be dealt with in Committee of Ways and Means.
said that was a point to be thrashed out in Committee. If there was a further liability upon public funds that would have to be thrashed out in Committee and possibly dealt with in another Money Resolution.
§ *MR. MUNRO FERGUSON
said he quite understood the ruling of the Chairman and would therefore restrict his remarks to the three points as to the finance of the Land Court, of the Agricultural Commission on Small Holdings, and of the Board of Agriculture. Those were the three points which arose under the clauses, and unless the Treasury grasped them they would get into a financial morass. But he thought in connection with the three points of which he had spoken he had made out strong grounds for asking for some explanation.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)
said it would be convenient to the Committee to know exactly what they were voting upon, and he protested against voting on this financial Resolution in the dark. They were dealing with two separate matters. A Land Court was to be established for the first time, with a chairman with a salary of £2,000 a year, and with four other members, each 1243 of whom was to receive £1,000 a year, making £6,000 a year in all. They were then asked to vote absolutely in the dark some further expenditure for all the other officials connected with the Court and the expenses which they incurred in the execution of their duty. What he would like to ask was what officials it was intended to create and their number, and what was the total estimated expenditure upon them and upon the Land Court under the Bill. They had not been told that; they were simply writing a blank cheque for the use of the Secretary for Scotland for such expenses as he chose to incur with regard to the Land Court. There was a second point. It seemed perfectly clear that there was to be a totally different body created under the Bill—a Land Commission consisting of three commissioners, one of whom was to be the chairman. In the case of the Land Court they were told the salaries of the chairman and of the four assistant commissioners, but they were not given the same information about the Land Commission. He objected to vote in the dark as to what salaries the commissioners were to receive. What was to be the salary of the chairman?
§ MR. RAWLINSON
said that from the language of the second clause an Englishman might well fall into the error of thinking that there was to be a salaried chairman. It was to the effect that it should be lawful to appoint not more than three persons to be designated Agricultural Commissioners for Scotland, one of whom should be chairman. How could the right hon. Gentleman expect he should know that the latter was not to be paid?
§ MR. RAWLINSON
said he found in the Bill that the Agricultural Commissioners, and such other Commissioners as might be appointed should receive respectively such salary and remuneration as the Treasury might sanction, and that those salaries should be paid out of monies voted by Parliament. He submitted that that question was directly before the Committee. It was provided that there should be three Commissioners, one of whom should be chairman, and then the next section went on to say that the Commissioners should receive remuneration, but the right hon. Gentleman told him across the floor of the House that the chairman was not to receive remuneration. That was the matter which they were there to discuss, viz., the salaries and remuneration of the Commissioners and other persons employed. If it was correct that the chairman of the Commissioners was to be an unpaid official surely they should know that before they voted on the matter. According to the Bill it appeared to him that there were to be three people who were to be paid salaries. He wished to know what was the estimate of the Government as to cost with regard to not only the Land Court but also the Agricultural Commissioners. Was it an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds or was it not? He was not dealing with the merits of the Bill, but as an English Member he protested against the vague way in which the Financial Resolution was put before the Committee. He had just elicited that some of these people were to be paid and some unpaid officials, and they ought to have complete information in regard to all the cases. Before discussing the matter he wished to know what amount the Government thought was likely to be required on the Vote the Committee was asked to pass.
§ *MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)
said he had no desire to express an opinion on the clauses of the Bill. He simply rose as an English Member to protest against the expenditure, because he thought it was time someone should protest against the way in which the Liberal Party, although pledged to economy, were continually adding to national expenditure. By Clause 3 of the Bill the country was being pledged to an unlimited expenditure. He was in favour, like the rest of the Liberal Party, of a 1245 large extension of small holdings, but he was not in favour of taking the taxpayers' money for the purpose of subsidising any particular form of industry. In his own constituency there were many small tradesmen who would like to set up in business, but would they be justified in coming to the House and asking for money to set them up? If once the Government admitted the principle that they might subsidise a particular form of industry, where were they to stop? Were mill owners to be entitled to come and ask for the capital to put machinery into their mills, or mine-owners for money to sink shafts? If once they acceded to the demand to equip small holdings at the taxpayers' expense, they would be met with demands to equip other industries in the same manner, and he did not see where it was to cease. They had no guarantee, moreover, that the small holdings would be occupied by labourers at all. He was informed that the reason that the price of small holdings in Scotland was so high was that instead of their being occupied by labourers, they were taken by the tradesmen of the neighbouring towns who used them as pleasure farms. He contended that the Government had no right to spend the taxpayers' money in subsidising industry; the House was pledged to economy, and hon. Members ought carefully to scrutinise the expenditure of every penny of public money.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)
said the hon. Member for Preston had raised a very natural protest, but the hon. Member for Leith Burghs had entered much more fully into the administrative difficulties which might be involved, and shown how very blindly they were being asked to vote money so far as the extent of the different items was concerned. The first of the items was the money proposed to be expended on the Land Court, and the hon. Member had very successfully shown that the Land Court would cost £30,000 a year. He himself did not think it could cost less. The next item was that for the Land Commissioners, who would, he presumed, not cost less than £3,000 or £4,000 a year. Both the Land Court and the Land Commissioners were to have large staffs, and if the staffs were to bear the ordinary relation to the chiefs—if there was to be 1246 an army which was not composed entirely of officers—the salaries of that staff must bear a much larger proportion to the total than that which was spent on the Land Court and the Land Commissioners. It was impossible to say what the total expenditure, which they were asked to sanction so blindly, would be if they had no estimate. But it could not be less than £30,000 a year. What, was the amount of money which that £30,000 a year paid to officials was to administer? It was £65,000, or at the most £80,000, if to that £65,000 was added the £15 000 which had already been added to the congested districts fund. He, however, understood that it was £65,000, and the cost of the administration was to be nearly 50 per cent. of the amount administered. Was that the proper relation that ought to exist between the cost of administration and the sum to be administered? Only the other day when they were discussing the affairs of Ireland they found one item which was thought to be over large, and many Members discussing it thought that 35 per cent. was an unheard of cost for administration. In this case, however, it was nearly 50 per cent. There was no limit to the amount which might have to be spent under the first part of the Resolution, but the limit for recasting the small holdings in Scotland could not be less than £65,000, and at that rate the recasting of the Scottish system of holding land would be very slow. By its very nature the amount of money that would have to be administered by these officials could not be limited. There were certain obligations absolutely beyond the control of the Government which might arise and have to be dealt with. They were told on the occasion of the Second Reading that if there was a loss on these farms it was only fair that it should be borne by the State. How could the State limit such a liability as that? How could they say that such a liability would be con lined to £65,000 a year? The Secretary for Scotland shook his head, but he had not vouchsafed to the Committee any information. These points showed that the Committee was justified in insisting upon a full explanation of the financial clauses of the Bill, and in asking for an explanation of the reasons that had led the Government to impose on the country such an enormous burden 1247 of officialism, adding to the ranks already too costly another rank which would bear to the amount administered the marvellous proportion of 50 per cent. They were entitled to ask the Government who had proposed that an unlimited liability should rest upon the country whether they were prepared to say that the total sum which they intended to put at the disposal of the Commissioners could in the nature of things ever be confined to £65,000 a year. If they had some explanation perhaps the Committee would find itself in a better position to carry on the discussion.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
said the hon. Member for Cambridge had raised a very important point, namely, that the Committee was asked to vote money for the payment of officials without having been given any information as to what that amount was going to be, and he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not given greater consideration to his remarks. The whole consensus of opinion three years ago of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the Treasury Bench was against anything of the sort here proposed being done. In June, 1904, when the Financial Resolution of the Aliens Bill was being discussed, the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington opened the debate by saying that it would be only reasonable that Resolutions of the kind should appear upon the Paper so that the Committee knew their precise provisions before they were asked to debate them. Why had not that been done in this case? Then came the hon. Member for Halifax, who said that a good deal depended on the quantity of administering they were to do, that being limited by the number to be employed. Then came the President of the Board of Education, who thought the Committee ought to know how many officials the Home Secretary was going to appoint and what sort of men they were to be. Nothing of the sort had been done with regard to this Bill. Then the Postmaster-General made two extraordinary admissions. The right hon. Gentleman first stated that he had voted for the Second Reading, but that he would not have done so had he thought it was to be sent to a Grand Committee.
said it was quite out of order for the hon. Gentleman to deal in that way with a Bill which was not before the House.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty also objected to the clause giving power to provide officers and to provide for the salaries of persons to be employed. He thought he had shown that on a precisely similar Resolution hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had not taken the very steps which they had advocated three years ago. He hoped, therefore, they would give some explanation why they had suddenly changed their opinions. With regard to the first Resolution, which said there should be paid £2,000 a year to the President of the Land Court and £1,000 a year to each of the other members, which money was to come out of the Consolidated Fund, he believed he was right in saying the effect of that would be that the acts of those five gentlemen could not be reviewed by the House of Commons, inasmuch as, since the money was to be taken out of the Consolidated Fund, there would be no opportunity of reviewing their acts upon the Estimates. On the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland there might be an opportunity, but that Vote might not come before the House except under the closure. He therefore objected most strongly to voting money out of the Consolidated Fund in the manner proposed. It was proposed to spend £6,000 a year on the salaries of five gentlemen, who were to administer a system which bad been most unsuccessful wherever it had previously been set up—to administer a Land Court for which there was no precedent in either England or Scotland, and over which Parliament might not have any control. The Secretary for Scotland ought to be able to give some idea to the Committee of what sum of money he was going to demand from the Treasury, what number of officials he was going to appoint, and what their duties were to be. The Committee wore asked by this Resolution to provide a sum of about £100,000, so far as he could understand; £85,000 was to be money taken from the taxpayers. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs bad shown—and the opinion of the hon. Member ought to weigh very greatly with the Committee—that £100,000 a 1249 year would be necessary for the officers of both bodies.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that was what he understood was going to be done. The money would be devoted to the Land Court and the Land Commissioners, and they would do certain work which the Agricultural Commissioners had undertaken in connection with the Board of Agriculture, which was to be separated from the Board of Agriculture in England, and was to become a separate Board. If all those things were to be done the expenditure would be £100,000 a year, because anything loss would be false economy, and no economy could be so false as that which set up a Department in such a manner that it had not the funds to work properly. The hon. Member had said £100,000 would be required for that, and that only showed the danger of setting up Boards to do work which ought to be done by the landowners themselves. The hon. Member for Preston had pointed that out, and had made a very strong point when he asked whether the Government intended to set up manufacturers and others in business. How did the right hon. Gentleman know that the money was not going to be wasted; what would happen to the money; and what foundation or grounds had he for thinking that it would serve any useful purpose at all?
said that was a matter of principle which the House had dealt with on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was not in order to discuss it on this Resolution.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
asked whether, when they were going to vote away the money of the taxpayers, they might not deal with the question of what was going to happen to the money.
said the hon. Member was arguing that the Bill would not have a good effect, and that argument was out of order, because the House had passed the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that all he wished to know was whether 1250 the money was going to be wasted, or whether they were not going to enter into a large system of land speculation which might lead to no good result.
said that that was the exact point which he understood the hon. Baronet was trying to make, and that point was out of order.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, but, nevertheless, it seemed to him that though the representatives of the taxpayers were asked to vote the money, they were not allowed to argue that it might be wasted. A full discussion should be allowed upon all the expenditure under the Resolution, and that was the only opportunity they would have to discuss it. What was to happen when a loss occurred in connection with these holdings? They were going to vote the sum of £65,000 a year, and that sum was to be devoted to certain objects. Would the amount be sufficient for those objects? The Prime Minister had said that any loss arising out of the Act ought fairly to fall on the State, and all they wanted to know was how it was possible to provide for a loss out of the sum of £65,000. The money was nothing like sufficient if the objects of the Bill were to be carried out in the manner which the right hon. Gentleman desired. If the whole of the £65,000 were directed to those objects it would only enable them to provide something like 130 small holdings annually, and that left wholly out of consideration the enormous expenditure which must arise when these different bodies were set up under the Bill. Under those circumstances, and in view of the fact that they had no opportunity of knowing what money was really going to be spent on the salaries of officials, he felt it his duty to oppose the Resolution.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being present—
§ *MR. MORTON (Sutherland)
said a great deal had been attempted to be made of the loss which might occur under the Bill, but he did not believe that there would be any loss at all. As far as their experience went of small holdings and allotments there had been no loss. He quite agreed with hon. 1251 Gentlemen opposite that they had a right to ask for particulars with regard to expenditure under the Bill, and if the Secretary for Scotland could give them a rough estimate, they might get on much faster. It was absurd to think that they would be able to carry out the purposes of the Bill without any expenditure at all. They could not expect to have Commissioners and the other machinery of the measure without incurring some cost. His hon. friend the Member for Preston seemed to think that they ought to carry on the proposed Department without coming on the taxpayer at all. If they could do that with all the Departments the Government would get rid of the salaries of officials and probably those of Ministers. He did not object, but it had not been their experience hitherto that they could carry on a Department without expense. As he understood, the expenditure, save such as would fall upon the Consolidated Fund, namely, the salaries of the Land Court Commissioners, would come before Parliament year by year. That was his reading of the Resolution, but perhaps the Secretary for Scotland would presently explain the matter to them. His own impression was that they were taking now another Second Reading debate, so far as they could within the ruling of the Chair. They had already had three days discussion in the Grand Committee and after this financial Resolution was passed, they would be in a position, in the Grand Committee, to discuss financial matters thoroughly; he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would now allow the Resolution to pass. Something had been said about the English taxpayer. The opinion of Scotland was that she already contributed too large a share of the general revenue of the country, and that being so the cost of the Bill would fall upon the Scottish and not upon the English taxpayers. Nobody had a right to say that it was the English taxpayer who would have to find the money.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that what the hon. Gentleman said might be correct, but it did not make it any better for the English taxpayer that he would have to pay something more as his share of the expenditure under the Bill.
§ *MR. MORTON
said his point was that there was not going to be a special charge 1252 upon the English taxpayer in respect of the Bill, and that, as the Scottish taxpayer already paid more than his fair share of the Imperial Revenue, it was upon him the charge would fall. They had no business, therefore, to bring up the complaint that it was the English taxpayers who were going to be called upon to pay for the carrying out of the Bill when it became an Act. The measure would effect a saving of official expenses by altering the existing system, and getting rid of two Boards, viz., the Crofters Commission and the Congested Districts Board. Everybody was aware, who knew anything of the House, that he was as much in favour of economy as anyone, and more so than hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite ["No"], and all he could say was that they would have full opportunity of discussing these matters in the Grand Committee, and that, therefore, in order to get that opportunity, they should now pass the Resolution, without further delay, of which they had already had too much.
§ *MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)
said the hon. gentleman who had just sat down had endeavoured to show that England would not suffer, but that Scotland would incur a heavy burden, because she already paid too large a share of the Imperial Revenue.
§ *MR. MORTON
I never said anything about a heavy burden. I said that whatever expense the country may be put to would be paid by the Scottish taxpayer.
§ *MR. COCHRANE
said he would point out to the hon. Member that this expenditure was to come upon the Consolidated Fund to which England contributed equally with Scotland. The hon. Member showed that Scotland already paid a larger share of the National burden than she ought to do, and, therefore he ventured to submit that whatever was added to Scotland's expenditure was a further injustice to that country, which was supported by the hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency.
§ *MR. COCHRANE
said he understood that it was the rule of the House that these money Resolutions were not made 1253 public, but it was a matter of very great inconvenience to hon. Members that they had not an opportunity of considering important money Resolutions such as the present some days before the debate took place. The absence of that opportunity robbed the discussion of some of its interest; but perhaps when the Resolution came up on Report they would be in possession of further particulars which would enable them to go into greater detail than they could possibly do at present. As a Scottish representative, he had no objection in principle to English money being spent in Scotland, but as an economist he ventured to suggest that the money should be spent with some due regard to economy and efficiency, and that at least some statement should be made by responsible Ministers as to how that money was to be spent. He had glanced at the money resolution and he had looked at the Bill very carefully, and he saw a wide field of expenditure open to them, and, in the absence of any specific information from the right hon. Gentleman, they were unable to form anything like an accurate estimate of what was to be the total expenditure, or how it was to be met. One of the items of the Resolution was that they were to provide the salaries and expenses of the five members of the Land Court, one of whom would have to be an advocate of ten years standing. They were not told how those salaries were to be allocated. Might he ask the right hon. Gentleman why he did not in his Bill state the names of the gentlemen whom it was proposed to appoint members of the Land Court?
§ *MR. COCHRANE
pointed out that on a similar occasion, with regard to the Land Act of 1881, the House insisted on the names of the Land Commissioners being inserted in the Bill, and that was done before the money Resolution was passed.
said they had nothing to do with altering the wording of the Bill, and the hon. Member's point had reference to an alteration of the wording of the Bill. The passing of this 1254 financial Resolution was not dependent upon that.
§ *MR. COCHRANE
thought it was a matter of considerable importance to the Committee that they should know the class of men upon whom the money was to be expended. If, however, the Chairman insisted on his ruling he did not propose to proceed further with the point. Perhaps, however, he would be allowed to ask about the allocation of the salaries. He understood that one of these gentlemen was to be chairman, and it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman informed them whether ho intended to nominate the legal member as chairman. He thought they were entitled to ask what would be the duties of the Land Court. He understood that they would be partly judicial and partly administrative. The Court would have extremely wide powers and functions, and except upon questions of law might state a case to the Court of Session. A Land Court constituted with such wide powers was a very dangerous experiment and might result in grave denials of justice. Let them take, for example, the precedent of the Railway Commissioners. From 1873 to 1888 that body had similar powers, but the cases were so stated that the superior Court could not deal with the merits of the case at issue, and in the year 1888 a free appeal upon all questions of law was substituted. The right hon. Gentleman was proposing to saddle Scotland with a system which had proved to be unworkable and effete. He wished to know why the Land Court should be set up at all. Why was it that the existing sheriffs could not do all the work expected from the new Land Court? The position of a sheriff in Scotland was both judicial and administrative—
Order, order. That is purely a Committee point. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to argue that the Land Court ought not to be paid, but he is not entitled to argue that the sheriffs should be the Land Court.
§ *MR. COCHRANE
said he would content himself with saying that many of the duties of the new Land Court could better be carried out under the existing 1255 system of Sheriff Courts in Scotland. These Courts did work similar in character to that which was being imposed upon the Land Court in regard to such questions as the extension of boundaries and the compulsory taking of land for a water supply.
§ *MR. COCHRANE
said that that was almost the only opportunity they would have of discussing the question of the finance of the Bill. When the measure got before the Grand Committee the discussion would be limited to the particular clauses under consideration. He would like to ask a question in regard to the composition of the Land Court. The right hon. Gentleman proposed in the Bill that the tenure of office should not be limited. In the case of the Land Commission appointed in 1881 in Ireland, the tenure of office of the chairman only was limited by the ordinary rules for appointment of Judges, but the tenure of the ordinary Commissioners was limited to seven years. For what reason were they giving a longer tenure to the members of the Land Court here proposed? Under the Bill they were handing over the control of 70 per cont. of the holdings of Scotland to be dealt with by the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners. That was to say, that 62,000 out of 89,000 holdings in Scotland, would be so dealt with, and if the cost of the whole estate management as stated by the Member for Leith came to £250,000 a year it was obvious that 70 per cent. would come to about £175,000 a year, and, the holdings being scattered throughout the whole of Scotland, the travelling expenses and salaries of sub-commissioner, valuators, and surveyors would be a serious item, adding considerably to the cost. They had had some experience of the kind in the case of Ireland. He would like the Secretary for Scotland to inform the Committee what particular items in the actual costs incurred in Ireland would not be incurred in Scotland. The officials employed in Ireland cost £101,000 a year for the Land Court alone, and he would like the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an estimate of the cost of the Land 1256 Court and the Agricultural Commissioners in Scotland. With regard to the setting up of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, it seemed to him to be a very unwise step and one which he hoped the House would not consider favourably. They had in Scotland every confidence in the existing Board of Agriculture with its efficient and experienced staff of officers, and, in the case of any large outbreak of disease, they had already at their disposal the whole of the staff and equipment of a big office which was quite capable of dealing with cases as they arose. Unless they maintained in Scotland a similiar body they would be placed at a considerable disadvantage and would in fact be in a worse condition than at present. In the present Board of Agriculture they had an office which was solely devoted to agriculture.
The hon. Member is now arguing the merits of the Bill, and that has nothing whatever to do with the financial Resolution which is before the Committee.
§ *MR. COCHRANE
said that the Secretary for Scotland, in a speech delivered quite recently at Edinburgh, had given a sketch of what would be the cost of the new Board of Agriculture, and in the course of his remarks said they were going to establish a Department which in no respect would be inferior to any other Department of the Government. The Agricultural Commissioners in Ireland cost £95,000 a year; was the expenditure contemplated in the case of this Board likely to amount to anything like that sum? It had been stated that the duties of the Agricultural Commissioners would be the laying out of small holdings and the preparing of plans. That would of course require surveyors. In the Works Department the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed that the employment of valuators and architects would be necessary, and in the case of the fisheries inspectors would have to be appointed, while from the educational side he mentioned the necessity of employing lecturers, teachers, and other inspectors. He also spoke of the development of forestry, sylviculture, and intensive cultivation. All that would probably cost at least £100,000 a year. The Secretary for Scotland had told them in the same speech that that was the 1257 deliberate and settled plan of the Government and it had to be placed before the country as a whole. He wished a clear estimate of the whole cost to be put before the Committee. They ought to know the number of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners, and what salaries they wore going to be paid. They should also be told how many teachers and instructors it was proposed to appoint, what salaries they wore going to be paid, and what amount was to be allowed for travelling expenses. All that information should be put before the Committee when the financial Resolution was under consideration. The opportunity they had had of considering the Resolution had afforded them a very short time, but they would, perhaps, be able to deal more fully with the question on the Report stage. He noticed that the last paragraph proposed compensation in certain cases to members of the Crofters Commission. He thought that was a point which required some explanation, because the Chairman of the Commission was a Sheriff in Scotland, and drew a salary and a pension already from that office. Was it now proposed to pension an official who was already receiving a pension? He thought that was a very unwise thing for an economical Government which objected to pensions on principle to do. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman said, the ultimate result of the proposals would be the placing of a very heavy burden on the finances of the country, with very little advantage to any part of the kingdom.
§ MR. SINCLAIR
I shall be very glad to give all the information I can on the subject of the Resolution. We have simply followed precedent in putting the Resolution before the House in this manner. I pass, therefore, from the criticisms on that point. This is an enabling Resolution in order to enable the Committee upstairs to criticise and discuss the money provisions of the Bill. I shall not deal with estimates except in one particular, and I shall not enter upon the comparisons which the hon. Gentleman opposite has invited me to make with regard to the salaries and arrangements elsewhere. I shall deal simply with facts, and I would like to recall the attention of the Committee to the three clauses of the Bill which we are discussing. Nearly all the information which 1258 has been asked for is already contained in those three clauses supplemented by the statements made in this House in regard to the proposals of the Bill. In the first place let me remind the Committee that the proposals of the Bill relating to the constitution of the two bodies are based upon Scottish experience. It must be remembered that although two now bodies are created by the Bill, two existing bodies disappear. Let me deal with the Land Court. The Land Court is to consist of not more than five members, and the legal member is not necessarily to be the chairman. The Land Court is to be the successor of the Crofters Commission; it is not an administrative body, it is judicial or quasi-judicial. It is desired and intended that the Land Court shall consist of persons fully qualified and having authority from their experience and position in Scotland to deal with such matters, and these considerations must be borne in mind when the Committee has before them and are considering the salaries proposed to be attached to the appointments and the conditions of their tenure. My hon. friend the Member for the Leith Burghs has made a large estimate as to the cost of the Land Court. An hon. Member asked how many clerks, messengers, valuers, and other staff they would have to appoint. The Court will have full authority, subject to the control of Parliament and the Treasury, as other such bodies have, to appoint their own staff.
§ MR. SINCLAIR
The estimate which has been assumed in this debate has been somewhat large. I would remind the Committee that we have an estimate which will to some extent assist us in the experience of the Crofters Commission. The annual administrative expenditure of that Commission has been about £5,000 a year, and I should say that that is a far safer guide as to the probable expenditure of the Land Court than the estimate which has been given by previous speakers to-day. The expenses of the Land Court, whatever they are, will be under the scrutiny of Parliament. The salaries will be placed on the Consolidated Fund. In that we are following 1259 precedent elsewhere, and that will give security and permanence of tenure, which ought to attract the best available and the best qualified men for these offices.
§ MR. SINCLAIR
No; only the salaries of the members of the Land Court. As to the Agricultural Commissioners, the Committee will be good enough to keep quite distinct the functions of the Agricultural Commissioners and those of the Land Court. It is perfectly true that both these bodies are intended to work in Scotland in relation to the land of Scotland, but it is quite erroneous to deduce from that that their functions cannot be kept perfectly distinct.
§ MR. SINCLAIR
My hon. friend the Member for the Leith Burghs shakes his head. He is quite entitled to his own opinion, but I would remind him that the work of the Congested Districts Board has been perfectly separate from that of the Crofters Commission, and there has never been any criticism in Scotland as to the quasi-judicial position which the Crofters Commission has held during the last twenty years. Exactly the same principle holds good in the arrangement proposed in this Bill, and if the Bill is read carefully it will be seen that the function of the Land Court is a rent-fixing function. They have to decide between the parties as to rent, and the other portions of the Bill with relation to administration are under the Agricultural Commissioners. Clause 4 says that it shall be lawful to "appoint not more than three persons" as Agricultural Commissioners. It falls to the Agricultural Commissioners to take up, in the first place, the work of preparing schemes for the creation of small holdings. That is one section of their work. The second section is to take up the work which is presently done by the Congested Districts Commissioners—work of the character of that done by the Department of Agriculture. The third function of the Agricultural Commissioners is to take up for Scotland the work which is now done by the Board of Agriculture 1260 and Fisheries. Very fanciful estimates have been given to the Committee this afternoon as the cost of the new Department. Let me ask Members to look at Clause 4, which deals with the matter. Sub-section (2) provides—The Agricultural Commissioners shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries in Scotland, and shall also exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred on or transferred to them under the provisions of this Act. In the discharge of their duties they shall comply with such instructions or regulations as may from time to time be issued by the Secretary for Scotland, and they shall submit an annual report of their proceedings to him, which Report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.That is one of the functions to which I have alluded. Sub-section (4) which indicates the second branch of their work is as follows—Without prejudice to the provision of the immediately preceding subsections such one of the Agricultural Commissioners as the Secretary for Scotland shall from time to time appoint shall be designated the Commissioner for small holdings and shall be specially charged with the duties hereinafter committed to him.Subsection (7) of Clause 4 indicates the further powers that are to be transferred to the Agricultural Commissioners.
§ MR. SINCLAIR
We are dealing now with the expenditure of these Commissioners. If the hon. Gentleman will give me his attention I think I shall be able to satisfy him on that point. This Department is intended to be a Department of the Civil Service, and the administrative expenses of the Department will be charged on the Estimates, and will come under the control of Parliament every year. The Committee need not be under any apprehension that Parliament will not have as full an opportunity of criticising the expenditure of this Department as that of any other Department of the State. Everything must have a beginning, and it is intended in regard to the appointment of the Agricultural Commissioners to build up gradually, and when the Bill becomes law it need not be at once that the powers should be transferred from the present Board of Agriculture to these Commissioners. The third branch of the 1261 powers of the Commissioners will fall to them at once, namely, the powers with respect to the work done by the Congested Districts Board. The intention of the Government is that this Department shall ultimately, when fully developed, constitute a Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I have yet to learn, even from the criticisms which have been made on the proposals to-day, whether it is the opinion of hon. Members that at present we spend too little or too much in developing agriculture in Scotland. The proposals embodied in the Bill are perfectly simple. First of all, there is to be the Land Court which will succeed the Crofters Commission, and exercise over the whole of Scotland powers exactly similar to those now exercised by the Crofters Commission in one portion of Scotland. The next step is the appointment of Agricultural Commissioners who shall, to use the phrase which I have already used in the House, be the nucleus of a Department of Agriculture for Scotland, take over the powers of the Congested Districts Board, and further exercise the powers under the Bill in respect of small holdings, and also in respect of the general supervision of agriculture, afforestation, and other matters affecting the agricultural interests of Scotland. It is impossible, at this stage, to give the information that has been asked for with respect to smaller details by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. The whole purpose of the Bill is to put the people of Scotland in the position of thinking out and working out for themselves the problems of the country, and things must be left to develop. The hon. Member has complained as to the want of information in regard to the future; but the hon. Gentleman must know that a great public department can grow, and as it developes it requires further support in the way of money, and has to come to Parliament for that money. As for the financial part of the Bill dealt with in the Resolution, £100,000 is provided for its working, made up of £15,000, under the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896, £20,000 which is at present provided by Parliament, and an additional £65,000 which is to be voted in future. Of this sum £35,000 is to be devoted to the congested districts and £65,000 to the remainder of Scotland. Some criticism has been passed to-day on 1262 the amount available for the creation of new holdings, it being contended that it will be entirely insufficient. I do not enter into that point now further than to say that the experience of the Congested Districts Board, which I give for what it is worth, is entirely at variance with the suggestion that the cost of the new Board will be so great as in some quarters seems to be anticipated. I submit with great respect to the Committee that the provisions of the Bill are perfectly clear and simple.
§ *MR. SINCLAIR
The new Board will be a Civil Service Department, and consequently the salaries and retiring allowances of its officials will be fixed in consultation with the Treasury. Subsection 8 of Clause 3 is inserted so that no damage may be done by the arrangements made after the Bill is passed into law to the interests of the Crofters Commission, and that subsection was inserted with the sanction of the Treasury. As to the new Commissioners, it does not seem to me to be a wise move to appoint them before Parliament has passed the Bill into law.
§ *MR. COCHRANE
thought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him What he wanted to know was whether the right hon. Gentleman could furnish the Committee with information as to the sum he had in his mind for providing compensation to the existing members of the Crofters Commission.
§ MR. SINCLAIR
That is a matter for future deliberation; but I can say that the public interest, as well as those interested, will be amply protected.
§ LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)
said that he would be the last man to vote against the £85,000 being spent for the improvement of agriculture in Scotland, if he thought the money was going to be spent to good purpose; but after listening to the speech of the Secretary for Scotland he thought anyone would be very sanguine if they imagined that would be the case. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the cost of 1263 the Land Court was not likely to be very excessive; but it must be remembered that it would deal with all the counties in Scotland, which would necessarily involve large travelling expenses for the inspection of the differences of soil and cultivation in the various parts of the country. He thought the £65,000 for the creation of small holdings would be much better spent in providing houses for labourers on the land. To spend it on small holdings would be but to fritter it away to a great extent, and it would not be the means of getting many people on the land. The Secretary for Scotland had suggested that the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities was wrong in his estimate as to the cost of providing equipment for small holdings, and that £500 was a low estimate of the cost of the creation of a small holding. He had had a little experience with the land question, and he could state that decent cottages in mountainous districts, where there were plenty of stones, could not be provided for less than £250. In addition to that, there was the drainage and equipment to be provided for. He complained of the unsatisfactory answer of the Secretary for Scotland, who had by no means made it clear that large sums of money would not be squandered, or unnecessarily frittered away, in salaries to highly paid officials.
§ MR. ABEL SMITH (Hertfordshire, Hertford)
said that the Secretary for Scotland had given the Committee uncommonly little information in regard to the scope of the Bill. He was sorry that the Prime Minister had left the House, for as he had not given them his assistance in the Scottish Grand Committee, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have vouchsafed them a little information as to the real meaning of the Bill. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was present, would do so. The Secretary for Scotland had spoken as to the expense of the Congested Districts Board and the Crofters Commission; but this Bill was meant to deal, not only with the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, but with the whole of Scotland. If the expense which would arise under the Bill was anything like the expense incurred by the Crofters Commission and the Congested Districts Board the operation of the Bill would be very 1264 restricted indeed. If the right hon. Gentleman sought to create in Scotland a great Department of Agriculture which would have an important effect on the improvement of agriculture in the rural districts, he must admit that that would involve a very large expenditure—infinitely greater than the £65,000 mentioned in the Bill. By the Bill it was sought to establish an entirely novel system in Scotland; yet the Government had never attempted to show that all the proposed machinery was necessary in order to extend small holdings in Scotland.
Order, order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks have nothing whatever to do with the financial Resolution.
§ MR. ABEL SMITH
said that the money was to be used in setting up a Land Court, the appointment of an Agricultural Commissioner, and a Board of Agriculture, and he thought that they were entitled to say that that was unnecessary.
I have told the hon. Member that he is discussing the merits of the Bill, and he must not reflect upon the decision of the House in regard to that.
§ MR. ABEL SMITH
said that, while submitting to the ruling of the Chairman, he thought they were entitled to have some estimate from the Government as to what the expense of this new Department was likely to be. He must protest against the action of the Secretary for Scotland.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.
rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ MR. RAWLINSON (speaking sitting and with his hat on)
inquired, as a point of order, whether the Motion would not affect the Amendment notice of which had been given and which he bad moved and handed in.
said that as a matter of fact he had not seen any Amendment. Of course, the Closure Motion would affect any Amendment, because the Question was "that the Question be now put."
said that even if that had been the case, which it was not, he, on looking at the Amendment which had now been passed to him, saw that it was to the Bill and not to the Financial Resolution before the Committee.
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Haworth, Arthur A.||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Hedges, A. Paget||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Higham, John Sharp||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)|
|Bertram, Julius||Holland, Sir William Henry||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Holt, Richard Durning||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Idris, T. H. W.||Rowlands, J.|
|Bright, J. A.||Jardine, Sir J.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Jones, William; Carnarvonshire||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Kearley, Hudson E.||Sears, J. E.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Laidlaw, Robert||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Lambert, George||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Lamont, Norman||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Lehmann, R. C.||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Levy, Maurice||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Clough, William||Lewis, John Herbert||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Summerbell, T.|
|Cornwall Sir Edwin A.||Lough, Thomas||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Lupton, Arnold||Toulmin, George|
|Cowan, W. H.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Verney, F. W.|
|Cox, Harold||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||M'Callum, John M.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Duckworth, James||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Waring, Walter|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Maddison, Frederick||Watt, Henry A.|
|Elibank, Master of||Marnham, F. J.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Everett, H. Lacey||Molteno, Percy Alport||Weir, James Galloway|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Morley, Rt. Hon. John||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Gilhooly, James||Norton, Copt. Cecil William||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||O'Grady, J;||Williams Llewelyn (Carmarth'u|
|Glover, Thomas||O'Malley, William||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)||TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr.|
|Halpin, J.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Pease.|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Craik, Sir Henry||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Fell, Arthur|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Fletcher, J. S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Cave, George||Kimber, Sir Henry||Rawlinson and Mr. Abel|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos, H.A.E.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Smith.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
replied that if that was so the Amendment was not correctly drawn. As it was, it appeared to be on the Bill.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 173.)1267
§ Question put accordingly.
SIR F. BANBUKY (speaking seated and with his hat on)
, on a point of Order, said the Chairman had omitted to put the first Resolution, which had reference to £15 000.
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.