Commons Sitting of 6 May 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Jones's Almshouse and Grammar School Foundation Bill. (By Order.)
Order for second reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) (ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES).
Return ordered of abstract account of the receipts and payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1908, in the administration of estates and treasure trove on behalf of the Crown; and of alphabetical list of estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, in the same year.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Diplomatic Relations (Servia).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Dragomir Stojanovitch, major of artillery, Alexander Glitchitch, major of infantry, and Captain Peter Markovitch, all of whom were implicated in the murder of the late King and Queen of Servia, are now aides-de-camp of King Peter; and whether, in view of the agreement which led to the renewal of diplomatic relations with Servia, he will say what steps, if any, have been taken to safeguard the British Minister at Belgrade from coming into personal contact with those regicides in the course of his official duties?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have not received any information respecting the officers named. The renewal of diplomatic relations with Servia has been quite satisfactory in practice, and I
  1178
  do not propose to reopen any question connected with it unnecessarily.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied, that the conditions under which diplomatic relations were renewed are being observed?
  Sir E. GREY: My answer covers that "The renewal of diplomatic relations with Servia has been quite satisfactory in practice, and I do not propose to reopen any question connected with it unnecessarily."
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask for a specific answer to my question? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, that the conditions upon which diplomatic relations were renewed are being observed?
  Sir E. GREY: I shall not answer the hon. Member's question for this reason. He is anxious apparently that the question should be reopened, but I think it is distinctly in the public interest that it should not be reopened, and quite unnecessary to reopen it.

  Persia (Constitutional Regime).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official information as to the Shah of Persia having granted a constitution; and, if so, when this intention is to be carried out?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Minister at Teheran reports that he has been officially informed that the Shah accepts the advice formally tendered to him by the British and Russian representatives as to his future course of action. This advice includes a recommendation that he should at once re-establish a Constitutional régime. I am not yet in a position to reply to the second question.

  Tabriz (Russian Relief Force).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can furnish any fresh information as to the Russian occupation of Tabriz, the succour of the starving inhabitants of that city, and the security of British life and property?
  Sir E. GREY: The Russian relief force has arrived near Tabriz, and 269 men have entered the city. They are reported to have been well received. Provisions are said to be coming in freely. As far as I am aware, British life and property are now secure.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know anything about a reported expedition by Persian Anti-Royalists from the town of Resht?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the paper.

  Bavarian Beer.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he could state the nature of the laws relating to the brewing of beer in Bavaria; and, if not, whether he would obtain the information and lay it upon the Table of the House?
  Sir E. GREY: I would draw the attention of the Noble Lord to a Report on the Beer-Brewing Industry of Bavaria (Miscellaneous Series, No. 599 of the Diplomatic and Consular Reports). Further information will also be found on page 15 of the Consular Report on the Trade of Bavaria for 1907 and part of 1908 (Annual Series No. 4136).

  Irish Newspaper Affairs.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state if the law officers are aware that the newspapers, the "Longford Leader" and the "Leitrim Leader," do not print on their issues the names of the publishers and the places where printed, as required by statute; and, if so, will the Government take steps to enforce the law?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. and gallant Member would appear to be misinformed both as to the facts and the law. Recent issues of these papers, which I have seen, contain the name of the printer and publisher, although the statute to which he refers does not extend to Ireland.
  Captain CRAIG: Why is it that the names only appeared since this question was put upon the paper?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no obligation for the names to appear at all, and I cannot go any further into it.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the "Leitrim Observer," printed at Carrick-on-Shannon, has recently been purchased from the late proprietor by three county and district councillors, and with it the contract for the printing for the county council of Leitrim and district council of Carrick-on-Shannon; and, if so, whether he called their attention to the fact that
  1180
  they have disqualified themselves under this contract from acting as county and district councillors; and whether he proposes to enforce the law on the subject?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that the paper in question has not been sold, but is managed by two relatives of the proprietor as trustees for his wife and children. One of these relatives is a district councillor. I am not in a position to say whether he has acted as a district councillor since he has been appointed trustee, or, if so, whether he was disqualified from so doing. It is not my duty to advise district councillors on matters of this kind. It is open to any ratepayer of the district to raise the question if he desires to do so.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proprietor and editor has never taken any part in politics?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; really I am not aware of the affairs of editors of newspapers.

  Land Purchase (King-Harman and Persse Estates).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state on what ground the Estates Commissioners have refused to allow Mr. Alexander Dickie, a tenant on the lands of Tangier, Boyle, on the King-Harman estate, to purchase his holding; if this has been done to meet the wishes of a local clique who have been opposed to Mr. Dickie as a Protestant farmer; if the Commissioners intend to deprive him of his holding under the Evicted Tenants Act, for whom it is intended to acquire these lands and if such person is a member of the local branch of the United Irish League; and why Mr. Dickie, amongst the Roman Catholic tenants, has been singled out for such treatment by the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The lands formerly held by Dickie are situate on the King-Harman estate, purchased by the Estates Commissioners under the Land Act of 1903, and in the exercise of their discretion the Commissioners decided to make no advance to Dickie. His tenancy, which was subject to a six months' notice to quit, has since been determined, and the Commissioners propose to vest the lands in trustees for the grazing of the cattle of small holders in the neighbourhood.
  Captain CRAIG: Will he explain how it is that the discretion of the Commissioners is always directed against Protestant farmers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not admit for a single moment that that is so.
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would say if negotiations for the sale of the Persse estate, Killashulan, county Kilkenny, have been yet completed; what steps, if any, have been taken to restore Michael Dillon, who was evicted from this estate, to a holding thereon; and would he see that the untenanted land on this estate will be acquired for distribution amongst evicted tenants and others entitled to portions thereof without further delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Proceedings have recently been instituted before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of this estate direct to the tenants and it will be dealt with in its order of priority. The Commissioners have decided not to take any action on Michael Dillon's application for reinstatement in his former holding, which is in the occupation of another tenant.

  Evicted Tenants, County Leitrim.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the three evicted tenants on the estate of James Johnston, county of Leitrim, namely James M'Gowan, Patrick Wornack, and John M'Guire, who applied to the Estates Commissioners in May, 1908, are still unreinstated; and whether he would state when these people will be reinstated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the applications of the three persons named were not lodged within the time specified in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, and cannot be dealt with under that Act. When the estate upon which their holdings are situated is being dealt with under the Irish Land Act, 1903, their cases will be inquired into.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Michael Flynn, an evicted tenant on the Madam O'Reilly estate, Keshcarrigan, county Leitrim, for reinstatement, and whether, in view of the fact that he is about to emigrate if kept longer out of his holding, he will urge upon the Commissioners the necessity of considering this case at an early date?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Flynn's former holding is in the occupation of other
  1182
  tenants and his name has been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that considerable confusion has arisen in the administration of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts owing to the varying interpretation which inspectors under these Acts have placed upon the definition of an agricultural labourer as including any person working for hire in a rural district whose average wages in the year do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day; whether some inspectors have held this to mean 2s. 6d. a day for six days of the week, whilst others have interpreted it as embracing the seven days of the week; whether he is aware that the Attorney-General of that time, when the Irish Land Act of 1903, containing this clause, was passing through Parliament, explicitly declared that the expression 2s. 6d. a day was to apply as for the seven days of the week; and, owing to the limited and unsatisfactory nature of the existing definition, to the misinterpretation to which it is liable, and to the fact that it bars out a large class of deserving rural workers from the benefits of the Labourers Act, will he introduce into his present Land Bill a more satisfactory definition, and one which will bring the advantages of these Acts within the reach of every bonâ fide wage-earner in the country?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are not aware that any confusion has arisen on the point mentioned, or that their inspectors have given different interpretation of section 93 of the Irish Land Act of 1903, in so far as it relates to the limit of wages of the additional class of labourers brought within the Labourers Acts by the section. The section makes no reference whatever to "a week of six days" or to "a week of seven days," the words being "whose average wages in the year preceding the lodgment of the representation affecting him do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day." The Attorney-General of that time does not appear to have made the declaration alleged in the question. What he did promise, and what was subsequently embodied in the Land Bill, was to introduce words in the definition clause as originally drafted, making it clear that it was the average daily wage in the year that was meant. In the circumstances no amendment on the ground stated in the question appears to be necessary.

  Garbally and Kilmorry Farms (King's County and Tipperary).
  Mr. HOGANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether an advance has yet been sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners in respect of the farms of Garbally and Kilmorry, in the parish of Shinrone, in King's County and Tipperary; whether the tenant-purchasers of these two farms, Messrs. Woods and Carroll, have, since signing their purchase-agreements, sold their interest to Messrs. Richard and Thomas Wallace, also purchasers on the same estate; and, if so, whether he will decline to sanction advances which would lead to the accumulation in the hands of these two gentlemen of an acreage of land contrary to the policy of the Land Purchase Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the cases referred to by the hon. Member from the particulars given in the question.

  Charles Waring Estate, County Cavan.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked when purchase agreements under the 1903 Land Act were filed on the Charles Waring estate, county Cavan; are the holdings yet vested, and, if not, when will they be likely to be; were purchase agreements filed in the Cramer Roberts estate, county Cavan, in 1905, and, if so, in what month; and what is the present position of this estate, or if the holdings have been vested in the tenants, and when?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase agreements for the estate of Charles Waring, county Cavan, were lodged on 7th and 13th April, 1905, and that the holdings will be vested in the purchasing tenants as soon as the vendor proves title. The agreements for the Cramer Roberts estate were lodged in June, 1905, and the holdings were vested in the tenants in October last.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is there any reason why priority was given in the case of the Cramer Roberts estate as against the Charles Waring estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No priority has been given. The difficulty is that on the Charles Waring estate the vendors have not proved their title. In the other case the title has been proved, and no difficulty arose.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tenants
  1184
  on the Waring estate are paying interest in lieu of rent at 3¾ per cent., and will he bring pressure to bear on the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The right hon. Gentleman knows enough law to know that the proving of a title is not a thing which can be accomplished simply by pressure. Difficulties have arisen. All speed is being used.

  French-Brewster Estate, County Carlow.
  Mr. KAVANAGHasked what is the cause of the delay in apportioning the grass lands of the French-Brewster estate, county Carlow, which were acquired some time ago by the Estates Commissioners and marked out in suitable farms by their inspector?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The proceedings for the purchase of this estate are not completed and the Estates Commissioners are not yet in a position to allot the lands.

  Goold-Verschoyle Estate, County Limerick.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the Estates Commissioners received a memorial from the tenants, sons of small farmers and cottiers in the immediate neighbourhood of the Goold-Verschoyle estate, situate at Athea, in the county of Limerick, on which there is untenanted land which the Commisioners propose to purchase; if he is aware that the district of Athea, in which this land is situate, is practically a congested one, though not scheduled as such; and whether, in view of this fact, they will accede to the request in the memorial?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that memorials have been received from cottiers and small farmers in the immediate neighbourhood of the Goold-Verschoyle estate, county Limerick. The matter will receive full consideration when the Commissioners are dealing with the report of their inspector on this estate.

  Prohibition of Trawling (Extension to Ireland).
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked if the Government will consent to the extension to Ireland of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Government approve of the extension of the Bill to Ireland, and my right hon. Friend the Vice-

  1185
  President of the Department of Agriculture will take the necessary steps for the purpose.

  British Indians in Transvaal.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a copy of the correspondence that passed between the Governor of the Transvaal and the Transvaal British-Indian Association in March last, respecting the deportation to India, that has since taken place, of British-Indians domiciled in the Transvaal; whether he is aware that the Governor refused to receive a deputation of representative British-Indians who desired to discuss the new position that might arise from the arrangement to carry out the deportations made by the Transvaal with the authorities of Mozambique, and referred them to the Transvaal Ministers; and whether, seeing that this section of the British population of that Colony is entirely voteless and unrepresented in the Transvaal Parliament, he will secure that they shall not also be denied the opportunity of urging their grievances before His Majesty's representative?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Correspondence has been received from the Governor, but I am not aware of the circumstances in which he is stated to have refused to receive a deputation. Lord Selborne is no doubt well aware of the views of the Indians, and he cannot, as the Governor of a responsibly governed Colony, act otherwise than in concert with his Ministers, but inquiry shall be made as to the circumstances referred to.

  Reported Illtreatment of Coolie (Natal).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an Indian labourer named Ramsamy indentured to a Natal planter; whether he is aware that the master first tied up his coolie to a staple nail and whipped him severely, and later to a rafter in the room and lashed him till the Indian's back was a mass of raw flesh; that upon the coolie making his escape to the magistrate he was ordered to return to his master pending an investigation of his complaint; that the protector of Indian immigrants refused to interfere when he learnt of the complaint to the magistrate, and ordered the man to return to his master under penalty of imprisonment; that the man was then
  1186
  arrested as a deserter at the instance of his master and sent to gaol for seven days for refusing to return to him, at the end of which he was sent back to the master under escort; and that the master was eventually fined 10s. for the assault; and, if so, will the Secretary of State make representations to the Government of Natal with regard to such treatment of indentured coolies?
  Colonel SEELY: I have seen an account of this case in a leading article in a Colonial paper called "Indian Opinion," which rightly says that the facts are shocking if true. I cannot say whether there is any truth in the account, but inquiry shall be made.
  Mr. MYER: What is the difference between the status of these labourers in Natal and that of the negro or the slave in the Southern States of America before 1860?
  Colonel SEELY: There is all the difference in the world, of course. Apart from the merits of indentured labour, these Indians become absolutely free men at the end of their period of indenture, and are enabled to continue to reside in the Colony to which they come.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is there any stipulation in the form of the indenture to ensure good treatment of the natives?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes; there are very stringent regulations insisted upon by the Indian Government. In this case, if there be any truth in the rumour, all these conditions were transgressed. But, as I say, I will make inquiry into the case.
  Mr. BYLES: Will the result of the inquiry be indicated to the House?
  Colonel SEELY: If my hon. Friend opposite will put down a further question in a week's time, I will give a reply.

  School Furniture (Ireland).
  Mr. MEEHAN (for Mr. Lardner)asked if in all specifications issued by the Board of Works for furniture for schools in Ireland there is a stipulation that the desks made by a particular firm in Dublin should be supplied, and the effect of this stipulation is to give a monopoly of the supply of these desks to the firm in question; that other competent firms in the city of Dublin have submitted pattern desks to the Board of Works for their approval; and that these firms have failed to get any response to communications addressed by

  1187
  them to the Board in reference to these desks; and will the contracts for the supply of school furniture be thrown open to competition by eliminating from future specifications the above stipulation?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am informed that there is no stipulation in the specifications in question that the desks supplied should be made by any particular firm, but tenderers are required to supply desks which shall be at least equal to a particular desk supplied by a particular firm, which is named as a standard. No one firm has a monopoly. More than one firm has submitted patterns, and their communications have been duly answered. I see no reason for altering the form of specification.

  Board of Works (Ireland).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that John P. Tierney, of Johnstown, Magheraveely, county Fermanagh, a farmer occupying a holding of 43 acres, applied to the Board of Works for an advance of £100 to enable him to erect farm buildings on his holding, and that his application was refused by the Board of Works on the ground that the existing buildings were sufficient; that a demand was made by the Board of Works for payment of a sum of £4 2s. for making an inspection in reference to the loan applied for; that a civil bill process to recover the amount was brought before the county court judge and adjourned till the next quarter sessions for the district; does the inspector making the inspection live at Enniskillen, within 20 miles of Tierney's farm, and in these circumstances is the demand made disproportionate, and will it tend to prevent tenant farmers from applying for loans to improve their holdings lest they may be refused, with a liability for cost of inspection; and can a remission of the charge in this case be directed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The facts are correctly stated except that the loan was requested for the purpose of building a dwelling-house, and was refused because, when the inspector's report was received, it was considered that the house on the lands, built in 1897, was sufficient for the agricultural requirements to which alone the Board are bound to have regard. The charge is based, as required by statute, on the actual expenses incurred, that is to say, travelling expenses paid, plus a
  1188
  charge for the inspector's time at 5s. per hour, which is a reasonable rate, and that regularly charged. The case is, as stated in the question, sub judice.

  Decentralisation Commission Report.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether the Report of the Decentralisation Commission will be considered by the India Office without further reference to the Government of India; and when it is expected that some action will be taken on it?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The reply to the first portion of the question is in the negative. The recommendations of the Government of India have been invited, and will be awaited before action is taken.

  Beer for Troops (India).
  Mr. SMEATONasked why, notwithstanding that the declared policy of the Indian Government, in which the Secretary of State concurs, is to give a preference in the purchase of stores for the Indian Army to goods manufactured in India, the Indian Government have recently discontinued giving contracts to the Indian breweries for the supply of beer to the troops; how this action can be reconciled with the declared policy of preference to Indian manufactured goods; and whether the Secretary of State will advise the Indian Government to resume the system, which is believed to have given satisfaction, of giving contracts to the Indian breweries.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Soldiers in India pay for their own beer, and if it is true that the contracts given to the Indian breweries have been discontinued, as to which the Secretary of State has no information, this has presumably been done in order to meet the wishes of the soldiers.

  Super-Tax on Individual Incomes.
  Mr. RIDSDALEasked if the super-tax of 6d. in the £ will be leviable upon corporations, limited companies, and firms, or upon individuals only?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I have already explained that the super-tax will be leviable upon individuals only.
  Mr. RIDSDALEasked if, for the purposes of determining liability to super-tax, the incomes of husband and wife will rank as one; if so, in what proportion the supertax is to be paid by each; and how would the rule apply in a case of separation under alimony?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think it is desirable that I should go into details of this kind until the Finance Bill is in the hands of Members, but I may say generally that the same rules as regards husband and wife will be applicable in the case of super-tax as of the existing income tax.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When will the Finance Bill be in our hands?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It depends on the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. As soon as we have got the Resolutions the Bill is ready. I should be delighted to bring it in to-morrow.

  Tobacco Duty (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if it is intended to place the new tax on the tobacco grown in Ireland?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The new rates applicable to tobacco grown in Ireland are shown in the Resolution passed on Thursday last. They are lower than the new rates on imported tobacco by the same amounts as the former rates on Irish-grown tobacco were lower than the former rates on imported tobacco.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: In view of the fact that the prohibition against tobacco growing in Ireland has only just been removed, and that the whole industry though promising is in an experimental stage, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be possible to relieve it of the extra duty of 8d. which will make the price so great that it will practically destroy an industry employing hundreds and hundreds of people?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Of course in regard to this as in regard to other matters I will consider all representations which are made to me.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a preference to any other Irish industry besides tobacco?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it then a fact that in the case of tobacco there is a Customs duty without a corresponding excise of a like amount?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, I think the hon. Member will find in the Finance Bill of last year that there is a corresponding excise.
  Mr. J. HOPE: Of like amount?

  Increment Duty on Land.
  Mr. W. R. W. PEELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of annual instalments by which corporations are entitled to discharge the payment of increment duty on land accruing at any one period?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is a matter with which I do not think it desirable to deal with until the Finance Bill is in the hands of the House.
  Mr. PEEL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state the number now in order that the anxieties of those interested in this matter may be relieved?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. Gentleman had better address that question to the Leader of the Opposition, because the termination of the discussion on the Budget Resolution would relieve all these anxieties by facilitating the introduction of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. PEEL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not try to put compulsion on the Leader of the Opposition to shorten the discussion of the Resolutions.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not wish to do so, but what I say is that the best way of relieving all those anxieties and doubts is by seeing the Bill itself.

  Duties on Undeveloped Land and Ungotten Minerals.
  Mr. PEELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated yield of the duty of ½d. in the pound on undeveloped land in 1910–11 and in subsequent years?
  The HON. MEMBERhad also given notice of the following question: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated yield of the duty of ½d. in the pound on ungotten minerals in 1910–11 and in subsequent years?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will answer these two questions together. I propose shortly to circulate a Paper giving full particulars, so far as it is possible to give them, of the estimated yield of the proposed new taxes.
  Mr. PEEL: What is the estimated maximum?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We cannot state the estimated maximum in regard to any tax. The estimated maximum might be hundreds of years hence. I can only give the estimate with which we are dealing for next year.
  Mr. RENWICK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended to charge ½d. in the £ on minerals which are ungotten in mines which are being worked or simply upon royalties not opened up?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is again really a question which the Finance Bill will answer. I cannot go into all these details now. When hon. Members see the Bill they will see that it is a complete answer to all these questions.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state at what price coal has been assessed in estimating its yield under the new duty of ½d. in the pound on ungotten minerals?
  The HON. MEMBERalso had the following question on the Notice Paper: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a Memorandum showing the basis upon which he has arrived at the estimated yield of the new taxes upon ungotten minerals and undeveloped land.
  The following questions stood in the name of Mr. CARLILE:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the £175,000 to be derived from the duty of ½d. in the pound on ungotten minerals will be drawn from England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively.
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the £175,000 to be raised by the duty of ½d. in the pound on ungotten minerals will be derived from coal, tin, copper, and ironstone respectively.
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how much of the £175,000 to be received under the new duty of ½d. in the pound on undeveloped land will be drawn from England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will answer all these questions at the same time. The estimated yield of the new taxes on land is necessarily to some extent conjectural, and I do not see my way to give the details asked for by the hon. Members.

  Development Grant (Application of Unexpended Votes).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if money comprised in the Army and Navy Estimates and voted therefor, but not spent during the financial
  1192
  year, will, under the Budget proposals, be liable to allocation for Civil Service purposes for a Development Grant?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will deal fully with the points raised by the hon. Member when the Bill in connection with these proposals is in the hands of Members.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman has departed from precedent in circulating the Resolutions, could he not also depart from precedent in circulating a draft of the Finance Bill?

  Future Financial Liabilities.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the announcement that the new taxation for 1909–10 will meet this year's needs and will also cover the whole of the estimated increased liabilities for 1910–11, he will inform the House of the nature and extent of those subsequent liabilities?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must refer the hon. Member to my remarks on this subject in the earlier portion of the Financial Statement which I laid before the House on the 29th ultimo.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman say something as to the extent of the liability?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I respectfully submit to the hon. Member that that is one of the points I dealt with.

  Tax on Motor Vehicles and Petrol.
  Mr. BEALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the object of the proposed tax on motor vehicles and petrol, he will consider the advisability of giving to road surveyors the same abatement as proposed for doctors and certain tradesmen, or some other relief from the heavy burden which the new tax will impose on road surveyors having the charge of large areas, and necessarily dependent on motor vehicles for the adequate discharge of their duties?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regret that I cannot see my way to extend to road surveyors the proposed abatement in favour of doctors.

  Income Tax (Differential Rates).
  Mr. SMEATONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, under the new scheme of taxation, will be the differential rates applied and the total income tax levied, respectively, on an income of £2,100, of which £1,000 is earned and £1,100 is unearned, and on an income of

  1193
  £1,800, of which £1,000 is earned and £800 unearned; and from what date will the new scheme of income taxation come into operation?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will circulate the answer to this question with the Votes and Proceedings.

  Motor Car Users (Rebates).
  Mr. RIDSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether commercial travellers and others using motor-cars merely for business or professional purposes will be placed upon the same footing as regards rebates as medical men?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir; unless the cars come within the exemption hitherto granted to trade vehicles.

  Income Tax (Deductions from Dividends).
  Mr. MASSIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the supertax will not interfere with the collection at the source, he will say at what rate income tax will be calculated for the purpose of deduction from the dividends of individual shareholders?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: At the rate of 1s. 2d.

  Liquor Licences (Sample Bottles).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the Budget proposals, a wine and spirit merchant who has hitherto taken out a £3 3s. licence to enable him to send out sample bottles of spirits, will in future have to take out a retailer's licence assessed on the value of his premises; and whether the existing wholesale £10 10s. wine licence will also have to be supplemented by a further retail licence if less than one dozen is sold?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer to both questions is in the affirmative.

  Revaluation of Land (Departmental Work).
  Captain CRAIG (on behalf of Mr. Charles Craig)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the revaluation of the land of this country required by his Budget proposals will be carried out by an existing Department, or whether it will be necessary to set up a new valuation Department?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No new valuation Department will be required to be set up in connection with my Budget proposals.

  Motor Spirit (Analysis).
  Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table a Paper showing the specification and analysis of motor spirit?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think it is desirable to lay a Paper containing particulars of this kind until the Finance Bill is in the hands of Members.

  Territorial Sergeants' Messes (Sale of Liquor).
  Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the provisions of the Budget proposals with regard to clubs will apply to the Territorial sergeants' messes, which, under the regulations, have had to be registered as clubs?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think there is a great deal in the suggestion, and I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to see what can be done on the point.

  Food Supplies in Time of War.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Prime Minister whether, having in view the changed conditions since the last Royal Commission was held, he will appoint a fresh Commission with a view to ensuring an adequate supply of food for the British people in time of war?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As the hon. and gallant Member is aware the Royal Commission reported after a long and thorough investigation so recently as 1905; and I am not prepared, as at present advised, to recommend that a fresh inquiry should be undertaken.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, as since the time the Royal Commission sat we have lost the two-power standard, he will not entrust the matter to the National Defence Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is based on a totally unfounded assumption.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: In view of the great improvement in foreign navies, will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  Strangers' Gallery (Punishment for Disorderly Conduct).
  Mr. CARLILEasked the Prime Minister if he proposes to introduce a new Bill for the punishment of disorderly conduct in the Strangers' Gallery?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, not as at present advised.

  Dock Accommodation for "Dreadnoughts."
  Captain CRAIG (on behalf of Mr. Lonsdale)asked the Prime Minister whether the absence of any dry dock accommodation on the East Coast for battleships of the "Dreadnought" type is one of the subjects of inquiry by the Special Committee now investigating our alleged naval unpreparedness?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already said, I do not think that at this stage it would be in the public interest to state the specific points which are being inquired into.

  Motor Car and Petrol Taxes (Allocation of Proceeds).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the Finance Bill, there will be one central authority for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland to allocate the proceeds of the motor car and petrol taxes for the improvement of the main roads in these countries, or whether there will be a separate central authority for each country?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think it would be desirable for me to deal with this point until the Finance Bill is in the hands of the House.

  Licensed Houses (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the number of existing free licensed houses in the urban and rural districts in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, respectively, with a population under 2,000 that will, under the new financial proposals, pay the minimum licence duty of £5, under 5,000 that will pay £10, under 10,000 that will pay £15, under 50,000 that will pay £20, under 100,000 that will pay £30, and over 100,000 that will pay £35?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No precise information is available as to the number of free houses as distinct from tied in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, having regard to the fact that the new financial proposals will press very hard on licence-holders in
  1196
  Ireland, and, further, to the fact that the law with regard to compensation for the extinction of licences does not operate in that country, he will consider whether the proposals can be modified?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will consider the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman.

  Old Age Pensions (Bank Deposits of Irish Claimants).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say whether pension officers in Ireland were at any time directed to calculate bank deposits at 4 per cent. without regard to the actual interest obtained, and, if so, by what authority, and do such directions still continue in force; and whether, if any claimants have been damnified thereby, they will be recouped therefor?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The instructions to pension officers have from the first been that the yearly value of money invested must in all cases be taken at the actual amount derived from the investment. If misapprehension has arisen in any case and the claimant has been damnified thereby, I shall be glad to cause inquiry to be made into any such cases as the hon. Member may bring to my notice.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say whether the Government intend, by legislation or otherwise, to compensate Irish pension claimants the grant of whose pensions is unduly delayed through the time occupied in making search in the Census Office for proof of age, and particularly at present when, owing to the precedence that has for months been given the special search in the interests of the Treasury for the age of the existing pensioners, prospective pensioners whose claims have been pending for months are enduring financial loss; and whether, as no similar case can arise in Great Britain, will the Government so amend the law as to make pensions granted in Ireland with which search for proof of age has to be made in the Census Office accrue from the first Friday following the next meeting of the committee after the claim has been made?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Proof of age lies upon the claimant, and it is open to him to obtain that proof direct from the Census Office upon payment of the usual

  1197
  fee. I am not aware that precedence has been given by pension officers to inquiries respecting pensions already granted, and in this connection I may refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Kilkenny on 21st ultimo. I regret that I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion in regard to fresh legislation.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Is the basis of the grant of pensions laid down in the census of 1841 binding?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down a question on that point.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: If I can prove that delay has occurred to pensioners in the manner described, which is so according to my information, will he see that those pensioners get their pensions from the time they made application?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That question has been put repeatedly to me not merely by Members from Ireland, but from other parts of the United Kingdom, and it has been repeatedly pointed out that it is quite impossible to do what is asked. The payments can only be made from the time the grant is made according to the rules of the Act.

  Licensed Houses' Valuation (London).
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what was the amount derived in London in the last year for which figures are available, from public-houses and restaurant licences, and the valuation of such premises during the same period?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand that this information would take a long time and considerable labour to compile, and I doubt whether it could be obtained in time to be available for the discussion on the Finance Bill, but I am looking into the matter.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that the information asked for must be at the present time in the hands of the supervisors in the different districts in London? They must have this information to assess the licence duties. I am asking for the information for last year. I am not asking to have it brought up to date.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I made inquiries this morning, and this is the answer I have from the authorities, but I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I will look into the matter, and if the information is available I will give it.

  Sinking Fund Purchases.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked at what dates this year's Consols were purchased for the Sinking Fund, and on what date the last purchase was made; and what was the amount purchased on each date?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The information asked for by the hon. Member is given in the Annual Sinking Fund Return under section 7 of the Act 38 and 39 Victoria, cap. 45. The Return for the year 1908–9 has been prepared, and will be laid before the House when it has been received from the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I am not able to give any later figures, since it is not the practice to publish details of current transactions by the National Debt Commissioners, the particulars of such transactions being treated as confidential until the end of the financial year in which they take place.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it correct that large purchases have been made during the last six days?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: To my knowledge there have been no exceptional purchases. We always do purchase when there is money available for the reduction of debt.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind the effect of these Government purchases when congratulating himself that the effect of his Budget was to send up the price of Consols?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is making a suggestion for which he has no warrant. If I may say to him, as one who has been in the Treasury, he is the last man in the House who ought to make such a suggestion. The Commissioners of National Debt are purchasing and have been purchasing because they have got money available for the reduction of debt, but there have been no exceptional transactions either before or after the Budget.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman did not state to the House that he had refrained from expending on the redemption of debt the sum of £7,000,000 which was available for that purpose last year, and that he had this money to spend now; and whether it has not been so applied since his Budget statement?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I still say I am not buying in any exceptional form. The right hon. Gentleman is making a suggestion for which he has absolutely no warrant in fact. It was being applied steadily long before the Budget, and we have not increased the amount of purchases since.
  Mr. MYER: What is the price that the right hon. Gentleman has paid for these Consols, and does it compare favourably with the price that was paid before the Budget statement?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the paper.

  Increment of Land.
  Sir FRANCIS LOWEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in case of an increment taking place in the value of land and property during the term of years for which it is let on lease, he proposes to charge the leaseholder with a tax in respect of this increment, or whether it is proposed that the freeholder who has received no additional rent in the meantime should bear the whole of this taxation on the expiration of the lease?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in estimating the value of the unearned increment in the value of land, how he proposes to ascertain whether it is due to the action of the community or to the action of the landowner; and, in cases where the increment is partly due to both these causes, how does he propose to apportion the increment between the two?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As I have already explained I do not think it is desirable that I should deal with questions of this kind until the Finance Bill is in the hands of the House.
  Sir FRANCIS LOWE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of embodying in the Finance Bill provisions dealing with these points before introducing that Bill to the House?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: How does the hon. Member know that I have not dealt with it?
  Sir FRANCIS LOWE: I do not know. I want to know.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member will know as soon as the Bill is introduced. I can assure him I am not going to tax anybody on any land until the Bill is introduced.

  Cider.
  Captain CLIVEasked whether a farmer is prohibited from buying apples to blend with his own in the manufacture of cider, unless he takes out the manufacturers' licence duty of £5 5s.?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Captain CLIVE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of this must be to deprive farmers of the profits of this trade and drive it into the hands of a few large dealers?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member brings the facts to my notice I promise to take all the facts into consideration.

  Product of New Taxes.
  Captain CLIVEasked what is the estimated product of the proposed new taxes in the financial year 1910–11?
  Mr. FELLasked if the additional taxes proposed in the Budget will yield in the next financial year the sum of £20,210,000?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: A Paper will shortly be circulated showing the estimated yield of the proposed new taxes for the present year and for the coming year respectively.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think in the case of some of these taxes the Chancellor does not expect to get the full yield next year. In these cases will he include in the Return the ultimate yield?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If by that the right hon. Gentleman means the death duties, whether the ultimate yield is limited by, say, five or six years hence, I think I might be able to get that, but I could not go beyond that. For instance, I could not give the increment.

  Property Owners Register.
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked what steps are being taken to form a complete register of owners and other persons interested in land, which becomes necessary for the purpose of increment and revision duties?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The matter is in the hands of the Board of Inland Revenue.
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked what is the estimated cost of a complete register of the owners and other persons interested in land, with full details of the various interests concerned, for Scotland, Ireland, and England respectively.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As I have already informed the House, I am providing £50,000 this year in connection with my proposals relating to land. Until further progress has been made it is not possible to say what the total ultimate cost will be.

  Duties on Wines.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Customs duty levied per gallon of spirits contained in French claret and other wines; and does he propose to increase the Customs duties on these wines so that the spirit contained in them will be charged approximately the same as the Excise duty charged on Scotch and Irish spirits?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is not possible to make any general statement such as that suggested in the first part of the question, owing to the great variation in the alcoholic strength of the wines imported. Under the existing scale wines are divided into two classes according to their alcoholic strength, but the duty on any particular wine does not vary with the exact quantity of proof spirit which it contains. I do not propose to alter the existing scale of duties.
  Mr. FELL: Is it a fact that two and a half gallons of wine, or about a gallon of spirits, would be taxed at only 5s. 6d., and that a gallon of spirit would be taxed at 42s.?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I certainly do not think that arises out of the question.

  Increased Tax on Spirits (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total quantity of whisky and other spirits, which will be affected by the proposed increased duty, consumed in Ireland for each of the past three years, calculated from the permits submitted to Excise officials on their periodic visits to licensed traders?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the hon. Member asked that this question should be postponed until I had time to get the information.
  Mr. WHITE: I was asked to put the question down for to-day.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am sorry. I have asked for the information.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the quantity of foreign whisky and other
  1202
  spirits imported into Ireland for the past three years?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am causing a Statement showing the various descriptions of spirits imported into Ireland from abroad to be printed with the Votes. Any foreign whisky that may have been brought to Ireland would be included in the heading "Spirits: Unenumerated, not Sweetened," but is not separately recorded in the official accounts. [Seel Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the amount received in Belfast?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no information on that point. I think that is a question which should be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many distilleries are at present working in Ireland; what has been their total average annual output for the past five years; and what would be the produce of a duty of 3s. 9d. per gallon calculated on the average annual output?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There are 26 distilleries working in Ireland. The average annual output for the past five years amounted to 12,287,638 gallons, proof. Supposing the average annual output to remain the same, the duty at 3s. 9d. per gallon would amount to £2,303,932. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the amount of spirit produced in Irish distilleries and the amount of spirit consumed in Ireland are two very different things.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the total on whisky, whether consumed in Ireland or not?
  Mr. J. J. MOONEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the amount consumed in Ireland has practically remained the same for the last four years?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would not like to answer those questions, which raise matters of figures, without inquiry.

  Licence Duty (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the scale of licence duty at present payable in Ireland is governed by the valuation of the premises; what is the ratio of licence to valuation; what is the total amount at present received by the Revenue Department from each scale of licence duty; and

  1203
  what does he estimate the total revenue will amount to from each scale in his proposed new scheme, calculated at the minimum rate?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think this refers to public-house licences?
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Yes.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I assume that this question has reference to public-house licences. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, subject to the provision in sub-section (7) of section 43 of the Inland Revenue Act, 1880. The existing scale of licence duties and their relation to the annual value are shown in sub-section (1) of the same section. The particulars asked for in the latter part of the question are not available.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it the fact that the system of valuation in England is to be the scale known as the Kennedy valuation; and in view of the fact that the law in Ireland as regards vested interests in licences is different, is the right hon. Gentleman going to adopt the Kennedy valuation in Ireland?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That matter will be cleared up when the Finance Bill is introduced. I do not think it would be desirable to go into it at present.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: If statistics were not available, on what basis did the right hon. Gentleman make his estimates? Had the right hon. Gentleman any statistics available with regard to the number of houses, and with regard to the increased revenue under the new scheme?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As the hon. Member knows very well, it was formed on the best information available at the time. When the hon. Member asks for official statistics on a matter of this kind it is a different thing.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: May I take it that the estimates will not be at all accurate or approach accuracy?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That remains to be seen.

  Irish Breweries and Distilleries.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount at present payable by Irish breweries and distilleries in the form of duty or registration fees; and what does
  1204
  he estimate the increased contribution to revenue under the scheme outlined in the present Budget will amount to?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I gather that by the expression "duty or registration fees" the hon. Member refers to the duties paid in Ireland by brewers and distillers on their licences as manufacturers. The licence duties in respect of Irish breweries amounted in 1907–8 to £30, and in respect of Irish distilleries to £315. I am not yet in a position to say what the increased contribution to revenue from these sources will be under my proposed scheme.

  Irish Whisky (Bonded and Exported)
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many gallons of Irish distilled whisky were taken out of bond for each of the three years ending 1906, 1907, and 1908, respectively; the amount of duty paid in each year; and whether he can state the quantity of Irish-made whisky exported for the same period?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As Irish-made whisky is not separately distinguished in the official accounts of goods taken out of bond or exported, I regret that I am unable to supply the information asked for by the hon. Member.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply me with the statistics whether the whisky was Irish made or not?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not the question put by the hon. Gentleman. If he will put the other question, I will endeavour to reply to him.

  Omagh Pension Officer.
  Mr. EDWARD BARRY (for Mr. Murnaghan)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a pension officer has authority to withhold the book from a person entitled to a pension; if he is aware that the pension officer at Omagh refuses to deliver the pension book to Charles Barrett, who in January was granted a pension by the committee and the same affirmed by the Local Government Board in March; and, if this officer has no authority for so doing, will he give a direction that the book be given forthwith to Charles Barrett?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regret that there appears to have been a misunderstanding in this case. Instructions have now been given to the pension officer to furnish the claimant with a pension order

  1205
  book, so as to enable him to draw a pension from the first Friday after the Committee's decision allowing the pension.

  Income Tax (Schedule A).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the deduction of 5 per cent. over and above the deductions of one-sixth and one-eighth in the assessment to income tax under Schedule A is to be of general application, or only granted to landowners whose total income is over £5,000 a year?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The concession applies to super-tax only, and not to the general income tax in relation to incomes either over or under £5,000.

  Dutiable Articles (Removal from Bond).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of Customs duty anticipated by the removal from bond of dutiable articles immediately before the close of the financial year under the various heads?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The figures, according to the best estimate that I have been able to make, are as shown below, but the hon. Member will understand that they are to some extent conjectural:—

  Tea

  …

  £200,000

  Spirits

  …

  195,000

  Sugar

  …

  50,000

  Tobacco

  …

  45,000

  Wine

  …

  35,000

  Cocoa, coffee, and chicory

  …

  20,000

  Dried fruit

  …

  5,000

  Total

  …

  £550,000

  Spirit Duty (Medicines).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that one effect of the proposed increase of 3s. 9d. per gallon in the duty on proof spirit will be an advance in the price of many medicines; and whether he will consider the advisability of granting a special rebate on spirits used in the manufacture of medicine?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have received on this point a certain number of letters to which I am giving careful consideration.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a rebate?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am considering the letters which have come before me
  1206
  as to this matter. I cannot promise anything to-day. I am giving very careful consideration to the suggestions made.

  Holyhead (Soundings by Foreigners).
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether individuals of foreign nations are allowed to take soundings within the limits off Holyhead; and, if not, what means are taken to prevent them so doing?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The taking of soundings when approaching land is not prohibited; it is an essential navigational precaution.

  Dover Harbour.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to establish a dockyard or repairing shop at Dover for the use of the Channel Fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: What is the use of Dover harbour as a Naval base without a dockyard or repairing shop?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend is not drawing a distinction between a dockyard and naval base. Portland is described as a naval base, but there is no dockyard.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Are there any repairing shops?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think there are any repairing shops?
  Mr. HORATIO MYER: Is there any truth in the statement that owing to currents it is dangerous for men-of-war to enter the harbour at times?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is a question which the Board of Admiralty have had before them. I have nothing new to add on the point.

  East Coast Dry Dock.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state what were the reasons for the delay of six years between the decision arrived at to construct a dry dock on the East Coast suitable for ships of the "Dreadnought" class and the actual commencement of the work?
  Mr. McKENNA: Investigations at foreign dockyards and establishments, change of Government, trial borings, and

  1207
  settlement of designs all contributed, with a variety of other circumstances, to postpone the actual placing of a contract after the decision referred to was arrived at.
  Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether there has been any alteration in either the international or naval position, which makes the necessity of such a dock greater to-day than it was a year or 18 months ago?
  Mr. McKENNA: The circumstances which directed the policy as to the building of the proposed dockyard were indicated as being in existence 18 months ago.

  Government Dockyards (Repair Work).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether the amounts allocated to the various dockyards for repairs during the current financial year fall short of the sums asked for by the officials as being necessary for the work of the year; and, if so, whether this cutting down of expenditure will throw the repair work seriously into arrear and cause a great deal of unemployment?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is undesirable to discuss draft estimates made in advance and submitted by officials, as wholly erroneous conclusions might be drawn from them.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is it not a fact that in consequence of that the work has been seriously thrown into arrear?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I am not in a position to discuss what estimates were submitted to the Board of Admiralty by officials of the dockyards.

  "Dreadnought" Type (Dry Dock Accommodation).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as no suitable dry docks exist, and no arrangements have been made for the construction of the same, for the accommodation of ships of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" type on the North-East Coast, he will state where is the nearest existing suitable dry dock available for such vessels in case of an accident to them in the North Sea to the north of the entrance to the Thames?
  Mr. McKENNA: Portsmouth.
  Mr. RENWICK: Owing to the unsatisfactory answer that has been given to me, at the close of questions I will ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to the present need of dry dock accommodation.

  Valentia Foreshore, County Kerry.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether they have authority over the foreshore in this island of Valentia, county Kerry, and if the Knight of Kerry can charge 6d. per ton for shingle taken from the said foreshore; by what authority the Knight of Kerry enclosed the area over the sea wall, between the pier and breakwater and the public road and foreshore in the island of Valentia, the expenses for the erection of which pier, breakwater, and sea wall the ratepayers of Valentia had to pay a tax of 10d. in the pound for a term of 33 years; and will the Board of Trade take steps to have this obstruction immediately removed?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): The foreshore of the island of Valentia below high-water mark is primâ facie the property of the Crown, and is under the management of the Board of Trade, who do not admit that the Knight of Kerry has any right to charge for materials removed therefrom. I have no information with respect to the enclosure work stated to have been carried out by the Knight of Kerry, but inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have received the necessary information.

  London Fellowship Porters.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the fellowship porters of London, who work chiefly on the London riverside, have to make a payment to the City Corporation of £2 18s. 6d., and a further payment of £5 5s., besides having to pay one-twelfth of their total earnings and a tax of £18 10s. per man per annum direct into the Corporation funds; and if he intends taking any action thereon?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the City Solicitor that during the existence of the fellowship referred to by the hon. Member, which was disbanded in 1894, the only sum which was paid to the Corporation by members of the fellowship was the fee for taking up the freedom of the City, a necessary qualification for admission to the fellowship, that this fee for many years amounted to £2 6s. 8d. per member, and that the money thus obtained was allocated by the Corporation to the support of the Freemen's Orphan School, for admission to which the children of deceased members of the fellowship were eligible.

  Small Holdings (Oxfordshire).
  Viscount VALENTIAasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether Mr. Kemble, who, accompanied by the hon. Member for the Woodstock Division, lately made an inspection of the county of Oxford to inspect land approved by the county council committee for small holdings and consider the claims of applicants, had previously informed himself of the facts in each case by inquiry from the chairman of the small holdings committee or the county land agent, or if he depended for his information on the hon. Member; at whose request Mr. Kemble was instructed by the Department to make the inspection; and why the Commissioners' Report on the inquiry has not been forwarded to the county council?
  Mr. E. N. BENNETT: Before the hon. Member replies, may I ask if the Board of Agriculture is not expressly permitted by the Act to invite the assistance and cooperation of any person or persons whose assistance they may deem useful in carrying out the Act?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): The Board instructed their inspector to visit Oxfordshire in consequence of the numerous complaints which they had received from applicants for small holdings there. The Board had previously been in communication with the county council with respect to many of the complaints, but they considered it advisable for an inspector to see the applicants personally and go into the matter on the spot. The inspector discussed the subject with the county land agent, and copies of his reports were sent to the chairman of the small holdings and allotments committee.
  In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Woodstock, the Board thought the Member for the Division is a proper person to consult.
  Viscount VALENTIA: Can the hon. Baronet say why the report has not been sent to the chairman of the county council?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Copies of the report were sent to the chairman of the small holdings committee and the chairman of the county council, and if the chairman of the county council, who is, I understand, the Noble Lord, did not re-
  1210
  ceive a copy, I think he has just complaint in regard to the action of his own committee.
  Viscount VALENTIA: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the letter of Mr. Kemble was marked "private," that the chairman of the small holdings committee so treated it, and that no member of the county council had any cognisance of it?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must get notice of that.
  Mr. E. N. BENNETT: Is he aware of the fact that amongst the information secured by Mr. Kemble from the applicants, and not from myself at all, was the fact that the great proportion of the applicants in Oxfordshire were under the impression that they would not have secured any land at all if they were abandoned to the tender mercies of the county council, of which the Noble Lord is a prominent member?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I would ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. A. E. W. MASON: Is the Report referred to a statutory Report under the Act, and will the period of six months begin to date from the receipt of the Report by the chairman of the small holdings committee?
  Viscount VALENTIA: Has the hon. Member for Woodstock seen the Report?

  Lord Kelvin Statue (Belfast).
  Captain CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, whether he can state if the authorities of Queen's College, Belfast, have applied for an amendment of their charter or for additional powers authorising them to dedicate to the public a portion of their ground as a site for the statue of the late Lord Kelvin, subscribed for by the citizens of Belfast and others, and whether he is aware that the Corporation of the city is prepared to dedicate the necessary ground for the site of the statue within the grounds surrounding the new City Hall, and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will refuse to sanction any alteration of the charter or additional power being given the authorities of Queen's College, in view of the fact that the large majority of subscribers are desirous of having it placed within the grounds of the new City Hall.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not heard anything of any application for an alteration

  1211
  in the charter. I hope there will not be any quarrel over the site of a statue of so distinguished a man as the late Lord Kelvin. I call well understand the anxiety of the new University to have the statue of a man so famous in learning and so intimately connected with university life within their boundaries. Possibly some people may also desire that it should be put outside the University. I will give the matter, so far as I have any control, the most careful consideration.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask if he will not grant any change of charter pending the receipt from Belfast of representations on the subject?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think I am likely to make any alteration in the charter within the next ten days.

  Naval 12-inch Guns.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked what is the life in number of rounds of the 12-inch guns now supplied to the Navy?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is contrary to the public interests to give the information asked for.

  Austro-Hungarian Government and "Dreadnoughts."
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet any information as to the intention of the Austro-Hungarian Government to lay down battleships of the "Dreadnought" type?
  Mr. McKENNA: Except for the intention expressed by the Austro-Hungarian Minister of Marine to build battleships of the most modern type if the money is voted next Session, there is no further official information on this matter.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt that they will build them?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no information on the point at all.

  Dry and Floating Dock Accommodation (Germany).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the dry and floating dock accommodation now under construction in Germany will double the existing equipment in less than six years, and will be capable of accom-
  1212
  modating battleships and cruisers of much greater dimensions than any existing or projected, and that before the end of 1910 it is expected Germany will have no less than 12 docks, dry and floating, completed and ready for use by warships of the largest class; and whether there will be in 1910 a single dock, dry or floating, on the East Coast of Great Britain capable of accommodating a "Dreadnought?"
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; to the second part—yes, within reasonable limits; and to the third part, in the negative. With regard to the fourth part of the question, I have stated that a floating dock would be constructed in about two years, but if money were no object it could, I believe, be built in half that time, so that it is impossible to say what docks we shall have in 1910.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will he, in view of the great urgency of this question, take steps to have this dock built in half the time?
  Mr. McKENNA: At the present moment, I cannot say what may occur later, at present the Board of Admiralty do not recognise any such question of urgency.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Does not the absence of any dock of this description constitute a case of urgency?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; not at the present moment.

  Disturbance at Cappamore, County Limerick.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he had heard any account of an affray between police and people at Cappamore, county Limerick, yesterday; whether the police officer in charge ordered his men to fix bayonets and charge the crowd; whether several persons were stabbed, one very seriously; and whether he would make full inquiries?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; I have not heard anything about it, but I will endeavour to ascertain whether the facts are as alleged by the hon. Member.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman immediately telegraph to Ireland and ask for an account of the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes; that is the course I intend to take.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister as to the course of business next week.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday we shall take the Budget Resolutions, and I propose on those days to ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'clock rule. The Resolutions to be taken in Committee of Ways and Means as regards the first three will be in the following order, namely:—

Excise liquor licences,

Additional customs on beer, and

Duty in respect of intoxicating liquors supplied in clubs. After those:—

Land values duties,

Income tax,

Death duties,

Stamps, and a

General Resolution regarding Amendment of the Law.
I do not wish at this moment to commit myself definitely as to the order after the first three.
On Thursday, in Committee of Supply, I propose to take, first, Irish Supply. I cannot specify the particular Vote; probably it will be the Vote relating to the Local Government Board (Ireland).

ADMIRALTY POLICY (DRY DOCKS).
Mr. RENWICK: I beg leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the pressing need for dry docks suitable for large war vessels on the East Coast.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that such a subject as that suggested by the hon. Member is at all contemplated by the Rule relating to Motions for the Adjournment of the House. The Rule contemplates something requiring immediate action, and the answer given this afternoon was that it would take some years to build a dry dock. It seems to me, therefore, that the two or three weeks which is all the time that would be necessary before the proper Vote in Supply could be brought before the House is really insignificant. All that the hon. Member has to do is to press the Government to put down the proper Navy Vote.
Mr. RENWICK: With all deference, Sir, the answer to my question was that
1214
there was no dry dock nearer than Portsmouth, and I consider that it is a very important matter that dry docks should be provided.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may consider that. Everybody may have his own opinion upon that point. I have to consider whether the Motion of the hon. Member comes within the spirit of the Rule, and my opinion is that it does not, because an early opportunity of discussing the matter will offer, if the hon. Member takes the proper means of obtaining it.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is it not the fact that the proper Vote has already been taken?
Mr. McKENNA: No; the Report has not been taken.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Joseph Pointer, esquire, for the City of Sheffield (Attercliffe division).

PRESENTATIONS OF BILLS.
Viscount DALRYMPLE—Blackgame.—Bill to amend the Acts relative to the killing and taking of Blackgame. (To be read a second time on May 14th.)
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE—Right of Way (Scotland).—Bill to amend the Law as to Rights of Way in Scotland. (To be read a second time on May 18th.)
Mr. CORRIE GRANT—Small Holdings.—Bill to amend the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. (To be read a second time on May 10th.)

SUPPLY— [6th allotted day].

  CONSIDEEED IN COMMITTEE.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  [IN THE COMMITTEE.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1909–10.
  [Class 2, Vote 11.]

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed: "That a sum not exceeding £98,169 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1910, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of

  1215
  Agriculture and Fisheries; the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew; including certain grants in aid."
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Edward Strachey): In some ways I regret that the Vote for the Board of Agriculture should be taken now, because, amongst other reasons, it is only a few weeks ago that we discussed a Supplementary Vote for the Board of Agriculture, when a variety of subjects were dealt with, particularly the question of small holdings. Nothing very new has arisen since then, though now a fuller and more complete discussion can be taken on the work of the Board as a whole. If the Debate on this Vote had not been asked for by the Opposition, the Board of Agriculture would have preferred a discussion later on, when the Annual Report on the proceedings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts would have been issued and available for hon. Members. They would then have had a great deal of valuable information in their hands, the result of detailed information supplied to the Board by some ten thousand local authorities. Last, but not least, I think it would have been better because, in all probability, in two or three months' time, there would have been speaking at this box the Under-Secretary for the Board of Agriculture, instead of one who, on one occasion, was described by the Leader of the Opposition as a "mere Court official"—though I confess I do not see why a Court official may not have as good a knowledge of agriculture as an Under-Secretary. Though it is not possible, under the circumstances, to give as much detailed information as I should like to do, yet it will interest the Committee to shortly review the working of the Act for the last sixteen months. In doing so, I will divide the time the Act has been in force into three periods. The Act only came into force on 1st January, 1908, though, owing to the fact that it was so much discussed and canvassed during the year before, this is often lost sight of. The first six months was really a period of preparation and investigation. What was done by the county councils? They had to form committees; they received some 23,000 applications from gentlemen who were anxious to have small holdings; they had to hold an infinite number of local inquiries.
  Very often, after having held a local inquiry, it was found necessary to hold the inquiry over again, because further appli-
  1216
  cations had come in, or from other circumstances. But it shows the amount of work that was done, when we consider the number of preliminary inquiries carried out by the county councils, the moderate sum spent—money simply paid for the actual cost of the inquiry and the official expenses—and that the members of the small holdings committee of the county council did all this work absolutely for nothing—although it has too often been forgotten—a great debt of gratitude is due to these gentlemen, who gave such an enormous amount of time to these local inquiries. The £2,000 expenses did not fall upon the local rates, because half was given by the Board to relieve the local rates, upon which only £1,000 fell. Then, again, the county councils had consultations with the Board of Agriculture in regard to their schemes. During these inquiries and consultations, I am glad to say, that up till now there has been the greatest good feeling between the county councils, the commissioners, and the inspectors of the Board, and the county councils have only been too ready, as a rule, to accede to the good offices and advice of the Commissioner.
  During this first period of six months—during that time of investigation—it is not surprising that only the small amount of 1,406 acres was acquired by the county councils, and that only one compulsory order was made. During the last six months of last year there was a very great increase indeed, and the amount of land acquired by the county councils voluntarily amounted to 17,090 acres, whilst 11 compulsory orders were made by county councils. Then, again, in the third period into which I am dividing my survey, the four months of the present year, 11,754 acres, and, what is more striking still, 41 compulsory orders were applied for by the county councils. Surely the county councils have not shrunk when there was a difficulty in acquiring land in asking for compulsory orders to enable them to supply the land asked for in that particular district!
  I come now to a very remarkable figure indeed. That is during the last six days, the first six days of this month, actually county councils have acquired in this short space of time 1,169 acres of land, and have applied for one compulsory order. That may be contrasted with the first six months of the working of the Act, when only 1,400 acres were acquired, and one compulsory order was asked for. That shows, as

  1217
  I have always contended, as this Act goes on it will be found that it will gradually grow and grow, and more land will require to be provided continually. I ask my hon. Friends on this side who have expressed impatience with the working of the Act, and those who have not much knowledge of the difficulties of dealing with land, to remember that. You cannot buy land as you would buy a pound of butter or a pound of tea. Whether it is a case of purchase or of notice people have to be considered. If it is a case of purchase, for instance, under a compulsory order, and a tenant has to leave before his time, it may be that heavy compensation has to be paid. This would very unduly increase the rent to the applicant. It is desirable that the title should run out before the tenant goes in, so as to avoid compensation being paid. Then, as I have already said, it is very remarkable the number of compulsory orders that were applied for. It shows the readiness of the county councils, when necessary, to resort to the powers entrusted to them by the Act. The total number is 53. Twenty-two are for purchase, and 31 for hiring. Up to the end of last year there were 200 schemes submitted to the Board of Agriculture for their approval. These, of course, had all to be most carefully examined and inquired into before they were sanctioned. I have often heard hon. Members complain of the need for greater speed. But the Commissioners have personally to examine all these schemes before the county councils are allowed to acquire land for them. I think we can say fairly that, as a whole, the county councils have worked both willingly and well. Undoubtedly there are some county councils that are more forward than others. There are others which lag behind.
  But what has been done? The County Council of Lincoln has acquired 2,521 acres; that of Norfolk, 1,907 acres; that of Cambridge, 1,573 acres; that of Berkshire, 1,436 acres. If we take Wales, we find that Glamorgan has acquired 1,400 acres; Denbigh, 1,000 acres. On the other hand, there are county councils who have been very backward. Such counties as Surrey have only acquired 10 acres, and Sussex has only acquired five acres. Sussex has two county councils. One has only acquired two, and the other only three acres. Cardiganshire and Flintshire have acquired none.
  Mr. W. P. BEALE: Have any county councils acquired land outside their own areas?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is thinking about the county boroughs. I am dealing now with the county councils. No county council, so far as I know, has gone outside its own area, and it would only be the case with county boroughs when they found it necessary to do so.
  Mr. BEALE: I ask particularly with respect to the counties; that is not so?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No; it would be a most extraordinary thing to do so, so far as I am aware. The neglect of the counties to which I have referred is to be very much regretted indeed. It will be necessary for the Board to take the question up, and to urge upon the county councils that they must put their house in order, and take the same course as other county councils; do something to provide much more rapidly than at the present time for the applicants in their particular county. They must put into force first of all peaceful persuasion. If peaceful persuasion is not sufficient, then they must take active steps to see that this Act shall not become a dead letter, because I can assure hon. Members that the Board of Agriculture is perfectly convinced that the county councils have been given a proper time to carry out these Acts thoroughly.
  Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: Would the hon. Gentleman say what have been the number of applications in those counties where very little land has been acquired?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have got it here. In the county of Flint the applications numbered 114. The approved applicants were 56. In Cardigan there were 131 applications, of which 129 were approved. This involved in Flintshire 1,400 acres applied for, and 2,096 acres in Cardiganshire. In the case of East Sussex only two acres were acquired, and in West Sussex three. The applications were for 2,023 and 1,613 acres respectively. Taking the 16 months as a whole, what has been the net result? The amount of land acquired voluntarily for schemes has been 30,250 acres. The acreage actually in possession of the county councils is 11,346. This was purchased at the cost of £370,965. The acreage leased was £10,071. Take the value together of these two. The estimated value of the leased land represents something like three-quarter million sterling. You will then see what has been done in the 16 months by the county councils of

  1219
  this country in the purchase or the lease of land. Except 1,400 acres acquired in the first six months, it has all been acquired in the short space of 10 months.
  Captain CLIVE: Was that acquired by purchase or how?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think I have explained to the Committee that the amount acquired by purchase was 11,346 acres, that leased 10,771 acres, and that the amount paid was £370,965, and that the estimated value of the leased land was the difference between that and the three-quarter million. The amount of land acquired voluntarily amounts to 30,000 acres. In addition, compulsory orders have been applied for for 4,170 acres, which will make the total amount of land, though not actually all acquired at the present moment, 34,921 acres. England is divided into the southern area, the northern area, and Wales. In the southern area 18,685 acres have been acquired. In the northern area (which includes Wales) 10,983 acres have been acquired. Then as regards land acquired by the county boroughs, only 582 acres have been acquired, all in the northern area, with the exception of Northampton and Reading. It seems as if the northern area had done rather less than the southern area. That is due to the fact that in the northern area higher prices are asked for land. There are smaller farms there. On the other hand, I think that as regards Wales there are signs that the Welsh county councils are waking up, and inclined to put the Act most stringently into force than they have been inclined to do.
  I sometimes hear it said that there is an enormous number of applicants, 23,000 unprovided with land. It is quite wrong to say there are 23,000 applicants unprovided, because there were 13,203 out of 23,295 who applied which were approved by the county council, and the total amount of land acquired by the approved applicants was 30,250 acres. Up to the present moment about 2,200 applicants have been provided for, but are not at the present moment in actual possession. Last year over 500 were in actual possession of land, and when I say the number of 500 in actual possession, that excludes those provided by co-operative societies. The amount of land acquired by co-operative societies was 1,016 acres, and it is probable they provided for something like 200 applicants. These societies acquire land for small holders, but the larger applicants
  1220
  prefer to hold direct from the county council. It may interest the Committee to know that out of the provided applicants only 34 per cent. were actually agricultural labourers. I regret we have not complete information showing the occupation followed by the various applicants. An interesting return was furnished by Hertford, showing how 306 applicants were made up, and what their condition in life and what their occupations were. In Hertford 75 farmers applied, 65 agricultural labourers, 16 bailiffs, 18 shepherds, 18 joiners and carpenters, 13 blacksmiths, 12 carriers and carters. Now there is a very striking feature of the 23,295 applicants. Out of these applicants 629, or 2.7 per cent., desire to purchase the land for which they applied. Of these 281 applicants came from Wales, and it is remarkable that out of that 281 applicants 191 applied from Breconshire. Taking them alone, the figures are more remarkable. Only 1.6 persons desired to purchase their holding. Perhaps I ought not to say it is remarkable, when I remember that under the Small Holdings Act of 1892 only 709 acres were purchased, and 118 acres leased in the last 15 years, as against 11,346 acres purchased by county councils under the Small Holdings Act in the last 16 months and let out by them, and 10,071 acres leased by county councils to persons applying in the county council areas. Now, as regards the question of co-operative societies, I know many hon. Members taking a good deal of interest in that, and I only wish that more was done with regard to letting to co-operative societies. The county councils are not obliged to let to co-operative societies unless they desire; therefore, so far as the Board is concerned, all we can do, and we do it very strongly and sincerely, is to urge upon county councils the desirability of getting co-operative societies, both in the interests of the men and of the county council, to take this matter up. The counties which so far have adopted the principle of bringing in the co-operative societies are Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Northampton, one of the divisions of Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Somerset, and Wilts. Perhaps I might remind the Committee that what is done generally in connection with co-operative societies in this matter the councils have, as a rule, insisted the societies must have, called or uncalled capital equivalent to three years' rent, or in the case of paying half a year's rent in advance, then only 1½ years' equivalent is required. I think a great deal has been done in Berkshire as regards this, and I think a very great deal

  1221
  of the credit is due to my hon. Friend the Member for North Berks. The county council of North Berkshire first arranged to let to agricultural co-operative societies 2,500 acres. They have done that under certain guarantees, furnished by districts of the county, assisted largely by my hon. Friend the Member for North Berks. I cannot help feeling that it will be well for gentlemen who wish to assist in the acquisition of land by co-operative societies to guarantee county councils where there is a difficulty of raising sufficient capital equivalent to three years' rent, and to assist in that way. I should like to refer to one point raised by the hon. Member for West Somerset. On discussing this question the other day as to whether it is sufficient guarantee for the county councils if they get three years' uncalled capital equivalent to three years' rent. He asked me whether I would recommend that course as sufficient to my own county council of Somerset, of which both he and I are members. I said I would be perfectly ready to do so, and I am glad to know that since that time my own county has agreed to these conditions. In fact, they were found to be rather more favourable than the terms laid down by the Board of Agriculture. So that when my hon. Friend suggested that I was willing to do something very reckless which I would not urge my own county council to do, I am very glad to think my own county council has adopted this plan this year. There is some dissatisfaction as to delay in the acquisition of land, and I know my hon Friend the Member for Oxfordshire is one of those who is dissatisfied. He said there was a vast amount of dissatisfaction, discouragement, and discontent because of the slow working of the Act, and my hon. Friend used to blame his own county council for delay in Oxfordshire.
  Mr. PHILLIP MORRELL: Is my hon. Friend alluding to me? and does he say I blame my own county council? I did nothing of the kind.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say he never blamed his county council for the delay. My memory may be at fault, but I was under the impression he did blame them strongly at one time, but that now, instead of blaming the county council, he blames the Commissioners.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting any words of mine?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No; and if the hon. Gentleman tells me he never blames the county council of Oxfordshire I at once accept his assurance. I had a very strong impression that he did blame them, but of course if he says he never did so I at once accept his explanation. It is my fault, for when he was praising the county council I must have thought he was blaming it. My hon. Friend will not deny that at the present moment he is blaming the Small Holdings Commissioners and the Board of Agriculture for the delay. Well, as a number of charges have been made against the Commissioners by hon. Members, and when they blame the Commissioners I have often reminded hon. Members that it is not the Commissioners but the Board of Agriculture they should blame, because the Commissioners act under the direction of the President of the Board of Agriculture. My hon. Friend blames them because he says they did not put in force sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Small Holdings Act, and my hon. Friend often quoted the subsection. It will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should read it, and read it through:—
  "The Commissioners, acting under the direction of the Board of Agriculture, shall estimate the extent to which there is a demand for small holdings in the several counties, or would be a demand if suitable land were obtainable, and of the extent to which it is reasonable and practicable, having regard to the provisions of this Act, to satisfy such demand."
  My hon. Friend always stops at the word "demand." I looked at what he said in previous Debates, and the quotation ceases after the word "demand." He ought to go further, because the section goes on to read:—
  "And for that purpose shall confer with the county councils, and may co-operate with such other authorities, associations, and persons as they may think best qualified to assist them, and take such steps as they think necessary."
  The whole essence of the clause is in the latter part of it. The clause does not direct the Commissioners to go about with a roving commission through the length and breadth of England, inquiring whether it is desirable that land should be let in small holdings, but they are to consult with the county councils and other persons if necessary in order that they may see what land is available and what it is that is desired for the district or the area. That is exactly what the Commissioners have done. They have been in consultation from the very first with the county councils upon the question, and they have carried out, under the direction of the Board of Agriculture, this first sub-section of section 3 of the Act and made those inquiries

  1223
  from the county council. On the other hand, I agree if the county councils would not carry out their duties and would not co-operate with Commissioners, and were unwilling to make these inquiries in regard to the 23,000 applications, it would then have been necessary for the Commissioners to have done all that work themselves. The whole intention and essence of the Act was that the preliminary work should be done by the county councils, and not by the Commissioners, and if it had been done by the Commissioners I think it fair to assume that we should not have at the present moment obtained a quarter of the land we have, or perhaps any land at all. If it had been necessary to resort to compulsion there would not be a single small holder on the land at the present time. As regards this question of delay, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire has complained because the present Board is not carrying out the Act in the way he thought they should carry it out; but I should like to point out to the hon. Member that I believe if the President of the Board of Agriculture did not carry it out on the lines he laid down we should have much greater delay than there has been. I should like to have seen a larger amount of land acquired, but I quite see what the President of the Board of Agriculture has done has been most reasonable and desirable, and leads to the most work and least friction, and leads to acquiring the greatest amount of land in the shortest possible time. I think hon. Members who have followed the attitude of the Board will see that the Board have always gone on the principle that as long as the county council shall show a reasonable desire to acquire land, so long will the Board refrain from any undue interference. That is the policy of the Board set out by Lord Carrington in the speech he made last February, in which he said:—
  "In framing the Small Holdings Act we always kept in view the great advantages which would be gained if it were administered by men possessing local knowledge both of the nature of the land to be cultivated and of the character and ability of the applicants. I am no lover of bureaucratic methods, and I was satisfied that we could secure better and more practical results by enlisting the help of local representative men instead of attempting to do everything from Whitehall."
  That is to say, the Noble Lord believes in decentralisation and not in centralisation, which is a thoroughly good Radical principle. The Noble Lord goes on to say:—
  "Our policy in this respect was much criticised at the time and we were told that we were very simple-minded people to believe that county councils would be able and could be trusted to carry out the provisions of an
  1224
  Act of Parliament so revolutionary in character as that for which we were responsible. But I think we were right, and looking back now at the work which has been done I do not for a moment regret our decision, a large area of land has been acquired for division into small holdings."
  I have said already that the land is held subject to the tenancy of the present occupier, and what did the President of the Board of Agriculture say on this point? He said:—
  "The Act must be worked without doing injustice to the vested interests of farmers, and land must be taken where it did not seriously affect their livelihood and their homes, and as opportunity arose and changes of tenancy occurred."
  If the Board are to act on these two principles laid down by its President, then some delay was, and is, unavoidable. I think on the whole the Act has worked fairly and smoothly, though, of course, there are backward county councils which require stimulating and urging forward. I can assure the Committee, on behalf of the President of the Board of Agriculture, that nothing will be lacking to see that these county councils are brought into line with the more progressive councils, and my Noble Friend will not shrink, where county councils are not doing their duty, from putting into force the full powers which he has at his command.
  On the other hand, supposing the President had taken a different attitude altogether, as some people would like him to have done. Supposing he had adopted the policy of reproving the county councils instead of inviting their co-operation? If he had not consulted them, and acted on his own account by sending Commissioners into every single county in England and Wales, what would have been the result? Everyone knows the temper of the ordinary English public representatives, because it cannot be denied that members of county councils are representatives of the locality in which they live, and they are, in fact, members of their own local parliament. If there had been an endeavour from Whitehall to coerce the members of those county councils who are freely elected, I venture to think there would have been passive resistance, and the Board of Agriculture would have been told, "Very well, do your own work, and do it in your own way, and we will do nothing." The result of that policy would have been that no land would have been acquired up to the present moment, and you would have had to negotiate for the purchase of land at enormous prices without any local knowledge to assist you in approving of the applicants; and last, but not least; in the great majority of cases you would have

  1225
  had to proceed by compulsory orders for every purchase or hire. In the case of purchase in this way, possession could not have been obtained at the earliest in less than six months, and very often the date of possession would have been as long as 12 months. Compensation would have to be paid to the tenant who had to leave before the expiration of his tenancy and this would increase the cost to the small holder. The result would have been that in the case of compulsory hiring it would have taken over a year to take possession.
  Although compulsory powers may be useful as a reserve force, I think if there had been any attempt to put them into force against county councils and the owners and present occupiers, instead of producing any rapidity of action that policy would have caused enormous delay and a great deal of unnecessary friction. I have just stated that very little would have been acquired under compulsion. May I point out that only two cases have occurred where land has been acquired by compulsory orders and in both those cases no land is actually yet in possession of any county council, either by purchase or lease. I often think that when the Board of Agriculture is blamed for not doing more in stirring up reluctant county councils those hon. Members who think that the county councils are not doing their duty ought to use their influence with the members of their own county councils and stir up the progressive members on those councils to bring this question forward. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I have done it myself with very good effect. The county councils are wholly dependent upon their constituents and the county council elections are coming next year. Why should those people who think the county councils are behind not see that those members who are lax should be called to account and called upon to give to their constituents a reason for their action in this matter. I do not see why it should be thought to be entirely the duty of the central authority to stimulate or coerce a county council. It is as much the business of the electors of a particular county to see that at the forthcoming election only those members are returned who are willing to put this Act into force, and see that the action of their county council is stimulated.
  On more than one occasion I have been asked questions in regard to this £100,000 grant. There has been a great deal of misapprehension about it, and perhaps hon. Members would like to know the actual position. Some hon. Members
  1226
  seem to think that this grant would be made every quarter, and was to go on accumulating, but that is not so. The money was voted to set this Act into force, and to have the Small Holdings Account as a reserve Vote. More money cannot be voted until this sum has been exhausted. The £100,000 was voted to meet the legal and other expenses in connection with the acquisition of land, the payment of one-half of any irrecoverable loss under a scheme, and other purposes. County councils are only just beginning to send in their claims for expenses in connection with the acquisition of land, but it is probable that considerable payments will be made under this head in the next few months. No payments in respect of losses under a scheme will be made at the present time, as time must be allowed to see whether or not the schemes will be self-supporting. A grant of £1,200 a year to the Agricultural Organisation Society, from the 1st of April, 1909, will be paid out of the small holdings account, and we are also asking the Treasury to sanction the payment of £500 to them out of the last financial year for the work of the Agricultural Organisation Society before that date.
  These figures have only been roughly reckoned, and I believe that the cost of the acquisition of land by the county councils, which will have to be paid out of this £100,000, will come to something like £1 per acre. Up to the present moment £34,000 has already gone out of the £100,000. The figures for Oxfordshire show that 426 acres have been acquired, and the county council lately sent in their Bill, which amounts to £500. The cost of compulsory acquisition, which necessarily must be higher to the county council, is also paid out of the £100,000, and it is pretty safe to say that in a very short time something like £50,000 will have been spent out of the £100,000, or at any rate there will have been liabilities incurred for that amount.
  A question has been put to me in this way: Supposing a landowner who has got a farm now let as one holding of 1,000 acres chooses, in order to avoid having that farm taken over, to split up that 1,000 acres into 20 holdings of 50 acres each what would be the result? The opinion of the law officers of the Crown has been taken upon that point, and in their opinion it would simply be an evasion of the Act. On the other hand, where a man holds land in 50-acre holdings from different owners it would not be competent for the county

  1227
  council to interfere. If the 1,000 acres is split up into 20 parts held by 20 different men it would not be competent for the county council to interfere by asking for a compulsory order.
  It has been said that there are occasions upon which applications for small holdings have been prevented because there has been intimidation. I think if there had been such cases of intimidation county councils would not have been slow to act in the matter, and I can assure the Committee in every single case brought to our notice where it has been suggested there has been intimidation we have always inquired most carefully into them. If it can be proved up to the hilt that any owner has intimidated any one upon his estate who has applied for a small holding, or has been evicted from the small bit of land which he had already, the Board of Agriculture will not shrink, even if the county council shrinks, from interposing under their compulsory powers in order to see that that landowner is brought strictly to account, and steps will be taken to put on that land the man who has been intimidated. I should like to see any owners expropriated who attempted to defeat the working of this Act by intimidation, or eviction, or interfering with a man's livelihood. I can assure the Committee that strong action will be taken by the Board of Agriculture in any case where intimidation can be proved.
  In the same way complaints have come in that county councils have had notice given to them that certain small holders have received an intimation that their rents are going to be put up, and that the particular county council interested should be urged to put up the rents as well, although the land was let at 15s. per acre, and small holders paid £2 per acre. It has been said in these cases that the county councils would not interfere. I have got a particular case in my mind. We at once sent down an inspector to investigate it, and the Board of Agriculture will interfere if the county council will not do its duty in the matter. As I have already said the Board is fully alive to its position in these matters. They have got every county under review, and they will not fail to act when county councils do not do their duty. But many county councils are doing their duty, and are co-operating with the Board of Agriculture. A few years ago no one would have thought that it was possible that in 10 months a great
  1228
  rural revolution would take place. Yet in 10 months 30,000 acres have been let out to small holders by county councils without friction or pressure at fair rents and on an economic basis. This has been done with the co-operation of the county councils, and the Board of Agriculture is fortunate in having two gentlemen as Commissioners—two gentlemen who have a thorough knowledge of land with great sympathy with the policy of small holdings, both in the north and in the southern parts of this country. I feel perfectly certain that under their good management and under the management, last but not least, of the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose heart and hope are in the cause of the small holdings movement—and I do not think any man will venture to get up and state that the President of the Board of Agriculture is not wholly whole-hearted in this matter—there will be a successful movement. My Noble Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture does not spare time and effort in promoting the policy of small holdings, and he takes care that all this is done with common honesty, fairness and justice to all concerned.
  Before I sit down I should like to refer to another important part of the work of the Board of Agriculture, and that is the question of the care of our flocks and herds under the Diseases of Animals Act. So far the health of the stock of the country has been satisfactory, but I regret to say that anthrax shows rather an unfavourable increase during eighteen months compared with the previous period of eighteen months. There has been an increase of 78 outbreaks. On the other hand, as regards glanders there is a decided improvement. The new Order of the Board of Agriculture has had a very favourable effect. It is working very well, especially in the county of London. In London the outbreaks in 1904 were 10,038, whereas last year they were only 425. This shows that the new Regulations of the Board of Agriculture has borne good fruit. Then, again, in the case of sheep-scab, there were only 196 outbreaks, and, therefore, the position in England and Wales is much better than it was some time ago. As regards the question of swine fever, there were 39 outbreaks less than previously, and, with reference to foot-and-mouth disease, there has been no recurrence since the outbreak which occurred last year, and which was effectually grappled with rapidly by the

  1229
  Board of Agriculture and stamped out immediately. The only danger was owing to the outbreak in the United States last year. The Board of Agriculture acted promptly in this matter. The States where it occurred were scheduled, and the cattle were not allowed to land at our ports. The steps taken by the Board of Agriculture were very effective, and no case of the disease took place in any port of this country. That was a great deal due to the fact that the United States co-operated with the Board of Agriculture in this matter. The Government of the United States at the present moment gives us every possible information on the subject. It was a serious outbreak in the United States, but I am glad so say that it has been stamped out now at a cost of a total amount of 88,269 dollars, a third of which was paid by the States and two-thirds by the Federal Government. I think that I have now touched upon all the questions of general interest. No doubt there are other points upon which hon. Gentlemen desire information, and I shall be very glad to reply to any questions which hon. Gentlemen may put to me and any questions which hon. Gentlemen may think that I have not dealt with in a manner to give every information.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I should like, Mr. Emmott—
  Mr. WATT: On a question of order, may I ask, whether it is not the custom when a Member has a notice on the Paper, he should "catch the Chairman's eye" before any other Member?
  The CHAIRMAN: The only rule is that the hon. Member who catches my eye is called. In this case the right hon. Member for Wimbledon caught it.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I gather from the very able statement of the hon. Gentleman that the general outcome of the Small Holdings Act is—and I endeavoured to follow the figures as well as I could—that land to the extent of £750,000 has been acquired by the county councils?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, three-quarters of a million.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Three-quarters of a million?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Seven hundred and fifty thousand.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I understand that 10,000 acres have been acquired by lease, 11,347
  1230
  by purchase by the county councils, and that there are compulsory orders issued for 4,000 more acres. He gave us to understand, if I understood him aright, that on this land acquired by the county council no less than 3,601 persons have been provided with small holdings, although not in actual possession. I understand him to say that, and that 500 people are actually in possession of small holdings at the present moment by virtue of an Act which has been in operation during 16 months. With some exceptions I understood him to say that the Board of Agriculture was acting with the county councils. The Committee will be glad to hear of this co-operation, and also that for the most part the county councils are performing their duty. On the other hand, I understood him to say that there are some county councils which appear to be rather lax in the discharge of their duties, and it is on that point I should like to put my first question. When that has been the case, when 1,000 or 1,500 applications have been made, I understand that the result has been that only two or three people have received small holdings. Have there been any reasons offered for this failure to acquire more land? If so, will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us what those reasons have been? Can the hon. Gentleman give the Committee any information as to the average price which has been paid for this land? I mean the land which has been acquired already in very considerable quantities, and the price of the land which has been acquired compulsorily. Again, there comes a very much more important question. Can he say what the average rent of these small holdings already in occupation is? Is he able to give any idea of what the cost has been per acre where it has been necessary to equip the land and convert it into small holdings? That is a point upon which the Committee will be glad to have any information which the hon. Gentleman is able to give us. Perhaps it is too early to ask how the land is being dealt with by these new holders, whether these holdings are giving satisfaction to those who have got them, and whether the experiment is likely to be satisfactory. I think it is rather early to expect information of that kind; but if the hon. Gentleman is able to give us any information, however small, it will, I am sure, be a matter of great satisfaction to the Committee. The hon. Member made some observations as to the action the President has taken in this

  1231
  matter, and I entirely agree with him. While I acknowledge that under the terms of the Act where county councils neglect their duty they must expect that pressure will be brought to bear by the Department responsible, I am sure we must agree that it would be most unwise, in the first instance, to attempt anything in the nature of "dragooning," and I am sure that the Noble Lord has shown wisdom in proceeding in a temperate and a conciliatory manner.
  There are one or two other questions. I was rather hoping that we should have heard from the hon. Member something in regard to the efforts which have been promised, and which, I rather fancy, are being made at this time in regard to the improvement of the supply of horses in this country. Perhaps the hon. Member will have an opportunity of giving us some further information on this subject. It is a matter of the utmost importance, of course, as regards our national defence. I was very much struck by the statement which was made by the Secretary of State for War on the Army Estimates quite early in the Session, and I want for a few moments to refer to what occurred then. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion made an elaborate calculation to show what number of horses would be required for what is called general mobilisation—that is to say, a mobilisation of the expeditionary forces, in the first instance, and also a mobilisation of the Territorial forces, and the conclusion, to put it as briefly as I can, that the Secretary of State came to was this—that 116,000 horses would have to be provided for general mobilisation. But then he proceeded to calculate how many horses there were in the country. Roughly speaking, he said that, with the assistance of the President of the Board of Agriculture, he had ascertained there were something like 2,000,000 horses altogether, but he had made very large deductions from these—and very wisely, as I think—and it ended in this, that he came to the conclusion that after meeting the necessary reductions there were left us 500,000 horses in the country able and fit for Army purposes—a number sufficient to mobilise the Army between three and four times over. There is that satisfactory feature of the situation. The only question is not whether the horses are there or not, but whether we can mobilise them. It is upon that branch of the question that I want to direct the attention of the Committee, because the great object of the Board of
  1232
  Agriculture is not achieved merely in meeting the supply of horses; there is very little good if we cannot get them mobilised afterwards. And I ask this question because in 1906 the President of the Board of Agriculture summoned a great conference of people whom he considered to be interested in the question, and whose opinions would be of value, and among others were members of the Royal Commission on horse breeding. We had a very interesting discussion which my hon. Friend opposite will very well remember, and towards the close of that conference a gentleman spoke with the highest possible authority, Colonel Benson, who at that time occupied the high position of director of transports and remounts, and who has received promotion since—the one man in the country best entitled to give an opinion, and he made a very remarkable statement which I find considerable difficulty in reconciling with the statement of the Secretary of State on the Army Estimates some time ago. In the presence of the President of the Board of Agriculture as well as the hon. Gentleman opposite he said:—
  "Our position is this. We have to face certain facts. The facts are these; during the last war (that was the South African war) we had to buy some 300,000 horses. Out of that number 76,000 I only could be produced in the United Kingdom in three years."
  If only 76,000 horses could be produced in the United Kingdom in three years during the South African War surely that is a very different position to that about which we were informed by the Secretary of State for War when he said there were 500,000 horses available in this country, all of them able and fit for Army purposes and mobilisation. There must be, I imagine, some explanation which we shall hear in the course of this Debate. There must have been something said which I am not aware of.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): May I point out we have now the power which we had not then of taking horses compulsorily, in the event of an emergency, at a fair market price.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I am perfectly well aware of that; but I cannot agree—I should think it is very questionable indeed—that it would enable the War Office to secure such a number of horses over and above that which they could obtain during the South African War. Surely some more will be necessary. What number it will be I do not know. However, I have called attention to the fact which I think requires

  1233
  further elucidation, and is certainly deserving of the serious attention of Parliament, because the inconsistency is very remarkable. We have heard from a man of the highest authority in the country that during the three years of the South African War only 76,000 horses could be produced here, and yet we are told by the Secretary of State for War that 500,000 are available for the purposes of mobilisation at the present time. I pass on to say this, while I am about it—and I think I mentioned it at the time—that there is nothing more important in connection with this subject than that these horses, wherever they are, should be what is called fit for their work. Everybody knows that the horses that went through the trials better than any others during the war were the omnibus horses of London. Why? Because they were fit to go out. But just compare those with the animals brought from abroad, and then it will be understood why it is I am pressing the enormous importance of increasing the supply here. Hundreds of thousands of horses were brought from the Argentine during the war, and what were they? Animals fed upon grass. How long did they live? How much work did they do? How much good were they for the service of the Army when they got to South Africa? The average life of these horses I am told was not more than a week. Nor was it likely to be more. You might just as well expect me to take my hunters from their loose boxes in summer time and begin hunting every day in the week. A more wasteful and abominable expenditure of public money than was made at that time I cannot conceive. I cannot conceive how a great Department like the War Office could ever have been responsible.
  I want to say a word in regard to the diseases of which the hon. Member spoke, and then I will make way for anyone else who desires to speak. He said that anthrax had been bad, but that as regards glanders the position was very much more satisfactory. I was very glad to hear that, because, curiously enough, a half an hour before I entered the House, my attention was called to a statement in "The Times" of to-day, from which it appears that glanders is extremely bad in London at the present moment, and that in the stables of one great firm there are 200 horses affected. I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware of it, but I am quite sure, if he is not, it is a matter which ought to receive the immediate attention
  1234
  of the President of the Board of Agriculture, because glanders, on reaching such a stage as it apparently has done in this case, becomes an exceedingly serious matter. I come now to the question of swine fever. I must say the position of that disease appears to me to be eminently unsatisfactory, and it has been most unsatisfactory now for a great number of years. I take the last Report of the Board of Agriculture which has been published and which I understand is for 1907, and I take the last ten years. In 1907 the total outbreak of the disease in England was 1,958. Well, after spending a considerable amount upon it and on what, after all, I suppose are the best efforts of the Board of Agriculture to control if not to get rid of this disease, I find that in 1907 there were 2,185 cases. They have ranged up and down to all kinds of numbers in different years, but here we have the bald fact that at the end of ten years' hard work to control the disease it is worse now than it was then. I want to call attention to another matter in connection with that. The expenses for dealing with swine fever are not paid altogether, as they ought to be, out of Imperial funds. There has been a grant allowed to the Board of Agriculture now for a considerable number of years from the Local Taxation Account, which falls, of course, on the rates and on the ratepayers of the country. I really do begin to think that when after ten years spent in trying to deal with this disease we find the position is worse now than it was then, it is time that we should reconsider whether the ratepayers, at all events, ought to be allowed to continue to bear that burden. I think the Imperial funds ought to pay the whole of it, and ought to have done so from the first. It has become a question which I do think will have before very long to be considered. I have asked the hon. Gentleman a great many questions, some of which I hope he will be able to reply to before this Debate is finished, and I will say nothing further, except to thank the Committee for kindly allowing me to do that.
  Mr. E. N. BENNETT: I very much regret with my hon. Friend on the Front Bench that this Vote was not postponed for a few weeks until the Report of the Small Holdings Commissioners came before the public; but even apart from that Report there is ample scope for discussion of the Small Holdings Act.

  1235
  I think we may fairly say that not only amongst Members of this House, who are keenly interested in the success of this Bill, but throughout the ranks of those who applied for small holdings there is a profound feeling of dissatisfaction and discouragement with the work of the Act up to the present. I fully appreciate the remarks of the hon. Gentleman with regard to recent development and recent acquisitions of land in the course of the last few weeks. We are thankful for small mercies, but it seems to be a trait of the Agricultural Department to continue to dangle before our eyes these small and recent advances, as if they demonstrated real and substantial progress. In February, it is true, there seemed some ground for optimism. On the 4th of that month Lord Carrington made a speech at Slough upon the kind and conciliatory lines with which we are familiar in the speeches of Lord Carrington, in which he indicated that a new method of dealing with this question had been adumbrated. The drift of that speech was to show that the county councils had been given a generous tether of a full twelve months, and the time had now really come to make the carrying out of the Act a much more drastic and efficient thing than it had been. The Noble Lord might have added that some, at least, of the councils had frittered away those twelve precious months, and done little towards carrying out the Act. My hon. Friend quoted a passage from Lord Carrington's speech; may I be permitted to quote another? Lord Carrington said on that occasion, on February 4th:—
  "The Act had now been in operation for twelve months, and the demand for land must be satisfied without further delay."
  And he goes on to say that:—
  "They proposed to appoint special Commissioners, who would indicate the localities in which land was to be acquired, and the time within which the scheme was to be carried into effect."
  And further, as a kind of bon bouche at the end of the speech, we were informed that Mr. Frank Lloyd, of "Lloyd's News," had generously offered £1,000 for prizes to small holders.
  That was on 4th February; it is now May, and at this moment no time limit whatever has been fixed for the working of the Act. Lord Carrington said that the time within which the Act is to be carried into effect would be indicated, but no time has been applied, and Mr. Lloyd's
  1236
  generous offer will apply to a very small number of people, as there were 21 applicants out of 422 people after considerable delay. Lately two Commissioners have been appointed to look after the 62 counties and county districts recognised by the Board of Agriculture. One of these Commissioners is sent to Wiltshire and one to Lancashire. I congratulate the Members for Wiltshire upon their Commissioner. I do not covet my neighbours' Commissioner, in the sense of grudging them that privilege, but I should like to say this: that up to the appointment of that Commissioner my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes had persistently represented that Wiltshire was doing very well, and that we must not hurry up things among the county councils, because the Wiltshire County Council was doing its best, and everything seemed to be going on satisfactorily in that county. That is the county to which an available Commissioner was at once sent, but I may point out to the hon. Member and others in this House that there are other Liberal Members in this House, and I am one of them, who have never cherished these amiable delusions and taken the view that the Tory county councils are likely to be enthusiastic about the sub-division of the soil and the creation of an independent peasantry.
  Earl WINTERTON: These are elected bodies.
  Mr. E. N. BENNETT: Elected on lines which show that your party knew perfectly well what they were about when they created county councils and refused to pay the out-of-pocket expenses of the members of those county councils. Many of us know by bitter experience in recent elections and going about our Constituencies, that the party which deliberately welcomes and rejoices in the prospect of two bad winters, in order to secure Protectionist votes, is only too likely to be inspired with and exhibit the same ghoulish joy if they can refer to the failure of the Small Holdings Act, to point the moral and adorn the tale of Tariff Reform.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I rise to order. Is it in order to make these baseless insinuations?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): Without going into the merits of the insinuations, they do not seem to me to be out of order.
  Mr. BENNETT: We cannot share the blithe optimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire when we are left out in this allocation of special Commissioners. We are not sufficiently altrustic in Oxfordshire to rejoice exceedingly because Mr. Fordham is at work in Wiltshire, nor does the mention of some local success in Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire give any substantial comfort to our poor applicants in Oxfordshire. I mention these facts to show the spasmodic and unbusinesslike way in which the Act is being carried out.
  Mr. LESLIE RENTON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he includes all county councils in his condemnation?
  Mr. BENNETT: Most of them.
  Mr. E. S. MONTAGU: He speaks of Oxfordshire only.
  Mr. BENNETT: No; there are a large number of these county councils besides Oxfordshire. Let me see if I am wrong. What are the results of the working of this Act up to date, or rather, not up to date, but up to the date of the return which brings us up to December 31st. I realise that certain additions have been made within the last few weeks, but speaking roughly, they are not sufficiently numerous to make any very great difference in the balance of the figures. Up to the 31st of December there were 13,202 approved applicants, and out of that number 490 and three co-operative societies had been provided with land; whether they are in possession of the land is another matter. But even if they are in full possession that only means that in these many months since the passing of the Act something like 4 per cent. of the applicants have been provided for. In that return, it is true, we hear of some 700 applicants who have been provided for by private arrangements with landowners, but it is scarcely necessary to point out that that has nothing to do with the working of the Act. A further fact put forward is that a small number of compulsory schemes have been submitted to the Board. Submitted to the Board, but not acted upon, of coarse. The small number of compulsory schemes up to the 31st of December was 38, and the number now, I think the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, had reached 53. When one hears of a scheme being brought before the Board it has a somewhat grandiloquent sound about it, but a scheme may mean the provision of two or three acres of land round a particular village, and we find these 53 schemes represent an utterly insignificant fraction
  1238
  of the land actually applied for. When the representatives of the Board of Agriculture are in their best mood of prophetic optimism they look forward to 50,000 acres as being provided at most by Michaelmas. I am not content to contrast this hypothetical result with the achievements of the party opposite, for their Bill of 1892 was the cheapest form of shop-window legislation that has ever been seen in this House, while our Act is intended to be a real and living thing. I think it is fair to say that in the counties at the present moment the same old policy of drift and interminable delays and private arrangements between county councils and the landlords, many of whom still sit on the county councils, still holds the field. One result of that policy is—and I think few people will deny it who will look into the matter—that exorbitant rents have been charged for the lands that have been provided. Let me give an instance. Some time ago the Noble Lord opposite who represents Oxford City rather took the Board to task in this House for not forwarding two schemes that were sent to it by the Oxfordshire County Council. The Board had been dilatory in not completing these two schemes.
  Viscount VALENTIA: More than two schemes.
  Mr. BENNETT: That makes my case better. What is the reason that the Board of Agriculture had not been able to sanction those schemes? Why, because the rents charged were so utterly out of proportion to common sense and reason that they refused to ratify them. That is what has been going on all over England. We are told that there has been a rise in the value of land, but I deny that any economic law of that kind can account for a rise of 50 or 100 per cent. in some remote country village. It is not an economic law. It is the old law of greed, which, speaking generally, in rural England has always told against the small man. The smaller the allotment or holding the higher very often is the rent exacted by owners and land agents. Is it any wonder in these circumstances that hope deferred is making the applicants' hearts sick? I know it from personal experience, and I think a good many of my friends, know it from personal experience. Even if our experience is at fault, let me call the attention of the House to these pathetic figures. Out of 23,000 applicants 13,000, that is 55 per cent., have been approved, but at the commencement of the

  1239
  work a year ago we were told, and no one doubted it, that of the applicants from 85 to 90 per cent. were acceptable and suitable candidates, and now only 55 per cent. are there. What has become of the 30 or 35 per cent.? They simply have lost heart and have dropped away. They existed then, they exist no more. People have given up their applications in disgust and with something akin to despair. I am quite well aware that sometimes the surrender of the application is unnecessary and foolish and somewhat unmanly. I have taken some of my own friends in the villages to task over the matter, and told them they ought to weather out the storm and stick to it till they got the land, but those who know the conditions of village life cannot be surprised that they lost heart. Can you wonder at it where the applicants lived in remote villages where all kinds of petty, mean persecutions are directed against those who have applied for the land?
  Earl WINTERTON: Where are they?
  Mr. BENNETT: In Oxfordshire and elsewhere. Let me give an instance of the sort of treatment that our villages are receiving from county councils. During a tour which I made in my Constituency, accompanied by Mr. Kemble of the Board of Agriculture, or rather which he made accompanied by me—["Hear, hear"]—I am going to repeat that tour whenever I like and with whomever I like. I am going round next week. During that tour we found this, and anyone who goes anywhere in the Division will find it, that a very large proportion indeed, well over a half, I should say, of the applicants had never even been informed by the county council whether they were approved or not. That occurs again and again, and they do not know how to make their future arrangements. A great many are rejected. Let me give an instance of the way in which people are rejected. In the case of two men who told me they were rejected and did not know why they should be, I took the trouble to write to the county council, and found they had been rejected because they had never been to the preliminary meeting. These meetings may be held in a village some miles away, they do not turn up, and therefore they are, ipso facto, struck off the list of suitable applicants! No inquiry was made whether they were ill or whether they got notice of the meeting, or as to the scores of things which might have taken place to prevent them attend-
  1240
  ing the meeting. It really is a disgraceful way of treating these humble people. Again, one hears that local information is against them. What is local information? If a man is a strong Nonconformist, do they go to the rector to ask if he is a suitable candidate? If he is a strong leader of local Radicalism, do they go to the great farmer who dominates the parish council to ask his opinion of the man? Where do they get their local information from? I know there is a right of appeal, but that is more valuable in theory than in fact. It is all very well for right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to say anyone can appeal to the Board of Agriculture, but these poor people in little villages are not great hands at writing. They are frightened of writing letters. You cannot expect much epistolary finish from a man whose education ended at 13. As to credit banks and co-operative societies and the building of houses, the sort of embellishments of the Act which can be put in force by the county council, in co-operation with the Board of Agriculture, I think that people are beginning to see that many of them will be crumbling in their graves long before they see the houses or the co-operative societies.
  We have not received in carrying out this Act the enthusiastic or active assistance that we might have expected from the great corporate bodies. Take the colleges of the University of Oxford. Take the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Lord Carrington has himself described their action as slothful. One hears that one of the great firms which conduct the business of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is supposed to be openly against the Act. It is bad enough to have your opponents inside this House, but really it is hard lines on any Government to be opposed by its own paid servants and officials. A few words in season to that firm might be very useful. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have not done their duty. They have been very backward. I know of one case in which a letter written to them asking for their help was not answered for six months.
  What is the prospect immediately ahead of us? Everybody, I think, will agree with the chairman of the small holdings committee in Oxfordshire, who has worked admirably, that practically the limits of voluntary arrangement between councils and landowners have been reached. Nothing lies before us except compulsion in one form or another. Thirty-one claims have come before us for compulsory hiring. Compulsory hiring is all very well in its way, but it is a very long pro-

  1241
  cess, and the machinery is very complicated. If anyone wishes to see corroboration of what I say, let him look at the Memorandum published by the Board of Agriculture. It is absolutely impossible that any land can be secured by voluntary hiring by next Michaelmas in this country, and if the county councils or the Board of Agriculture want to get land by Michaelmas, 1910, they must look alive with their schemes now. They must be put in force this year, and already four months are behind us of the existing year. Compulsory purchase is a much more satisfactory method. Twenty-two schemes out of 53 are for compulsory purchase. Land under compulsory purchase can be secured practically any moment after the expiry of six months. Then, of course, the value of the unexpired tenancy must be paid for by the incoming tenant. As far as I know, the would-be tenants are not averse to paying extra. They are tired of waiting, and do not see why they should be put off until another period, which would make three years since the passing of the Act before they began to work on the land. What other remedy can be suggested? No doubt hon. Members around me will ask that question this afternoon. It is obvious that a very much larger number of extra Commissioners must be appointed if you want to see things carried out satisfactorily. These Commissioners might ask in writing from the county councils whether or not they can supply so much land by voluntary effort next Michaelmas, and as to the balance, let them bring forward schemes, either through the county councils or off their own bat, for compulsory purchase which may be set to work almost immediately. Failing this, there is nothing before the applicants except looking forward to a long delay and the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of a chance of getting land three years after the passing of the Act.
  I hope I have not been unjust to anybody concerned with the working out of the measure, and I have no desire certainly to lay undue blame on the Board of Agriculture. Everyone is aware that the President of the Board of Agriculture is as enthusiastic and indefatigable as anyone, and the life of a Commissioner, like Mr. Cheney, the one I have been most brought in contact with, is one unceasing round of unselfish toil and labour. I do not blame the Commissioners, but they were intended by the nature of their appointments to be mobile and locomotive beings, and they have tended to develop into sedentary
  1242
  and clerical creatures. The office is under-staffed. Least of all do I blame my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, who has really borne the burden and heat of the day in this House, under trying and difficult conditions, with great good temper and equanimity. More in sorrow than in anger I must say I blame the Board mildly for not fixing a time limit, for appointing their Commissioners unduly late, and, lastly, for not concentrating their efforts on last September. That was really the crucial time. In my own division one of the great landowners, I suppose the greatest, is the Duke of Marlborough. He has set a splendid example to other landlords up and down England. Last Michaelmas he gave notice to a large number of his tenants in order that at the coming Michaelmas the land might be available, and they will be able to get it without any further friction and, of course, without the payment of compensation. If the Duke of Marlborough could do that, why did not the county council do it on a bigger scale with the assistance of the Board of Agriculture? I lifted up my voice on that point a year ago. That was the time to concentrate their efforts and give notice for as much land as they possibly could. If there is any blame it rests primarily on the county councils and secondly on the Treasury. Ireland can get what money it wants for agricultural purposes. The other day we voted away £3,000,000 more cash to Irish landlords, but in order to colonise England we have been able up to the present to squeeze only a beggarly £3,000 for the payment of two extra Commissioners. £100,000 I know is earmarked for other purposes, but I hope out of the £200,000 which appears in the Budget some portion will be forthcoming to help on this work by an adequate number of Commissioners.
  Among all the splendid achievements of the Government in various fields of legislation this Act stands apart as a comparative failure. A stronger Act, I have no doubt, might have been put together, one, for instance, on the lines of the Scotch Act, but the Scotchmen were much too shrewd to put their Land Act in the hands of county councils. If we had framed an Act on those lines it would indubitably have been thrown out by the other House. I hope in the future an Act on the lines of the Scotch Bill may occupy the attention of the Liberal Government when its next return to power means the disappearance of the opposition in another place. You will not keep us out till the Day of Judgment. We will come back some time or

  1243
  other. Meanwhile, and until then, it is not too late to some extent to redress the situation, even although the time available for our opportunity may be running out. This ought to be a splendid measure, and I do emphatically claim that the Government should give more sympathy and more money for the carrying out of its provisions than they have done in the past.
  Viscount VALENTIA: I have to express my gratification that the Member for Mid-Oxfordshire has expressed his confidence in the county councils. I must say that I think there are some difficulties put in the way of county councils. They do not get quite the amount of encouragement they ought to get from the Board of Agriculture. I do not think the Board of Agriculture have treated them with sufficient confidence or liberality. I ventured to ask a question this afternoon, and the answer given by the hon. Gentleman who represents the Department in this House, though to some extent satisfactory, was not, I thought, quite satisfactory. The Government puts the whole of the administration of this Act into the hands of the county councils. To begin with, that shows some confidence in them, and I think the Government ought to show some consideration and mercy to them when possible. I contend that the county council to which the hon. Member opposite referred has been treated with considerable discourtesy in the remarks which he made. If the Board of Agriculture had put into the hands of the hon. Member the administration of the Act, I could understand sending him on a tour. If he had been sent on a tour he would have learned something of the difficulties connected with the carrying out of the Act and placing tenants on small holdings. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is an unprejudiced person by any means. Ever since the Act came into force he has made himself conspicuous by doubting the bona fides of the county council, and he has never lost an opportunity, either on the platform or in the local Press, of saying that the county council is composed of Tory landlords, and that the applicants for small holdings are not likely to get justice from them. Whether the county councils approve of the Act or not—many of them do not, but on the other hand many of them do approve of it—since the Act became law it has been their duty to administer it, and I maintain that they do so to the best of their ability. Anyone hearing the hon. Member who has just
  1244
  spoken would think that Oxfordshire is a sort of desert, where men live in fear and trembling of the landlords and their neighbours, and dare not hold up their heads or show any independence, and that they are driven to despair because they are so badly treated by the county council. He almost suggested that it is a county we ought to be ashamed of, and I am surprised that he should be willing to sit as the representative of a division of it. The hon. Member has thought fit to misrepresent entirely what the county councils have done. He told the House that there had only been 21 allotments arranged so far. That is not the fact, and I should think that the hon. Member knows it is not the fact.
  Mr. BENNETT: Does the Noble Lord mean to say that I deliberately told a falsehood? Here is the document from which I quoted. It is an official return.
  Viscount VALENTIA: I am not in the least insinuating that the hon. Member told a falsehood, but I think he grossly misrepresented the facts as they are. Besides these 21 allotments which are arranged for there are 88 acres—
  Mr. BENNETT: May I say—[Cries of "Order."]
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The hon. Member must not interrupt.
  Mr. SOARES: I am sorry to interrupt, but I understood the Noble Lord to say my hon. Friend had wilfully misrepresented a certain fact. I submit to you, Sir, that is not quite in order. [An HON. MEMBER,: "He did not say so."]
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That incident is past. We are now dealing with another statement. The hon. Member has given his version and the Noble Lord is now giving his version, and it is only courteous to hear what the Noble Lord has to say.
  Viscount VALENTIA: I am sure the hon. Member knows that I would not accuse him of wilfully telling a falsehood. Possibly he is not in possession of as much information as I am, and possibly he does not know that there are 88 acres now to be let besides the 21 allotments to which he referred, and 426 acres have been actually acquired on lease. There are 700 as to which there are applications for compulsory powers applied for. That I think puts a very different complexion on the case from that given by the hon. Member.
  Mr. BENNETT: May I interrupt on a point of order? I was quoting from an official document. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not a point of order."]
  Viscount VALENTIA: I think the hon. Member made a statement very much to the discredit of his county. What I do complain of as chairman of the county council is that as I understand a report was furnished to him giving an account of a tour, and, so far, that report has not been made known to the county council. I think the county council has a right to know what is in that report. The hon. Member for Somerset refused to answer a question I asked him whether the hon. Member for Mid-Oxfordshire had been shown that report.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I did not refuse to answer the question. I said I did not know.
  Viscount VALENTIA: I should think that he has been shown this report, and if that is so, it ought to have been shown to the county council also. I think before this tour was undertaken behind the back of the county council—there can be no other way of describing it—any complaint made should have been submitted to the county council in order that it might be investigated. So far as I know, the hon. Gentleman has in no ease brought a complaint before the county council. The county council is within a reasonable distance of where he lives, and it is perfectly ready to answer any questions he likes to put to it on the subject. If there are any complaints to be made, I think he knows that when they are made to the county council he will get a civil answer. If the county council is not aware of the circumstances it will take care that it becomes aware of them, and the council will endeavour to see justice done. The hon. Member has never asked the county council to carry out the directions sent to them. When first the Act came into force a circular was sent out to labouring men in Oxfordshire, and it bore all the appearance of an official document. The circular invited applicants for allotments to give their names, to state the quantity of land desired, the locality proposed, the previous experience of the applicants in connection with agriculture, their capital, and so on. At the end of the circular there was no recommendation to apply to the county council, but there were the words that the information was to be returned to E. N. Bennett, M.P. I do not think that showed be had very much confidence in the county
  1246
  council. This was done entirely on his own initiative, and very naturally various people in the county did not act in accordance with the requirements of the statute. There is no doubt there has been a great deal of very regrettable delay in placing people on the land. I must say that in some cases the delay is owing to the action of the Board rather than to the action of the county council. The cases quoted by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxfordshire in regard to the Duke of Marlborough's land are cases in point. That land was dealt with, and agreements were made without a hitch, the Duke himself and his agent giving every possible assistance. Long ago the agreements were signed and everything concluded there, but unfortunately the people concerned had to wait for months until an inspector was sent down. It was on that account that I ventured to ask the Member for Somerset what compensation would be given to them for being kept out of the holdings owing to the delay in inspecting the schemes and confirming the schemes. There were other cases where unnecessary delay undoubtedly took place and the tenants were kept off the land, very much to their own loss, by the delay. I think in one case there has been compensation already given for the damage and loss naturally sustained. That is a thing which might be obviated in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxfordshire by having more Commissioners or more inspectors. More inspectors would probably be of the greatest use, but generally, I can assure the Committee that there has been no avoidable delay on the part of the county council. There has been, on the contrary, every disposition on the part of the county council to administer the Act as best it can, and if there are applicants who have been refused they have invariably been refused, I think, on sound grounds. There has been an enormous number of applications, coming from almost all the villages, and some of them were clearly from people who could not manage such large quantities of land as they applied for. Meetings have been made known and made as public as possible, and there was every opportunity of attending these meetings of the committee, and if they did not like to come it shows they are not very anxious to get the land, so that I am sure the delays which have occurred are not entirely the fault of the county council.
  Mr. CORRIE GRANT: I wish to deal with matters on which we agree rather than with matters on which we differ. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodstock said he could produce cases of persecution. I would like to know in the administration of what Act you cannot find cases of persecution? The question I ask myself is—Out of the number of applications that I have from the villages in my division, how many cases of persecution are there? I know two, both of which I think are very gross. One was the case of a man who was turned out of his land because his son applied for a small holding. Every Member of this House would condemn that. I know another case where the farmer, knowing that a small holder who was a contractor for the rural district council had applied for land, put in a contract against him at a price which could not pay because he was determined to punish him.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: Will the hon. Member give the name?
  Mr. GRANT: Certainly I will give the name of the village and everything to the hon. Member.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: I would like to have the names now.
  Mr. GRANT: Certainly not. I have got the letters in my pocket now, and if the hon. Member likes to see them he can do so, but he knows perfectly well that to give the names publicly would be to punish the man. But my point is that those cases happen everywhere. There is not a single Act of Parliament ever put into force which puts pressure on somebody that there is not some man foolish enough to behave in that way. The man came to me about it. I said, "You are very badly treated. You have got a remedy." The Noble Lord pointed that out. He said the county council is an elected body. This man referred to is a farmer, a member for the rural district council, and also, I believe, a member of the county council. I said, "If he has treated you badly, make it an electoral matter, and turn him out. That is the way to deal with the matter." I will show the hon. Member the letters if he wishes, and I will tell him the name of the village now if he likes. The point I am making is that it is an absurd thing for a member for a county division to say because he has one or two cases of persecution in his division that that is a reason for saying that the whole of that division of the county is against the Act.
  1248
  I do not think that that is so at all. From my experience, which I believe is as wide as that of any Member in this House in the administration of this Act, I think that the landlords as a class are not against it. I may give a personal illustration. I went down to the meeting called by our lord lieutenant to discuss the Territorial Army scheme. We got on very nicely together, and after finishing we all went to luncheon. Some of my friends—and I number friends among my opponents in my division—are among the landlords, and one of them was a man who fought me in 1895, and beat me. He said, "What are you doing in the House about the Small Holdings Bill?" I said, "I cannot understand the attitude of you landlords with regard to the Act. Here is an Act which will add to the number of persons willing to take land. What must be the economic effect of it? It must be to raise both the rent and the capital value of the land. Why do you oppose it? The answer was, "What right have you to say that we are opposed to it? We are not." The landlords as a class in this country are not opposed to the Small Holdings Act. They are doing a great deal to carry it into effect. The Commissioners will tell you—I have heard it from them—that they find case after case in which a landlord, not a Liberal, but a Tory, has come forward to provide land voluntarily because he has found a demand for it. What is the main reason of the block which there is in the Administration of the Act? The block is put on by the farmers. Why is it? Because the farmer knows that in many instances if his land is taken away from him to provide small holdings he will have considerable difficulty in getting land elsewhere. In the Small Holdings Committee upstairs in 1907, when the compensation for the labourers clause was under discussion, there was a suggestion that we should also give compensation to the farmers. It was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Barnstaple Division. It was rejected without a division.
  Mr. SOARES: If my hon. Friend will allow me, the Amendment was divided on and was lost. But he moved another Amendment subsequently on much the same lines, and that went over much the same ground.
  Mr. GRANT: If I am wrong, after looking it up, I must be very inaccurate. Both parties on the Committee said it was quite unnecessary to protect the farmers, they could protect themselves. I maintain, and everyone who has watched the working of

  1249
  this Act will agree with me, that over and over again voluntary arrangements could have been made by county councils if farmers were willing to help them; in order to deal with the difficulty, with the help of some of my hon. Friends opposite I brought in to-day a little Bill which extends to farmers the provisions of the labourers clause of the Act of 1908.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I think we have enough to deal with in the question of administration. Legislation is entirely out of order in this.
  Mr. GRANT: I did not wish to speak on legislation, I was only trying to show what the evidence is in favour of my criticism on the administration of the Act. What else does this Debate this afternoon show? We have all of us the greatest respect and admiration for my hon. Friend the Treasurer of the Household, who looks after agriculture in this House. After all the Treasurership of the Household is a sort of thing which involves wearing a gorgeous uniform and the carrying a wand or something of that sort, and to those onerous duties, which are quite sufficient for any one man, he adds the task of carrying on the work of the Board of Agriculture in this House. Surely the time has come when we should have a Cabinet Minister to look after that work. One or two points have been raised in attack to-day on the Board of Agriculture. There are one or two things that they might have done which they have not done. When they have been asked for advice in particular cases they have advised, but there should have been established a common practice for county councils in regard to dealing with applicants. Some county councils take the view that small tradesmen, blacksmiths, butchers, and even postmen are not eligible for small holdings, because they already earn their living somewhere else. There is not a word in the Act to support that. Of all the men in the country who should be entrusted with small holdings it is these men, who are often far better fitted to have small holdings than agricultural labourers. When they ask the applicants whether they have allotments or not, in some counties if the men has a large amount of land in allotment, they say, "You do not want a small holding." One of the applicants for a small holding in Warwickshire has five acres of allotment in six parts of the parish. He wants eleven acres more, and is told, "You have already got a small holding." This man has added bit by bit
  1250
  to his allotments, until to-day he is holding six allotments of five acres, scattered over a parish of over two or three miles in extent. He is a man above all others who should have a small holding. He came to me. He had worked out the whole thing most carefully in his mind. He wanted 11 acres—eight acres of grass and three acres of arable, and he wanted £20 to work it. He was going to buy an old horse off the canal and a second-hand set of harness. The man had worked it out to the end. Then he said: "Mr. Grant, do you know where I can get £20?" [Laughter.] I said: "It would depend upon what you pay for it. Are you ready to pay 7½ per cent. for it?" He said: "What is 7½ per cent.?"I envied him his ignorance. I told him that 77½ per cent. on £20 was 30s., and I said, "You will have to pay 30s. a year for it." He said: "Thirty shillings! Why, I made £4 last Christmas out of my fowls."
  That man is really a typical labourer of every village in Warwickshire. I believe that every village in my Constituency has applied for small holdings. The Act has now been in force practically for very nearly two years, because it was passed in August, 1907, and many county councils set to work when the Act passed, but only a single farm has been obtained so far as I know in the Rugby Division since the Act was passed; and the extraordinary thing is, that the getting of that single farm, which has been in the market for sale for the last two years, and was bought by the county council, has put the greatest hope into every one of the other villages in my division. They all say: "We did not believe the county council meant to do anything for us, but the fact that they have taken that farm shows that they do mean to do something, and we have only got to wait and we shall get what we want." The point I am making on those two things to my hon. Friend and the Board of Agriculture is—Why do not you give the whole of the county councils in England a lead? If you are asked privately no doubt you say that in your opinion the interpretation of the Act is that a small tradesman or a postman or a travelling hawker is entitled to a small holding if he wants it; but why not say so in a public document which can be published everywhere, and directly go to these people, who would apply for small holdings? Why not say, in a similar way, that they must not regard the holding of allotments as being a disqualification? Why

  1251
  not say that a question which the county council can fairly ask is as to whether a man has managed his allotment well, and kept up his rent and improved his land as a whole, and that these are qualifications for having land, and he ought to pass at once as an applicant? I do not find that people are losing heart, and I think we can trust to time for the working of this Act, because ultimately we must succeed in getting what the men want. I do not believe in anything like coercion about it. The older I get the more I am against attempting to make people do what they do not want to do. Even if you get county councils who are opposed to this Act, and who have deliberately appointed chairmen opposed to it, I should be reluctant to apply compulsion. We know the county councils who do their work thoroughly. Probably every Member in the House knows that there are three counties which have administered the Act, according to our idea, thoroughly. In one county the whole of the applications brought before them were dealt with within seven months of the Act coming into operation. [Cries of "Name, name."] Why, Cambridgeshire, of course. The Board of Agriculture might help all the counties much more than they do if they would make public once a week or once a month the information which they have at their disposal. The Return which my hon. Friend quoted to-day was of the most encouraging character, because it showed that there is a steady increase in the orders and compulsory orders. If that is so, then there is no need of more compulsion. More officials are wanted. These points to which I have referred may appear comparatively small to men who know nothing about the working of this Act, but the matters to which I have ventured to call attention are really matters in which the Board of Agriculture could do much better than it does. Everybody knows that Lord Carrington's heart and soul are in his work, but Lord Carrington is a man in the wrong place. He ought to be in this House. He ought to be subject to the inspiration of hon. Members on this side of the House as well as of hon. Members on the other side. Then, I am quite sure, we should get the Small Holdings Act administered in a way in which we all desire to see it administered. Hon. Members opposite, I am sure, agree with us that if there be this demand
  1252
  for small holdings among men competent to work them, then they ought to have such holdings, for this simple reason, that they get greater crops out of the land than do the ordinary farmers. That is an economic reason why we should all support small holdings, so long as we can find men of character and ability to cultivate them. County councils did not at the outset understand the Small Holdings Act and the Allotments Act, and the first step taken was to pass a Consolidation Act. The working of these Acts may go slowly at first, but I think we shall find when we come to debate this matter next year that there has been a steadily accelerated pace in the provision of small holdings and allotments throughout the country, and in the working of them by men who have experience and are best fitted to cultivate them. Occasionally a failure may be made, but I would rather you got one success out of a hundred applicants than that you should grant ten applications out of a hundred sent in and have three of those ten failures. There are other points on which I had intended to address the House, but having already occupied a longer time than I thought I should, I shall not touch upon them, as in all probability they will be dealt with by other hon. Gentlemen.
  Mr. F. A. NEWDEGATE: I should not have addressed the House but for the speech of the hon. Member opposite. In his speech he said that two people in Warwickshire had suffered from persecution on this question. I cannot believe it myself. One often hears vague remarks about people being persecuted for not doing this or that. After the last election in which I was engaged, I was told that people had been persecuted because they voted Conservative instead of Liberal. I pay no attention to this sort of allegation, and I think such allegations of persecution are not worthy to be believed. At all events, that is my opinion.
  Mr. GRANT: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view of the position. When I hear a complaint of persecution I always investigate it personally. Sometimes I find it is wrong, and I say nothing about it, but when I am satisfied of the truth of it then I state it publicly, when I think I have an opportunity for usefully doing so.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: I venture to suggest to the hon. Member that the next time he is told about people being persecuted in Warwickshire because they have

  1253
  not got small holdings and cannot get them, he should send straight to the county council for information. I am prepared to tell him that all the members of the Warwickshire County Council, to whatever political party they belong, would be just as indignant as is the hon. Member if they thought any of the Warwickshire people were suffering persecution. I might mention that this alleged persecution cannot have permeated very far if we look at the result of the Stratford election yesterday. From north to south it is an agricultural constituency, and if there was any wrong being done, or any persecution such as is suggested in connection with small holdings and allotments, we may be quite certain from what we know that it would have been heard of and used for all it was worth at that election. In regard to the county council and small holdings, I am a member of the committee which deals with them, and had I known that the hon. Member was going to bring the question of Warwickshire before the Committee, I would have had every fact at my fingers' ends. I should like to inform the hon. Member how the authority proceeds in this matter. Sub-committees are appointed from both political parties, and some well-known member of a county council is added in the particular locality in which inquiry is to be made. The names of the people who require small holdings are then brought before the sub-committee. Evidence is heard in private, the very greatest care is taken on every possible occasion, and small holdings are granted to applicants who are found to have the means and to be in a position to do some good in them. A good many inquiries have already been made in the county, and these inquiries are not yet finished. There are a good many more applicants to be dealt with. The work has been done systematically, and is being done systematically. I may tell the hon. Member that 342 acres have been arranged for already. It is in the White Paper, and he could have seen for himself if he had looked at it. Two compulsory orders have been made, and up to 31st March a scheme for 373 acres had been submitted to the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. GRANT: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how many applications were made to the county council, and how many of those were granted?
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: There were 388 applications, and of these, according to
  1254
  the White Paper, the County Council has provided 163 to those of the applicants who were considered eligible for small holdings. A good many of the applicants who originally came did not, it turned out, want to have the land.
  Mr. GRANT: How many are still undealt with?
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: At the present moment there are 84 out of the 163 dealt with; they are being dealt with continuously; we are going on as hard as we possibly can. I may say, though it may seem rather a personal matter, that I myself have found small holdings, quite apart from the county council, for several people, and at the present moment I am breaking up another farm of which I shall make some small holdings; and I am going to go on in that direction. I must apologise to the House for talking about private concerns relating to my family and myself, but it has always been our policy to have as many small holdings as possible on the estate. But I do beg the Committee to believe that, as regards the county of Warwick, we are going on with this work in that county. I can appeal to the hon. Member for Nuneaton who brought before the county council only a short time ago the question of somebody who had been refused a small holding, as he said unjustly. The county council dealt with the matter, and on reconsideration the man got his small holding after all. It can safely be said, no matter to whatever party we belong, that in Warwickshire we are keen to increase the number of small holdings, and to proceed in the work as quickly as we can. I am bound to say that it would be extremely hard on a farmer if his ground were to be taken away from him and turned into small holdings. What we ought to do is this: when a farm becomes vacant, then seize the opportunity of acquiring it, and converting it into small holdings, if that possibly can be done. As it is there are many farmers in the county who are desirous of furthering the establishment of small holdings, and they do their very best to support the committee. I hope hon. Members will excuse me for standing up and speaking for my native county, and I am perfectly certain that if the hon. Member opposite has got any complaint to make as to small holdings if he will make it to the committee of the county council we will try to deal with it at once. We are trying to get the Act brought into force as quickly as we can, with justice and equity all round.
  The CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed further I would remind the Committee that we really have nothing to do with county councils except so far as the administration of the Department is connected with them, otherwise we have nothing to do with whether this or that individual county council has been doing its duty.
  Mr. E. J. SOARES: There is one peculiarity about the Debate so far as we have gone, that we have devoted ourselves to one particular province of the Board of Agriculture, namely, the administration of the Small Holdings Act. As a rule, when this Vote is before the Committee we are always asking the hon. Member who represents the Board for more money for agricultural research for experimental work, and for other projects. We have always hitherto received the same answer, that he is very fond of all those projects, that he would like to see them carried out, but that unfortunately he has not got the money to do so. Well, now, thanks to the Development Grant, of which we heard in the Budget, the money will be available, and I will only say to the right hon. Gentleman that I hope he will see that this Development Grant is placed under the Board of Agriculture, and that then the money can be devoted to the purposes which both sides of the House, I believe, desire that it should be devoted to.
  Just one word with regard to small holdings. I think one thing stands out clearly from this Debate, and that is that no one says that the idea of the Government with regard to the advisability of encouraging the policy of tenancy instead of the policy of purchase has not been a good one. That is agreed now by all parties in the House, and the fact that only 1.6 applicants out of every hundred desire to purchase his holding prove conclusively that the policy of the Government was right in that direction. The hon. Member for Woodstock said in the course of his speech that the Act was moving slowly. With that I agree. He said also that more Commissioners ought to be appointed. I do not know whether he was on the Committee of the Small Holdings Bill. I may remind him that I moved an Amendment to that effect, and it received very little support on either side of the House. I only hope that the Board of Agriculture, which now has the power under the Act to appoint more Commissioners, will avail themselves of that power at the earliest possible moment. Personally, I live in a county of
  1256
  small holdings, and I represent a portion of that county. Those who have experience of small holdings know full well the good that can be done by them. There would be no object in my enlarging on that aspect of the question, because both sides are agreed upon the advisability of the policy of small holdings. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for the Rugby Division said, and so far as I have been able to see the landlords in the county of Devon have no hostility whatever to the small holding movement. In fact, a great many of them have made small holdings on their own estates utterly irrespective of this Act. Then the operation of the Small Holdings Act is popular with the labouring class. There is only one class with whom the policy of small holdings is not popular, and that is with the tenant farmer. The reason of that is because you do not give him compensation for disturbance when he has to leave his farm.
  I moved an Amendment to that effect in the Committee, and that Amendment received very little support from either side of the Committee, so that it had to be withdrawn. Still, I would urge on the hon. Baronet that this can now be rectified. He can rectify it himself in the administration of his office. He has £100,000 at present, and, as I understood, and I was present during the whole of the Debate on the Small Holdings Bill, that £100,000 was not given as a final sum; but that if he wanted he could get £100,000 every quarter—that is, that he could obtain from the Treasury £400,000 per year. That is what I understood the small holdings grant meant. He would be able, if he chose to do so, to pay compensation to every tenant farmer who was dispossessed of his land under the operation of the Small Holdings Act. There is power to do that, because the purposes of this grant were, inter alia, to meet the expenses incurred in the acquisition of land. One of those expenses could easily be interpreted if the Board chose to put that interpretation upon it, to pay compensation to any farmer who is deprived of his land. We were all very glad to hear the hon. Baronet quoting Lord Carrington's opinion on this Question. Lord Carrington said, so I understood the hon. Baronet to say, only land must be taken where it did not seriously affect the livelihood of tenant farmers, and must be acquired as opportunity offers. Now, that is the right policy, and I think, so far as it is possible, only vacant farms should be taken

  1257
  by the county council with the aid of the Commissioners. It is not fair to turn the tenant farmer out of a farm of 100 or 150 acres in order to turn it into small holdings.
  I do hope that the hon. Baronet will look after the interests of the tenant farmers in this direction, and then he will make this Act popular all round. It is, as I say, popular with the landowners, and popular with the labourers, and if he will only give the tenant farmers fair compensation I am quite sure it will then become popular with them. He must remember that it is very awkward for a tenant farmer in these days to have to leave a farm. They are very difficult to get; they are wanted all over the country, and even if a man gets ordinary agricultural compensation it puts a great burden on him to shift from one farm to another. Under this grant of £400,000 at the disposal of the Board compensation for disturbance might be paid in each one of these cases. Then, I am sure, that the administration of this Act would be much more popular than at the present time. It is important it should be popular. He himself said in the course of his speech that one of the remedies for the people who are dissatisfied with the administration of the Act was to return representatives to the county council who were in favour of its due and efficient administration. Tenant farmers have a great deal to say with regard to the people who are returned to the county councils, and if, therefore, he could only take means to ensure that the tenant farmers approve of the Act then I am sure he will get it well and efficiently administered in all of the counties where at present, I am afraid, it is rather lagging behind.
  With regard to the horse supply which has been alluded to, I think it is a very serious matter. We all know that there is a serious decline in the last Report of the Board of Agriculture in the number of horses in this country. The reason is not far to seek. We find that many people now who used formerly to keep carriage horses now use motors. We find the cab horses are being displaced by taxi-cabs, we find horses which used to run in 'buses and in trams are now displaced by motor 'buses, and there is a decline undoubtedly all over the country in the number of horses. Then I am not at all sure that the quality of the horses supplied has not to some extent been deteriorating. It is said so on all hands. This largely arises from the fact of all good mares being purchased
  1258
  and exported out of the country in considerable numbers, and that they are not bred from in this country. There is one fact about horse-keeping that everybody who keeps horses recognises, and that is that it costs just as little to keep a good horse as to keep a bad one. Therefore, if the Board of Agriculture and the War Office between them could only devise some means by which the quality of the horses in this country could be improved, they would be doing a good thing, not only for the War Office, not only for the supply of remount horses, but for the country at large. Personally, although as I shall presently say I should like to see the export of brood mares limited, still I would also like to encourage the export trade generally of horses, because it is a good trade, and it is a valuable trade. Every horse breeder knows it is a good thing to export horses, but at the present time he cannot afford to export all the good mares of the country. What are the kind of mares you want to retain; the heavy weight polo mares, light weight hunter, and heavy weight hunter mares. The way to retain them is to use the plan devised by the Earmarking Association. I think you could do that with very little expenditure.
  An Hon. MEMBER: The Brood Mares Society.
  Mr. SOARES: No; the Earmarking Society. When you have got a good mare of the kind I have indicated, then the Government would put a small mark on its ear. Any mare so branded would not be allowed to be exported from the country. I do not think you could expect the farmer to agree to this, or the dealer, but I think that most private people who keep horses would be quite willing to have their horses branded in this way for a merely nominal sum in order to encourage the breeding of horses in this country. I think if the Board of Agriculture and the War Office were to put themselves into communication with each other and those men I believe a great deal could be done, and that not only would the supply of horses for use in this country be very much improved, but that also the export trade in horses would ultimately develop and increase, and that this would incidentally do the agricultural community a great deal of good.
  Mr. W. CLIVE BRIDGEMAN: Almost the whole of this Debate has been occupied with the discussion of the Small Holdings Act, and although there are one or two

  1259
  other subjects I should like to refer to I should not like to let the speech of the hon. Member for Woodstock pass without protest, because I think it is a condemnation of the county councils all round, which is grossly unfair, and which should not have been made. I do not know anything about Oxfordshire, whether it is better or worse than other counties. We gather so far from the Debate that Cambridgeshire was the best county and that Oxfordshire was the worst, according to the statement of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that is not the point. What the hon. Gentleman complained of in his very vague and general complaint was that the applicants for small holdings never got a proper chance of getting them. He said they did not appear at the preliminary meetings, and, therefore, they were knocked off the list. Surely if they were very anxious to get them they would have taken the trouble to appear at the preliminary meeting. I expect what happened was this: the hon. Gentleman himself in going about to create or to encourage the land hunger which he has been saying exists all about the place, probably persuaded people to apply for small holdings, and that after he had left, and they had time to think the matter over carefully for themselves, they came to the conclusion that probably it would not pay them to apply. Therefore, I do not think he can complain of the county councils if those very keen applicants did not take the trouble to appear at the preliminary meetings.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I do not think the hon. Member has made it clear that this has anything to do with the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was answering the speech made by the hon. Member for the Woodstock Division.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not in order to review the action of the county councils so far as it affects the jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture over them with regard to putting into force their compulsory powers? The hon. Member for the Woodstock Division appealed to the Board of Agriculture to act on the ground that the county councils had not done their duty. Would it not be in order to go into that question?
  The CHAIRMAN: If it is complained that the Board of Agriculture has not exercised powers which it ought to have exercised, then to some extent the question
  1260
  of the county councils becomes relevant. But if the hon. Members wish to put the matter in that way, I want them to make it quite clear.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That was exactly the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, his contention being that the county councils had been so remiss in carrying out their duties that the Board of Agriculture ought to step in and put pressure upon them, and I was venturing to point out that he had not proved the remissness of the county councils. The hon. Gentleman went on to make reference to the composition of the county councils, which, he said, was responsible for this slackness, because they were composed of the landed classes and others who, he appeared to think, were all hostile to the small holdings movement. If that is so, perhaps he will be able to explain why it is that, according to the statement of the hon. Baronet, the Welsh county councils, which nobody would say contained a large proportion of those who agree in politics with us on these benches, should have been the most backward in this matter. Therefore, I think he failed to prove a sufficient case to warrant the intervention of the Board of Agriculture. I can quite understand that persons holding his views, assuming as he does that the success of small holdings is already proved, naturally feel aggrieved that the movement has not proceeded more rapidly. Those of us on this side who are very anxious to see small holdings, but not to see them unless they are going to be a success to the small holders, will be disappointed if, provided their success is perfectly clearly proved by the experiments of the first two or three years, the county councils do not then accelerate their action, and the Board of Agriculture does not encourage them to do so. But I deprecate calling upon the Board of Agriculture to force the pace at a time when certainly nothing has been proved as to the positive success of the experiment. I think, however, that two or three hon. Members laid their finger on a weak point in the administration of the Act when they stated that not enough money was being put into it. They held the view that this £100,000, which has been explained to-night as being only for preliminary legal expenses, was a grant for one quarter, that it meant £400,000 a year, and they naturally complained that their hopes had been disappointed. There is no doubt that a great many people entertained that view, and I have no doubt whatever that if those

  1261
  hopes had been fulfilled the progress of the small holdings movement would have been infinitely more rapid. A very interesting point mentioned by the hon. Baronet was that 2.79 per cent. I think, of the applicants had actually asked to be allowed to purchase.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: 1.6 in England.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have misheard the figure. But, at any rate, 1.6 per cent. asked to be allowed to purchase, although they, or most people, knew that purchase was impossible under this Act. ["No."] Under this Act purchase is impossible. ["No."] I put it to the hon. Baronet: Is purchase by small holders possible under this Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The county councils may purchase, but they may not sell to the small holder.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The county council has no power to sell land which it has purchased by compulsion.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then all it amounts to is, that people who can buy land now could always have bought it. Those who listened to the speeches of Ministers when the Bill was under discussion will remember that the one object of the Government was to prevent purchase under this Act by the small holder, and the First Commissioner of Works was extremely emphatic in his remarks on that point. I should like to know whether in the administration of the Act the Board of Agriculture have taken steps to see that even the percentage of people who asked to be allowed to purchase were put in touch with people who probably were known to be willing to sell? If the small holdings movement is to be encouraged, I think that every effort should be made to facilitate not only hiring but purchase. There is no doubt that, in many places, those who were willing to purchase might have been provided with land by private arrangement or under some previous Act. With regard to this £100,000, if it is not spent this year, will it be swallowed up in the General Development Fund which we are promised next year? If so, I trust that the rate of expenditure will be sufficiently rapid to dispose of it before it goes to purposes for which possibly it was not intended.
  I have been much disappointed at the apparent stagnation of the work of promoting the purchase and breeding of horses for the Army. I have had put into
  1262
  my hands a paper issued by the Board of Agriculture, entitled "Types of Horses Suitable for Army Remounts." I know people in my part of the world who are very anxious to bring farmers into touch with the remount officials, and to enable them to sell their horses direct for Army purposes. This pamphlet contains a number of pictures of various horses supposed to be suitable, and this is the description of the horse required for cavalry of the line:—
  The class required is a deep short-legged, short-backed, good-barrelled horse of the hunter stamp, with substance and quality, true action and going without brushing the joints. Light, active, well-bred horses, that move truly and well in all their paces, well ribbed up, with plenty of bone and short backs, may be said to represent the cavalry type."
  To illustrate that there is a picture of a horse. I do not profess to be a great judge of horseflesh, but anybody who knows even as little as I do about it can see that the horse in the picture has almost exactly the opposite qualities to those I have read out. It certainly is not short-backed; it is not good-barrelled; it has not much bone; it is not well ribbed up; and it has several other faults which, perhaps, are not so important. The description of this picture says that it represents—
  "A young chestnut mare (5 years, 15.3 hands) from the 21st Lancers, well bred with plenty of bone. This animal is not looking its best in the photograph. It wants time to furnish, and will look better in another year."
  Then why photograph it? If there was not in the whole Army to be found a horse that could be represented as a better type of what is wanted it would have been better not to have issued a picture at all. However, it might appear in the next number of a type of what is not wanted. I admit that in photographs you may be greatly misled, especially if there is any white in the subject of the photograph; but I think the Board ought not to issue these things without taking more trouble about the type of animal and to secure a successful representation of it. I have also heard complaints as to the difficulty of getting these horses bought by the remount officers. I have in mind the case of a farmer who wished to sell a horse. The remount officer of the division practically bought it. It had been through a Yeomanry training, and the remount officer gave the owner to understand that if it passed the vet. it would be bought. But after that had been done the owner received a letter from somebody at headquarters in London saying that that sort of horse was not wanted for the mounted infantry, as they had enough.
  The CHAIRMAN: Has this to do with the Board of Agriculture?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN:It has to do with the pamphlet which they issued.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it actually concerns the War Office.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The pamphlet has the heading, "Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not complain of the criticism of the pamphlet at all. All I am saying is that this particular case, as far as I understand it, deals with action by the War Office, for which the Board of Agriculture is not responsible.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It bears upon the pamphlet which I have been quoting. The question is as to the height of the animal. At any rate, the Board of Agriculture are responsible for this pamphlet; but whether they got their information from the War Office or not it is impossible for me to say. My criticism is that after having been selected as suitable the horse was rejected because it happened to be a quarter of an inch less than the very narrow margin given in this pamphlet as the proper height for a cavalry horse. The height given is from 15.1½ to 15.2½ hands. I say that such a margin is ridiculously narrow, and that, if you are going to treat farmers in that sort of way you will never get them to work together with you in the breeding of horses for the army, or for any other purpose.
  There are two other small points I should have liked to have referred to. One is what is being done to deal with the great difficulties under which we are suffering from tuberculosis. The hon. Baronet did not mention this, perhaps, because he had many other things to speak about, particularly small holdings and the anticipated criticisms on them. But I do hope that he will give some idea, if he has the pleasure of speaking again, as to what is contemplated by the Board of Agriculture for dealing with the situation that is becoming very difficult, and very serious in many places. Lastly, he did not refer to the question of rural education. This, I think, was very disappointing. I should like to have heard his opinion about this matter. As everyone knows, there has been a Report on Agricultural Education, and certain recommendations have been made. I have no doubt that some of these recommendations would be of some advantage: I think there are other things
  1264
  which might be done which would be of greater advantage. But what I believe is one of the most serious factors in the situation is the extreme difficulty that exists for anyone who has been brought up, and lived all their life in the country, and who understands country matters, to ever become an elementary teacher. Although the Majority Report does not make any great recommendation upon that point, there is an additional Report by Mr. J. C. Medd which points out:
  "The dearth of elementary school teachers qualified to teach rural subjects is one of the principal obstacles to the uniform improvement of rural education."
  I wish we had had a little more encouragement from the Board of Agriculture to hope that something serious was going to be done, instead of merely talking about rural education. In my opinion not only do you want better teaching in the higher grades, but you want more science brought into agriculture altogether. What, however, you do want is that elementary teachers should understand country life, and see the pleasures of country life, and understand how it can be made happy and prosperous; teachers who can teach the child to be a successful cultivator of a garden, and subsequently of a small holding. You ought to do something to give opportunities to children who live in the country to become school teachers, instead of, as at present, having regulations which practically prevent them ever getting into the profession at all. The result is that you get into your elementary schools people who come from towns—excellent people, and very good teachers very likely—but who do not understand the elements of rural life. Until there is a sufficient supply of teachers who really know about country life, I do not believe you will ever solve this problem of bringing up children in the country to be useful inhabitants of the country, rather than bringing them up to think that it is much better to wear a black coat, and go to town.
  Mr. GEORGE NICHOLLS: I hope the Committee will pardon me if I say a few words on the small holdings Question again. It has been so thoroughly discussed and treated by almost every Member that has addressed the House. I may say at once I do not agree with any section who suggest that the county councils have not done anything. I think the records that we have had to-day, and the records that most of us have been able to face in the country, show that a great deal has been done by the county councils.

  1265
  What I want to say a word or two about is in connection with some of the inspectors and their visits into the rural districts, and some of the difficulties that have really arisen. Although the county councils are really to blame in some quarters, I think the inspectors are to blame in others. So that the Board of Agriculture will be to blame, and the county councils will also be to blame. The hon. Member for Woodstock seemed to complain that there was a much less number of applications now than at the first, 13,000, as being very low as compared with what they were. I think that is really accounted for by the fact that a very large number of the first applicants had really been deceived. Most hon. Members—not only Members of this House, but thorough enthusiasts with regard to small holdings—went about the country talking as though a man had nothing at all to do but to sign a paper, and that he subsequently would be told when and where he could have his small holding. Some of the applicants imagined they were going to get the land at less money. The result was that when these men saw what was going to happen they did not trouble any further about it, and the people who did keep up their applications were the persons really keen about the matter. In some districts where the men were really keen barriers have faced them. I will refer to one or two cases.
  I take Crowland, in Lincolnshire, as one. It will show the difficulties of the situation. Crowland really is the home of small holdings. For a hundred years there have been small holdings there. There are many of them there yet. There you get the thoroughbred small holder. The boy grows up with this instinct, and wants land like his father. This demand for small holdings has forced up the price of small holdings. Rents went up to £4 an acre. The keen competition within the last few years has hit these men very hard. They have been looking forward for 15 years for what they call a liberal measure—I do not mean Liberal politiclally—but a measure very different to what they had had before, to secure them the land on fair terms. They have been waiting all this time for it. They hoped that with the Small Holdings Act they would get what they required. They took the necessary steps. They appealed to the county council. Subsequently, not getting satisfaction, they appealed to the Board of Agriculture. An inspector was sent down. There were two farms before
  1266
  them. One is known as The Poplars and the other as Empsons. The inspector interviewed the clerk of the council, but he did not go to the representative of the applicants. In this case there was an association of the men who wanted small holdings, so that one man should not bear the brunt of the matter. But the inspector did not go to see their secretary. He only went to visit Empsons farm. It seems that Empsons would be much easier to get. The simple reason it would not be hard to get was that it was strong, stiff, land, not easily cultivated; it is 2½ miles from town, and has a bad road to get to it. The inspector recommended the men to take Empsons. They want The Poplars. They know it is very much better, with a better road; it is better land, and easier to get at. He recommends Empsons, suggesting that if they do not take that they cannot get The Poplars. Because—no matter what they want—if the man holding it has 10 farms—they cannot take his land away from him for small holdings so long as Empsons is there. They appealed to me. I used a little influence at this end. It seemed quite clear at first that under no circumstances would they take Empsons. An alderman of the county council writes to these men and asks them—knowing the inspector has recommended that course—"Are you prepared to take Empsons?" It is 46s. an acre. The men know very well that is too much. But many others are paying much more, and in the end they decide that they will take Empsons at 46s. an acre. That is 15s. above the rent that had been asked for it before. They take over 200 acres of this stiff land 2½ miles away from the town, with a bad road, etc., because they believe from what was said by the inspector that if they did not take it they could not get the other. This is the type of small holder that, if a few seasons come wrong and times are a little bad, would come to an end. Then the men who do not like small holdings would say, "There are your small holdings!" They would point to that particular spot and say, "We told you all along that small holdings would not be a success." The men are ruined. But they are handicpped from the start. Yes, but we have not got to the end of it. As soon as ever you get the rent fixed there are the assessments. The Earl of Normanton has 7,000 acres assessed on an average of £1 per acre. As Soon as ever land is needed by the small holder his assessment is dealt with. I

  1267
  have received receipt after receipt from men to prove that the small holders are assessed on a rental of £2 15s. an acre. What do I find? The agent on this Postland estate is the very man who holds the Poplars farm. He did not want these men to have it. This man is on the assessment committee.
  I want to suggest that at least the inspector might have gone and visited the Poplars. At least he ought to have conferred with the men who were the applicants for the land, and at least have visited the secretary of the association. Take another case I know at Coates, Cambridgeshire. There the men applied for 500 acres. The difficulty, of course, is to get it. One of the difficulties referred to by some hon. Member here is the difficulty of electing the wrong men for the county councils. That is real in some districts. I admit it. Here is a man elected by these very applicants. He goes straight and hires above their very heads the farm that they were applying for. Then they applied for 300 acres known as Gravel House Farm, Elderwell, just outside Coates. They want 500 altogether. There is 300 on this farm. They form themselves into an association, and ask the county council to consider their application. The council did not answer them at first. They evade the matter for a time. The applicants appeal then to the Board of Agriculture. Months roll on, and they cannot yet find out whether the Isle of Ely County Council recognises the association. The Board send down an inspector. There again the same thing happens. The clerk to the council was busy. These men, that is the members of the council, when they find a little pressure put on by the Board, to save their faces, and feeling that they must do something for the applicants, for 500 acres, tell them that they have succeeded in getting 95 acres of this farm.
  Mr. E. S. MONTAGU: May I interrupt for one moment. I think the hon. Member said Cambridgeshire. Is he not dealing with the Isle of Ely?
  Mr. NICHOLLS: Yes; I said that. I mean the Isle of Ely Council; but it is in Cambridgeshire. As I said they could not get from the council any assurance that the association would be recognised. On 15th April this year a letter was sent by the clerk, not to the secretary of the association, but to another man, to say:—
  "I am hoping we shall obtain some, land before Michaelmas next. The council have passed a resolu-
  1268
  tion that the land, in the first instance, shall not be offered to any society. Of course it is open to the council to reverse their decision, but as things stand at present land will be offered to individuals."
  Now, what happened? That letter was sent by the council, not to the association, but they had written before to the Board of Agriculture, and said this:—
  "That the council committee had not failed to appreciate the advantages and desirability generally of letting land to associations rather than to individuals."
  They said that to the Board; but now they are not going to recognise associations; They will only recognise individuals. Now, what will happen? I have gone through the list of applicants. There are over 40 in the association. There are eight not in the association, and they applied for just 95 acres. There are 18 others just outside the area applying for others. Letting to individuals means at once that those men in the association will be penalised for making the move. The man who has taken an active part, such as the secretary of the association, and all the prominent men in this movement will get none of this 95 acres. Their association is not recognised. Eight persons that may be strongly opposed to them, and were at first opposed to any movement to approach the county councils, they will fall into line and will reap the advantages won by the other men. Now, this 95 acres is taken with three objects, first, that the council will be able to say we have acquired land; the second, they will be able to stop the Board of Agriculture and prevent them from making any move, and third, a move is made to penalise the men who have made a start in this matter. I think really there is a case here for further inquiry. The whole of this matter ought to be inquired into in the interests of the persons applying for the 500 acres. I do not say they will get 500 acres, but I think it is absolutely absurd to push off 60 tenants and to be only able to settle eight tenants, leaving the association out altogether. The organised men feel now that they are done. They will say, "What is the good of our organisation. The object was to kill our organisation." If hon. Members have any doubt of the risk and of the boycott that goes on they should find proof of it in this instance. Here is another case—a typical case that can happen and has happened. A number of applicants applied for land to the county council, and when the county council was about to move the landlord found out that they were moving, and his agent called the applicants together and he decided to let them have land voluntarily, but the

  1269
  man who had taken an active part, and who had written to the Council, and who had led, as it were, the other men, that man was branded, and they raked up against him a little thing that happened some years ago, although the man had been living in that village and leading an honourable, hard-working life for years, and has a little shop which his wife manages; that man was penalised simply because of his action.
  Earl WINTERTON: He has the right of appeal.
  Mr. NICHOLLS: Yes, but the hon. Member forgets the direction in which he has to appeal. Where can he appeal to? All the land is held in the hands of the man whose agent called the other men together and decided that the men should be helped, but that the man who led them should be left out altogether. Take two other cases, and these came under my own notice within the last few months. Two applicants applied to the county council and succeeded in getting their small holdings. One of them paid his £20, what they call covenant, or "ingoing," for what was on the land—turnips and other things. His employer, who is on the council, the moment he found out that the applicant paid £20 "incoming," which really represented the saving of his life, sacks him the next week.
  Earl WINTERTON: For what cause?
  Mr. NICHOLLS: The excuse he made was that probably before long the occupant of a small holding would not be able to come to him to work for him, and he said to himself, "I will make myself safe."
  Earl WINTERTON: In other words, he thought he was independent.
  Mr. NICHOLLS: Surely hon. Members must recognise that people who go round professing such faith and love in small holdings, and saying that they are so anxious to help, must recognise that this man was penalised. This man is simply told to go in the hope that he would be smashed. The only way by which cases of that kind have been saved has been by paying these men out of the lockout pay of our agricultural union of the labourers of Norfolk every week to try and tide them over until the harvest comes round again. It is all very well saying there are no difficulties. There are difficulties and difficulties of a very real kind. I have another case in my mind, and I brought this particular case to the notice of the Board of
  1270
  Agriculture. It is the case of a coal carter. He had nine acres of land and a house in which he lived for the past 12 years, and in which his wife's mother lived for 40 years, and because this man, having a horse and employment and a little capital, was anxious to develop his resources, and applied for 20 acres of land more than his 9 acres, and because he foolishly put into his application for 20 acres an application also for a house, received notice to leave the house in which he has lived up to this. As soon as the agent of the 9 acres on which he lived and worked found out that this man was applying for land, and asked also for a house, he at once gave him notice to leave the 9 acres, next Michaelmas. I called the attention of the Board of Agriculture to this. They sent down an inspector and inquired into it, but they found they could not do anything because the man had foolishly asked for a house as well as the 20 acres.
  Earl WINTERTON: Why did he ask for a second house?
  Mr. NICHOLLS: I am only showing how easily a man could be penalised. Hon. Members think that this Act is going to work smoothly. I admit the man did wrong in this particular case.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: How did he do wrong?
  Mr. NICHOLLS: Well, it was a foolish thing for him to do. It was foolish of him to apply for 20 acres and a house. If he had looked ahead he would have said nothing about a house, but the point I want to make is this, that this is made an excuse to get rid of a man who wanted to improve his position. What else is this Act for? This man works in that particular district. He has lived there for 12 years. He feels that agriculture would help him, and that he could do more if he had more land. He has been living by carting. The 20 acres of land would be very useful to him. It may have been an error for this man to have asked for a house, but it is rather hard that for doing that he should be told to clear out of a house in which he has lived so long next Michaelmas. These are some of the real difficulties that confront us in these rural areas, and although I want to congratulate the Board of Agriculture on sending to inquire into a case of this kind, and upon their being willing to help if anything could be done, I feel it is regrettable that nothing could be done. I want the House

  1271
  to recognise that whatever good is coming out of this Act, and I am ready to admit some good is coming out of it, greater things are before us, and further additional help should be given to the Commissioners, and additional inspectors engaged, so that in these districts the whole situation should be surveyed and fully dealt with, and the councils that are willing to act should be helped and the councils that are slow should be gingered.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: The hon. Member who has just sat down seems to think it rather peculiar that we on this side of the House should question some of the "hard cases" brought to the notice of the House from time to time. It seems to me that the House ought to be very chary of accepting these obviously ex parte statements. For my part I think that the other side of the case should be inquired into. One does not know the causes leading to what has perhaps very properly or very obviously occurred. It becomes all the more doubtful when we are asked to accept the view that those people wanting small holdings are persecuted by the landlords. In the case last given by the hon. Member it seems perfectly obvious that if a man asked for a house and 20 acres in addition to his house and 9 acres that the owner of the house on the nine acres came to the conclusion that he no longer required them, and therefore, in order to ensure that his house should not lie upon his hands empty, he gave notice so that he might have an opportunity of getting another tenant in good time. I imagine that that is a very likely and probable explanation. I do not believe that it is at all safe to assume, as the hon. Member very readily does, that so many people in this country are so ready to persecute others who want small holdings and for no earthly reason. Then he gave another case, which is surely asking too much from the credulity of the House of Commons. He gave an instance where, he said, a number of people wanted small holdings and applied to the county council, and then that terrible instrument of oppression, the landlord, came along and said, "Do not go to the county council. I will arrange to give you small holdings voluntarily;" but so angry was the landlord at the application having been made that, although he makes this offer to those who want small holdings, he disposes of the secretary by not giving him one.
  Mr. NICHOLLS: I did not say it was the landlord. It was the agent. The agents are generally worse than the landlords.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: On the face of it, that is an absurd thing for any man not in a lunatic asylum to do. If he is so opposed to small holdings that he must vent his spite upon those who ask for them why does he voluntarily offer small holdings to those who are asking for them? I think that is playing so much upon the credulity of the House that I am surprised the hon. Member has brought such cases forward, and if he has nothing better to put forward I am forced to the conclusion that this Act is working smoothly and well, and that landlords are doing their best to get suitable people on to the land as speedily as possible. I think it is rather a pity that the Debate this afternoon should have concentrated so closely upon particular instances and upon what has occurred in particular counties. I take the view that one cannot survey the working of this Act either in particular districts or for a short period of time. We shall not be able to tell whether this is successful or not until nine or ten years have elapsed. I think ultimate success is far more likely to be assured if due deliberation is taken by the authorities in putting suitable people on to the land than if we rush at it, as the hon. Member for Oxfordshire seems to desire. I do not think we ought to take the view that this Act can only be successfully worked if all the applicants and everybody else who want land is immediately put upon it. I think that is a very erroneous and short-sighted view to take, and one which is not likely to contribute to the ultimate success of small holdings. It seems to me that those who agitate in this direction have an eye more to assisting individuals for the purpose of acquiring their goodwill for some motive which I do not need to suggest to the House, rather than wishing for the success of small holdings as a wise agricultural policy, and as a benefit to the people of the country at large. I do not propose to say very much about small holdings.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Hear, hear.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not know why the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent deems it necessary to cheer that observation. I only wish to ask a few questions which I will put to the hon. Baronet who represents the Board of Agriculture, in regard to the horse supply, and with refer-

  1273
  ence to the steps, which have been taken by his Department to encourage it. I have in my hand a paper which was circulated at the same time as that very edifying pamphlet which my hon. Friend has already referred to, and it seems to be almost a grotesque monument of how things should not be done, because anybody reading it will find it very difficult to see exactly what they are asked to put down. It is a form in which the Board of Agriculture ask owners of horses to state how many they have got. For some reason or other it makes an obscure reference to a previous form issued by the Board of Agriculture, which the recipient is supposed to know all about. It divides the spaces into which the information is supposed to be put under two heads: (1) Horses returned on June 4, 1908, and (2) horses in your possession on June 4, 1908, but not then returned. That is a very confusing head under which to ask people to give information, because, in the first place, no information at all may have been returned on the previous occasion, and in the second place if information was returned it may have escaped the memory of the person who returned it as to what it exactly was. It would have been far simpler, and it would have saved the Board of Agriculture a good deal of trouble, if the return had been a plain one, asking how many horses the owner had in his possession of different kinds on such and such a date, and in such and such a year. Of course, it should be the latest date and the latest year possible. I think this form which has been issued is a very confusing one.
  I should also like to ask the representative of the Board of Agriculture to whom has this form been sent? I know a great many horse owners who have not had those papers, and I should like to know whether the information which is supposed to be gained by this circular is expected to be a complete census of the horses in this country. If so, it will be far from complete, and it will be very inaccurate indeed. I very much doubt whether a great many hon. Members of this House and the other House who keep horses have been approached at all on this Question. There is another great mistake, and it is the way in which the horses are classified. What is it you want to know at the Board of Agriculture? What is it the War Office desires to know, because I suppose this information is being got for the War Office? I imagine this matter is of some importance to them, because when we ask the
  1274
  Secretary of State for War about the horse supply he tells us that the preliminary step is a census. In this list the horses are divided into thoroughbreds, other light horses, and ponies, and then into heavy horses and into various breeds. The heading, "Other light horses," for the purpose of classification, includes van and cart horses. Why is this? You cannot mount your Imperial Yeomanry or your Territorial Force upon van horses. At least, I hope that is not the proposal of the War Office.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): It has. nothing to do with the War Office.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Then I do not understand what it is for, because I find these types of horses have been supplied by the Board of Agriculture to the War Office, and it says here, "Horses suitable for Army remounts." If it is not for the purpose of ascertaining how many horses suitable for Army purposes there are in the country, then I fail to see what the object is, and it seems to me to be a waste of money. Perhaps we shall hear later what the object of the inquiry is. I do not see that it will throw any useful light upon the horse question at all to have horses so sub-divided as they are in this particular circular. What you want to know is how many thoroughbreds, how many riding horses, and horses of a driving character, and how many different breeds there are in establishments which have stud books of their own. A classification of that description would be far more valuable. In all those breeds in which there are stud books it would be very useful to know how many of each there are, but the classification which is proposed will tell you nothing of the kind.
  As regards the horse supply, the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division seemed to think that there was a great future for the proposal of the Earmarking Association, but I do not think it has made much progress in the North, and I do not see it is likely to be very conducive to keeping horses in the country. The people most likely to allow their horses to be earmarked are those who are least likely to sell them. Horses do not leave this country when they are seasoned and have reached the age of six or seven years, but they leave when they are young, and when they are passing from the hands of the breeder to the dealer. The majority of horses which leave Ireland and other

  1275
  breeding districts, like Yorkshire, to go abroad, are three years old, and I do not think any earmarking association would keep those mares in this country. The only way to keep those horses in the country is to get those Departments of the State which want horses to give higher prices for them, and higher prices for their produce. I am not a great believer in all these various schemes for encouraging horse-breeding, because, in my opinion, it is all a question of price. The reason why you have not sufficient horses now is because we have such a small demand for them for the Army, and the War Office buy far fewer than they ought to do.
  Another reason is that when we do buy we give a very indifferent price for them. It is a well-known fact—and I think the hon. Baronet who represents the Board of Agriculture will endorse my statement—that the foreign buyer who purchases young horses in Ireland pays a far better price, and takes the pick of the horses, or, in other words, skims the cream, with the result that we are left with a very inferior class of animals—like that which is so excellently portrayed in the Board of Agriculture circular. If the hon. Baronet who represents the Board of Agriculture would use his influence as representing that Department, and the breeders of the country with the War Office, in order to induce them to buy their horses younger and give a higher price for them, I believe there would be no difficulty at all in reference to the horse supply, because then you would get people to lay themselves out to breed the type of horse suitable for the Army. Until you do that, no matter what schemes you may have, you will not get farmers and practical men to go in for horse-breeding. Unless you do that you will find that the horse supply in this country will continue to diminish at the same rate, or at an even greater rate, than it has done in the last few years.
  I should like to take this opportunity of most thoroughly endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry said about rural education. That is undoubtedly one of the things which is most urgently wanted, namely, a more practical system of education in our rural districts. One of the reasons which makes it so hard for county councils and education committees to get money for education is the fact that so many people in the country find that so many of the lads educated in the schools are no use to them. I have heard it said by farmers over and over
  1276
  again that the boys who come from the schools do not know anything at all about the land, and, what is worse, most of them do not want to learn. That is a very bad state of things, and it is no use trying to encourage small holders if by our system of education we are doing everything in our power to unfit people to become small holders. I hope the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education between them will lay their heads together, and take this very important matter into their consideration.
  Sir F. CHANNING: It seems to me that attention has been drawn to the most practical and urgent Question which can be dealt with by the Board of Agriculture at the present time, the question of Rural Education. We have had an interesting discussion on small holdings, and it would be wrong to prolong it. I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend who is in charge of this Vote to one or two points with regard to the general discussion which we have had. They are rather of a different nature to those which have already been brought before the Committee. The first point is one which was dealt with on the Debate on the Address. I do not think that the Board of Agriculture have fully appreciated the absolute unwisdom of the circular issued by them with regard to share capital in co-operative societies. I do not think that they realise how unwise that demand is. My hon. Friend spoke with some sympathy with co-operative societies, and I believe that the action of co-operative societies is the best method and the best machinery for dealing with small holdings. It is also the best method that will lead to economic success, but the policy of the circular has been to penalise co-operation. I think that has been a fatal policy.
  I know of two societies which have been severely handicapped by this absurd provision. They naturally expected that when men had adequate capital to work the land—men of experience and skill—they would be treated by the county councils as ordinary tenants, but in the two cases to which I have referred the result of the conditions imposed has been to paralyse the initiative of the societies and make it hopeless to carry out their work. In one of the towns of my Constituency it is hopeless to find land at a price likely to be remunerative, and a society which was formed to deal with this matter is on the

  1277
  point of dissolution. Another society, when they dealt with the financial aspect of the scheme proposed, have been compelled to withdraw from the bargain which they had entered into. That is the result of this unwise penalising of co-operation. I do not understand why that form of combination should be penalised by these extra demands on the part of the Board of Agriculture. It seems to me to be the height of unbusinesslike capacity and the action of the Commissioners in insisting upon the preposterous requirements has resulted in strangling co-operation, and the holding of land by co-operative societies.
  I will turn to another point: The Act gives a great deal of power to the Board of Agriculture to encourage co-operation. It not only gives power but it gives funds to encourage co-operation. I am a member both of the Agricultural Organisation Society and of the National Poultry Society, both of which are doing the best work that can be done for small holdings. I venture to say that the action of the Board of Agriculture in respect of these societies has been altogether unsatisfactory. That is, as regards helping them in useful work. I attended the other day a very important meeting at Buckingham with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. The Principal of Reading College stated that owing to insufficient funds, the training of teachers, as well as small holders and small farmers, in the poultry industry was being practically paralysed. I believe myself that the Board of Agriculture, owing to difficulties which I do not quite understand, has failed to give any requisite or adequate support to that enterprise. I make a very earnest appeal to my hon. Friend that he should, out of the funds at the disposal of the Board, find money to support so useful an undertaking as the poultry and farming institute at Theale, and also in educating small holders in the best methods of cultivating small holdings so as to obtain adequate and satisfactory results.
  I rose specially to draw attention to this question of agricultural education. We have had very important reports and memoranda laid before us in the last two months on this subject which seem to me to demand the earnest and the instant attention of Parliament and the Government. They are very careful Reports. They are important Reports, and they contain practical suggestions. The
  1278
  Noble Lord who has just spoken referred to lads in the country who, instead of becoming useful instruments in agricultural development and helping to regenerate rural life, drift away to the towns, while the more energetic of them go to the Colonies. I have no doubt that those hon. Members who have listened to this Debate will read the admirable Report of Lord Reay's Committee. I would wish to draw attention especially to two points in that Report. In the first place the Committee examined a most admirable group of witnesses. They collected a volume of evidence upon the effect which agricultural colleges would have on practical agriculture, in helping farmers in the country and in encouraging facilities with reference to agricultural teaching, not only in elementary, but in secondary schools. The committee reported strongly in favour of a large subvention in that direction.
  I hope, before the Debate closes, that the hon. Member for Bute, who was a Member of Lord Reay's Committee, will contribute some suggestion to this Debate. Not only, I hope, shall we hear that we have a substantial sum for the purpose to which I allude, but that it is a growing sum, and that the sum at the disposal of the Government is adequate to deal with this question, in which is involved the future of rural England.
  In the creation of winter schools and farm institutes, one of the recommendations of the Committee, you have exactly the machinery which is wanted, and which was alluded to by the Noble Lord opposite—to provide for the practical training of lads from 12 to 20 years of age—lads who have already some acquaintance with agriculture. It was recommended further that 50 to 60 of these schools should be provided in England and Wales. We do want from the Government some assurance on this subject, and that the whole of the splendid suggestions which were made with reference to the development of rural life will be carried out. I suppose I shall be out of order if I deal with the institutions which lie specially under the purview of the Board of Education; but as some of us, including the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, took part recently in laying the whole of these questions in the deputation from the Central Chamber before my noble Friend Lord Carrington, the President of the Board of Agriculture, and the President of the Board of Education, I think I shall be in order so far in expressing the warmest possible wish that the

  1279
  considerations which we then urged, and which have been alluded to in these Reports and Memoranda, and supported all over the country by various conferences, and which we hope will be supported by more conferences this summer, the suggestion that joint action should be taken by both Boards, will receive the warm and cordial support of His Majesty's Government, and that we shall get some solid result from the bold schemes adumbrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day before the House, which gave to me and other Members who have laboured these questions for many years the deepest sense of happiness and a desire to see them translated into practical realities.
  Earl WINTERTON: I desire to say only a word or two in relation to what has been said by the hon. Member below the Gangway—the Member for North Northants. We all recognise that throughout this controversy—for it has become a controversy—on the question of Small Holdings, the hon. Member has been actuated by the greatest sincerity and enthusiasm, and he has presented his case in a perfectly fair manner, in striking contradistinction to some hon. Members opposite. But he said one thing which I do not think should be allowed to go unchallenged. The hon. Member said he knew of the case of a man who I think applied and successfully applied for nine acres of land. This man was working for a farmer, who on hearing that he had obtained the land said he would no longer employ him, because he could not depend on having the whole of the man's time for his farm. I venture to think that that was a perfectly reasonable attitude for the farmer to take up.
  Mr. NICHOLLS: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. I did not say the employer gave that as his reason. I want to make it quite clear. The man applied for the holding, and paid £20 as covenant. His employer was on the county council. As soon as it was known his employer gave him notice without giving any reason, and the other man who applied at the same time with him was "sacked" three weeks after. These are facts that I can corroborate.
  Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member said that the ground on which the farmer got rid of the man was that the farmer would not be able to have the whole of the man's time.
  Mr. NICHOLLS: I said we could assume that.
  Earl WINTERTON: Exactly. I see. The mistake is entirely mine. But the very fact that the hon. Member entertains, that assumption really cuts away the whole case. Any man in business employing labour has a perfect right if he wishes to say he will only employ a man on the whole, whose time he has a right to call, provided he employs him for reasonable hours. And surely that is a perfectly reasonable attitude for the farmer to take up. He could say, "Here is a man who just on the day when I may want him to put in wheat or to reap oats will be wanting to put in his own wheat or to reap his own oats." Attending to so much land of his own will take up a large part of the man's time. I have no doubt the hon. Member has made himself familiar with the case, and there may be special circumstances connected with it which make it a case in which undue influence has been put forward. But I say there is nothing really to prove that the farmer was not acting in a fair way. We on this side of the House are anxious to discourage anyone bringing any kind of undue influence to bear either in regard to a small holding or upon a man who is about to enter upon a small holding to prevent him doing what is a perfectly legitimate thing. We admit that there have been cases; but we submit that it is not fair to cast these reflections on the farming class and the county councils unless you are able to give specific instances and to support them by evidence that the action of the individual or the county council has been unduly biased by unworthy motives. I do not think the hon. Member has quite made that case good. The hon. Member stated what is undoubtedly a fact, that use has been made, and I will say unscrupulously made, by some Members of the party opposite, of the Act to obtain votes and support. It has been a lamentable failure. But that is a state of affairs which is really very serious. It has allowed people in the country districts to believe that they would be able by writing to an individual in the Member of Parliament to immediately obtain small holdings from 10 to 50 acres. Hon. Members opposite may have been perfectly sincere in thinking that it was possible for labourers to obtain land by that simple process. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the result has been to create a great deal of unnecessary bitterness

  1281
  against the county councils and against the local authorities. The people believed that the process would be so simple, and they find it has been so difficult. I have no doubt there have been cases of undue delay on the part of the county council. Although hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway pointed out that they were wrong people on the county councils, I would venture to point out that, after all, the county councils are elected by the people. They might just as well say that they were the wrong people elected to the House of Commons. I submit that on both sides of the House there should be shown patience towards the working of the Act. We are quite ready to admit that the Government brought forward this Act as a perfectly sincere attempt to deal with the small holdings Question, and we are only too anxious that the Act should have an opportunity of being tried; but it is not right that wild accusations, such as those brought by the hon. Member for Woodstock, should be brought against county councils and against the Board of Agriculture. After all, the Act has not been in force long, and in the country districts everything moves slowly. I submit that there has been nothing brought before this Committee to-night to show that the county councils or the landlords or the farmers have shown any attempt to hamper the working of the Small Holdings Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture in this House will not follow the wild suggestions of the hon. Member for Woodstock, and will allow county councils to have a reasonable time to put this Act into operation. If it is found there are any county councils that do not carry out the spirit of the Act in a reasonable time it will be another matter.
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. G. J. WARDLE: I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, and I do so on the ground that I am opposed to the granting of further powers to this company, because they have not strictly observed the powers that they already possess. In my opinion they have, as a matter of fact, abused the law, and therefore ought not to be granted other powers in this House. I may say, in opposing this Bill, that there is a precedent for the rejection of a Bill of this company only so recently, I think, as 1902. A Bill was then thrown out because the company had not fulfilled its obligations with regard to the rehousing of certain classes of people, I believe round Euston-square, and the present case is much more serious than that. It raises once again the question of amalgamations and working agreements which were discussed not so very long ago in this House. In 1905 the London and North-Western Railway entered into an agreement with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. In 1908 they entered into an agreement with the Midland Railway. Both of these agreements are of a very far-reaching character. Both are without Parliamentary sanction, and both of them are secret. The "Railway News" on 8th August, 1908, referring to this matter, said:—
  "In the case of the 1905 agreement between the London and North-Western and Lancashire and Yorkshire - which has worked so admirably without in any way interfering with the facilities offered to the public, but rather improving them—no Parliamentary sanction was required, and doubtless the arrangement with the Midland will be on the same lines, and will also, therefore, not require to be submitted to Parliament."
  When the announcement was made with regard to the Midland, also on 8th August, the "Railway News" said:—
  "We are authorised by the Companies concerned to say that the London and North-Western and Midland Companies have arrived at an arrangement of a comprehensive character to endure for a long period of years."
  —I believe 99 years—
  "Which will it is hoped be the means of enabling considerable economies in working expenses to be effected, while at the same time the public will obtain the advantage of increased facilities for passenger and merchandise traffic."
  This question of facilities between these two companies is of very large importance. The companies have an immense capital, and serve two very large areas in the country, and the effect of those agreements is a question which has to be considered. The question is not one for the companies alone, although they seem to consider that they can enter into these arrangements, make these working agreements, cooperate in this fashion, without the consent of this House, and that therefore the arrangements must be agreed to. But

  1283
  there is a great deal of mistrust and agitation in the country in consequence of this action on their part, and when a Bill of theirs comes before this House it is practically the only opportunity we have of raising this question publicly, and that is why I desire to do so on this occasion. These companies, both the Midland Company and the North-Western Company, who are both concerned in Bills here tonight—these two companies were granted their powers in order that they might compete. Now, however, they are co-operating, and therefore they are going against the declared intention of Parliament when they granted them the powers which they at present possess. There is an extract here, which I have from the "Birmingham Post," with regard to this particular agreement which I should like to read:—
  "So far as it was possible to gauge the feeling of the commercial world in Birmingham at a time when so many of the leading freighters are away on holiday, the announcement of the proposed combination is regarded with interest but without any great disquiet."
  But it says:—
  "Siding rebates have been withdrawn and owner's risk imposed which in many directions have gone to the extent of the harm that it lies in the power of the railway monopolists to inflict upon the trader. If the economies which the companies may be able to effect on their working arrangement were to lead them to encourage trade by lightening the burden on railway rates, which has been so sorely complained of, such a result would be cordially welcome. The prevailing feeling, however, is that the shareholders' dividends will be the first care of the railway directors, and that any benefit to the trading community is remote."
  The question of these companies making these working agreements is one of serious consideration to the public, to the employés, and to the traders of this country. It has resulted, I believe, already in reduced facilities for passengers, in a decreased staff so far as the employés are concerned, and in the withdrawal of some of the facilities for trade. The question that I want to raise here to-night is this: Are these working agreements legal? Are they within the scope of the powers which the companies possess? If they are not, has the President of the Board of Trade, whom I am glad to see in his place, power to interfere with these agreements, and, if so, why has he not exercised that power? These are the plain questions which I want to ask, and may I point out the position with regard to these working agreements? It is a very serious one. When this agreement was first mooted, the "Westminster Gazette" said:—
  "The announcement tells us that this arrangement of a comprehensive character to endure for a long period of years has been arrived at,' and the assumption apparently of all concerned is that Parliamentary sanction or revision is unnecessary."
  1284
  It goes on to say:—
  "The North-Western and the Midland Companies tell us their arrangements would enable considerable economies to be effected, while at the same time the public will obtain the advantage of increased facilities for passenger and merchandise traffic. It may be so; a joint system is not unthinkable which would effect economies without injuring the public, but we have no guarantee of this result other than the assurance of directors whose first interest and duty is to look after their shareholders, and who are going to be relieved by the removal of competition from at least one motive for cultivating the public."
  It is not the first time this Question of railway amalgamation has been before the House. There is a large number of public Acts dealing with railways. A large number of these Acts deal also with the question of working agreements. The first Act with regard to this matter was passed in 1844, and contains a clause which reads:—
  "Be it enacted that whenever it shall appear to the Lords of the said Committee that any of the provisions of the several Acts of Parliament regulating any railway company or the provisions of this Act or of any general Act relating to railways have not been complied with on the part of any railway company or any of its officers or that any railway company has acted or is acting in a manner unauthorised by the provisions of the Act or Acts of Parliament relating to such railway or in excess of the powers given and objects defined by the said Act or Acts and it would appear to the Lords of the said Committee that it would be for the public advantage that the companies should be restrained from so acting the Lords of the said Committee shall take action to get an injunction in the ordinary way."
  There is also an Act of 1863, which is very specific with regard to this question of agreements. This Act says that agreements are not to take effect until a vote has been taken of the shareholders, and then only when three-fifths of the votes are in its favour. It further says:—
  "Before the companies enter into the agreement notice of their intention to do so shall be given by them or one of them in a form to be approved by the Board of Trade inserted once at least in each of three successive weeks in some newspaper circulating in the city prescribed in the special Act and if no county is prescribed then in the county or one of the counties in which each railway to the maintenance management use or working whereof the proposed agreement relates or some portion of the railway is situate and the notice shall set forth within what time and in what manner any company or person aggrieved by the proposed agreement and desiring to object thereto may bring the objection to the Board of Trade."
  Then it goes on to add:—
  "The agreement shall not have any operation until it has been approved by the Board of Trade."
  I should like to ask whether all these specific requirements have been carried out. I know since then these powers which were then vested in the Board of Trade have been put on to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. An Act was passed also in 1864 which said when companies desired to enter into agreements they might do so, but they had to obtain the consent of the Board of Trade, and then they could do

  1285
  it without a private Act, but they must have a certificate from the Board of Trade. I want to know whether the London and North-Western and Midland Railways in entering into this agreement have carried out all the provisions of these Acts of Parliament, whether they are not going beyond the scope of the Acts which have been passed in their favour, and, therefore, whether this is not a fair opportunity for this House to bring these companies to book for not carrying out the law, and for bringing once more this question of the amalgamation of railway companies to the notice of the House. When the last Bill, the Great Northern, Great Central, and Great Eastern Bill, was before the House the right hon. Gentleman said there was a number of things which these railway companies could do without an Act of Parliament, and he cited some. He cited certain quotations from the Committee which was appointed by this House in 1872 to inquire into the question of railway amalgamation. There are apparently some of these things which they may do, but they do them with certain risks. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote this from the Select Committee which sat on railway amalgamation:—
  "Whether the division of traffic receipts on the joint purse principle is valid at law or not is open to considerable doubt. It is clear that the Courts will not set aside such an arrangement on the ground that it is illegal, in the sense of its being contrary to public policy. But the doubt is whether such an arrangement, which is in fact a sort of partnership, is not ultra vires of each company, and whether it may not therefore be set aside at the instance of a single shareholder. This doubt, the Committee are advised is such as to make it unsafe for companies to enter into such agreements without the sanction of Parliament although there is evidence that they sometimes do so."
  It goes on to say these arrangements are very objectionable on other grounds. If these working agreements which take place behind the back of Parliament are illegal, I think, for the dignity of this House, it is time that we put our foot down and prevented any more of them being made. Then, further, if competition is to stop on railways, if amalgamations and working agreements are to be the order of the day and the policy for the future, that policy ought not to take place until this House has had a full opportunity of considering the question in all its bearings. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to appoint some Committee or Commission to go into this question of railway amalgamation. The question is exceedingly important. It is not a mere matter for the shareholders of railway companies. It is not a
  1286
  matter in which the interests of the employés alone are concerned. It is a matter with which the trade and the commerce of this country are also concerned, and upon which industry largely depends. It was said in the last Debate that the capitalists come forward openly to this House, and that there was an opportunity, therefore, of inserting a clause in the Bill which would protect the interests of the employés. We were given the instance of this very agreement as a case where the companies had entered into agreement, and where they were able to do as they liked with regard to their employés without having any such safeguard as it is intended to insert in that Bill. That is one reason why this whole question of railway amalgamation should be inquired into. As a matter of fact a large number of men have been dismissed from the Midland, and at the present moment there is a considerable feeling on the part of a number of the London and North-Western men that their positions are insecure. I believe what they call a kind of Commission is going about inquiring into the status of the staff and the requirements at various places with the object of reducing the staff or disposing of any surplus. Therefore, from whatever point of view we look at this question, I am convinced that one of the most important things which this Parliament has to do is to consider this whole question of railway policy, to do it on this Bill or in some other way, with a view to the requirements of the country, and I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Mr. WALTER HUDSON: I rise to second the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Stockport. I do so on the ground that when Parliament gave the power to the companies which they already possess it was not contemplated that that power was exclusively their own to bargain with, and to enable them to make themselves into larger concerns than what had been sanctioned. It was a power, in other words, that the State delegated to those companies, and to claim now the same right as a private firm would do outside in the country to use that power in agreeing with other companies who have like power in creating huge concerns is to claim a right which was never intended. We say that they have no right to vary the power already given. Moreover, this is becoming one of the largest Questions of the present day so far as the future of rail-

  1287
  ways is concerned. We readily admit that we must keep advancing according to the time, and we have no objection to sensible and rational evolution with regard to the railway system of the country, but we do say that the companies at the present time under statute law have not the power which they claim to exercise according to their own will, and to the detriment of the trading community and of the future well-being of their employés. We are aware that if large combinations of railway companies have to be brought about for the public well-being it will mean a diminution in the number of those employed upon railways. To that, if properly regulated and reasonably ordered, we have no objection whatever. Only two or three weeks ago the London and Northwestern Railway Company dismissed a number of their men at Leicester, and told them to go to the Midland Company for employment. I merely mention that as an illustration of what is taking place, and if we are to have a reorganisation of the whole railway system of the country I reiterate what my hon. Friend has said, that we should have a fair and candid inquiry into the whole circumstances. Let us give power to the State Department, if it does not already possess it, to control and order the arrangement properly. We have argued, I think, with a considerable amount of logic that that Department already possesses the power if it would only exercise it. But we are not inclined to quarrel on that point if it has not. We say that before we go any further and before the railway companies put in practice what they have now bargained to do outside of Parliament, let the Government order a proper inquiry in order that Parliament may be enabled to decide upon what lines these huge combinations shall be conducted. After the Debate we had a week or two ago, a very interesting comment was made in the "Westminster Gazette," as follows:—
  "There are extraordinary difficulties in approaching this question piecemeal, and the joint committee will, we predict, quickly find itself compelled to lay down a general policy which more or less covers the whole subject."
  That is with reference to the Committee Set up on the Bill for the amalgamation of three railway companies quite recently. The paper went on to say:—
  "Behind it all, in our opinion, lies the problem of finding some strong central authority which will act on its own initiative in the defence of the public interest if the guarantee of competition is withdrawn."
  1288
  This is what we want, and we say that the matter should not go a step further, and that the companies should be told distinctly that they must hold their hands and not put into operation any agreement arrived at until this inquiry has been held and a properly ordered system has been arranged if we are to have these combinations of companies. I think the representatives of the railway companies themselves will see the reasonableness of this. I hope they will at least. We are not at all in any captious spirit objecting to this Bill. What we want is a fair understanding in order that we may know exactly what the State is now going to do in the matter of allowing these companies to extend their power, because it is a borrowed power from the State they already possess, and they have no right to take further power without the permission of Parliament. I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, because I think we shall get a better understanding by discussing the matter. I have something to say on the next Bill when it comes forward. The two Bills stand in the same category with respect to the making of arrangements.
  Amendment proposed: "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—[Mr. Wardle.]
  Question proposed: "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I think it might possibly shorten the labours of the House on this Bill and the succeeding Bill if I intervene at this present stage. The Bills themselves are, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, quite unobjectionable. Some of the powers asked for in these Bills are not merely necessary to enable the railway companies to deal with their services, but they also ask for some useful powers, which offer opportunities for employment. Therefore, I do not think there will be any disposition on the part of the House to deny to these Bills that consideration before a Committee, which is all they ask for at the present time, and which they are entitled to receive. There are, however, other aspects of the railway policy which we cannot conceal from our minds, and which were referred to by the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. Even though these Bills have nothing to do in themselves with railway combination, pooling arrangements, amal-

  1289
  gamation, or anything of that character, nevertheless they are opportune. There are two things that I think the House should be informed of. Questions were asked some time ago about the character of the agreement which exists between the Midland and the London and North-western Companies sometime ago. I said I had no statutory powers to require the railway companies to furnish me with particulars of that agreement. Nor have I, but, as a matter of fact, in confidence we were afforded a copy, but only to use in confidence and in good faith, and if I had made the text public I should not deserve to be treated in a confidential manner again. Therefore, I did not answer the question in any decided sense one way or the other, but now that this Bill has come to the House I think it would be right that the House of Commons should ask the companies concerned to place the agreement before the public. I had some conversation with the general managers and superintendents of the railway companies this morning, and I gathered from them that they would authorise me to lay the agreement which they had confidentially shown on the Table of the House. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman opposite will have to say to that; but I gathered that that might be done. As to the second point, I will be very brief. The loss of the Great Northern, the Great Central, and the Great Eastern Amalgamation Bill was regretted by me. [An HON. MEMBER: "The withdrawal."] Well, the withdrawal. I would have wished to see that measure deliberated upon by a Committee. I believe we would have got a great deal of invaluable information from the examination of that measure. I do not believe that the Committee would have applied excessive pressure to the promoters. I think they would have gained and pointed the moral and the House would then be in a position to deal with other measures of this kind.
  However, there is no use in taking up the time of the House even for one moment in deploring and bewailing events which we cannot recall. I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite when they say that the situation now created does call for amendment. The railway companies have come forward and informed us that there are great economies and improvements, conferring benefits on all parties affected, to be gained by amalgamation. That tallies with the information of the Board of
  1290
  Trade. I have come forward and I have said officially in this House that I believe that these advantages could be obtained. I have always said that I am advised there is great danger of stagnation of development in our railways if amalgamation on proper lines is made impossible, and I have further stated that it is possible for railways to enter into considerable agreements without asking for the sanction of Parliament at all. When those statements have been made and not challenged—I do not think they can be challenged by whichever side—when they are made openly and publicly a situation is created which we cannot leave untouched which we cannot leave with contentment as it stands. Therefore I have been considering very carefully the form which an inquiry should take. I thought of a Royal Commission. I say nothing against Royal Commissions, but in this particular province a Royal Commission generally means that nothing will be done for a very long time, so I am personally very reluctant to place railway matters under the seal and ban so far as action is concerned of a Royal Commission. I have considered the question of a Select Committee or a Joint Committee, and I think a great deal is to be said in favour of that course, especially from the point of view of satisfying the House of Commons and Members of this House. But we are already at the end of the first week in May, and I very much doubt whether a Select Committee could conclude its labours in time by the end of the Session. In fact, I am certain it would be sitting all next year, and it would therefore only to a less extent than would a Royal Commission prevent any Government action in regard to pressing matters in the railway world which require legislation. In those circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the best course at the present time would be to appoint a strong Departmental Committee. I do not mean a Committee of officials, I mean a Committee of powerful experts and persons of public repute that I can summon. Some of them will be Members of Parliament, Members of both Houses of Parliament; others will be experts—though I wish to keep the numbers small. My idea is such a Committee beginning its labours quickly might report to the Board of Trade before the end of the present year, and if the Report suggested the possibility of action there would be time for legislation to be introduced next Session if it was thought necessary. I think on the whole that that is

  1291
  the most practicable course. What we want is not merely inquiry. We want action. It is quite clear that the law as it stands at present is unsatisfactory for all parties, for the parties interested in the railway, for the general public, and for the employés. With the view of facilitating, or at any rate not preventing, action at the earliest possible date that I am led to the conclusion which I venture to put before the House. Assuming that we get satisfactory assurance as to the publication of this agreement, I would suggest in view of the statement I have made that hon. Gentlemen opposite should allow these small Bills to go forward.
  Mr. A. MOND: I think the hon. Members who Moved and Seconded this resolution may congratulate themselves on its result so far. The declaration of the President of the Board of Trade is of a satisfactory character so far as concerns those who have been taking an interest in this question of railway amalgamation. All those who have studied this matter are perfectly well aware that it is a difficult and complex subject, and cannot be determined by the President of the Board of Trade in a precipitate manner. We are very pleased indeed to know to-night that his cogitations, which have covered a considerable time, since this question was first brought under his notice, in 1908, by the hon. Member for Stockport, have resulted in the proposed appointment of a strong Departmental Committee, and it is hoped that this Committee when appointed will proceed promptly, and that the evidence required to enable us to form an opinion as to the advantages and disadvantages both to the railway companies, the public, and the employés, will be forthcoming. Whether it will be found that the advantages are as great as are imagined to the railway companies themselves I am a little doubtful, but at any rate the report of a Committee like that seems to be absolutely necessary in order to get the matter out of its present position. The position we are in at present is really rather a curious one, and I am sure we shall be very glad to hear that there is some prospect, in fact we have the assurance, that this agreement, the only knowledge of which we have officially is the Press notice of 1908 between the important companies, the London and North-Western and the Midland, is now going to be placed before us. The position is very curious, because Parliament has passed two important Acts which deal with the question of railway
  1292
  agreements. Parliament has never given the railway companies power to make agreements behind the back of Parliament without coming here or going to the Board of Trade. It seems a most curious anomaly that whereas the Board of Trade has been charged with the duty of seeing whether or not such agreements are or are not ultra vires, the Board of Trade have no power to see what those agreements are. How the Board of Trade can carry out this duty which is thrown upon it by the Acts of 1863 and 1864, sections 3 and 4, without knowing whether such sections do or do not come into operation—and that they cannot possibly do unless they have seen the agreement—seems to me quite incomprehensible, and certainly whatever else is done in the matter, it is obvious that this lacuna in our railway legislation will have to be filled. The Board of Trade have taken rather too humble a view of their powers. I would like to refer to section 17, a very important section of the Railways Regulations Act, 1844, which contains a special provision enabling the Attorney-General to commence proceedings in cases where there is any breach of the statutory provisions, or where the Board of Trade considers that anything is being done detrimental to the public welfare, and that the public interest is endangered. Surely these agreements between two railway companies of the character published in the Press, do certainly endanger the public interest, and I myself think that if the Board of Trade had taken its courage in both hands, and, under that section authorised the Attorney-General to commence proceedings, as they are entitled to do under that section, to settle the legality of the action of the railway companies, I think myself they would have had a very good chance of succeeding before the Railway Commissioners. We are to have copies of the agreement, and then we can form our own opinion as to whether or not it is ultra vires. Up to now we have had to be satisfied with the opinions expressed by the railway companies and their lawyers. It would be more satisfactory to us to form our own opinion on this subject. But the speech made by my right hon. Friend certainly, so far as I am concerned, alters the situation, and I certainly think that if he gets the assurance, which I understand he will get, the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution will be well advised in withdrawing their opposition to the Bill, so as to show clearly that what they are opposed to is not the

  1293
  progress of railway companies in this country in any sense whatsoever, but that we do not want stagnation. We do want to know not only that they keep to the law as it is, but that the law will be put on such a basis that the rights and interests of all parties will be duly safeguarded. If the railway companies would treat the community with more frankness and with less legal technicality, a good deal of the difficulty which has occurred in the past would not occur in the future. After all, if they would only treat the traders as partners with them in their business, interested in their welfare as they are in ours, they would very soon find a basis of accommodation. The railway companies must know that they have no interest in hampering us in a vexatious manner, and if we knew that some part of the savings were to be handed over to those who are the life-blood of the companies—namely, the traders, on whose prosperity the companies depend—if we saw that every time amalgamation did not lead to the withdrawal of facilities and the restriction of facilities, and, in many cases, an increase of the rate, I think this Question that has divided so long the traders and railway companies, and which has created a great deal of bitter feeling which ought to be unnecessary, we might hope for railway development in this country, bringing with it not only security, but the friendly co-operation of the trading community.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I thank hon. Members below the Gangway for the extremely courteous and kindly terms which they used in bringing forward this Motion. The matter is one which concerns the companies very deeply, and still more the public. The President of the Board of Trade has foreshadowed the whole question as to the powers of amalgamation. The companies believe that they are acting entirely in conformity with their powers, and that they are not straining those powers in the slightest degree. Of course, when Parliament makes further regulations and rules as to the amalgamation of railways we shall observe them not only in the letter, but in the spirit. It is not always convenient to railway companies to produce the terms of an agreement. At the same time I should like to assure hon. Members below the Gangway that there is nothing to conceal in those terms, and they are therefore perfectly ready to make public the terms of the agreement between the London and North-Western Railway Company and the Midland Company. The hon.
  1294
  Member for Stockport has raised the question as to the positions of the men in the future. We are extremely anxious that we should not dismiss men in consequence of the agreement, and I should like to tell him that out of a total staff of 1,717 persons affected we are making arrangements between the London and North-Western and the Midland Company in regard to that matter. None have been dismissed, and only 51 have been reduced in their pay, the average reduction being 1s. 6d. per week per man. The average reduction per man being 1s. 6d. per week, we have found a place for every man discharged, and only in 51 out of 1,717 cases have there been any reductions in pay. In all cases, whether salaries or wages, they retain their positions on the provident and insurance funds, so that hon. Members will see that besides being careful about dividends, about which railway companies usually are so careful, we have thought a great deal of the men who might be affected.
  I see below the Gangway my hon. Friend, who might be likely to raise a question connected with third-class sleeping carriages. I should like, if possible, to shorten the Debate, and I will take this opportunity of referring to the matter. Last time he raised the question, I told him I would do my best to impress it on the general manager to provide third-class sleepers, at all events, for my hon. Friend. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland will give me credit for having endeavoured to impress on the general manager his wishes on this subject. I am sorry to be obliged to tell him unequivocally that I have been absolutely unable to convince the general manager of the necessity for this accommodation, and the reason that he gave me for that is this: Cost of maintenance, additional rolling stock, increased expense of running additional trains long distances, and the reduction that would occur by the migration of first and second-class passengers to third class without any compensating advantage in the number of passengers. I am anxious, if possible, to induce my hon. Friends below the Gangway to withdraw their Amendment and allow the Bill to get a second reading.
  Mr. W. P. BEALE: I think it is right I should follow my right hon. Friend by saying that I am in favour on the part of the Midland Railway Company, and that we are equally willing that the agreement should be open to examination by any

  1295
  hon. Gentleman who would like to see it. I think there is a certain amount of misapprehension about the nature and about the supposed secrecy of those agreements. I do not see any reason why they should not see them, except that the directors of the company do not put every detail of their administration before the mass of the shareholders, who have many diverse and conflicting interests in other ways. I think that there is nothing in this agreement that can be called illegal, but, however, hon. Members may judge of that for themselves. To clear away every misapprehension, I should like to make one remark about the point of view from which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have referred to this agreement. That seems to be a misapprehension expressed in so many words by the Mover of the Amendment that railway companies were granted their powers in order that they might compete. I know where the idea has sprung from, and I think I can show hon. Gentlemen exactly how it was. In old times it was with great difficulty that any company could get a Bill passed to compete with companies in existence, and even up to the present time the fact that a proposed Bill will compete with a company, and that competition is offered gives primâ facie the right to the company in existence to oppose. Such a position should be regarded to such an extent as a monopoly, and when they did not serve the company properly then the competing man came in. Up to the present time that view has been taken.
  I know in recent years when the cry of cheap coal for London came in the competition then increased, but it has never been a fundamental proposition that railway companies should be encouraged to compete with one another. I think if hon. Gentlemen will consider the matter they will see that it is impossible that such should be looked upon as an obligation, for by what possible machinery could you force two people to compete with one another when they did not want to do so? The real point is if they do not serve the public properly, if they use freedom from competition to reduce fair terms to traders, or to withdraw existing facilities to traders then in that case, of course, you meet them, as the hon. Member for Chester meets them, by opposing them when they come here for further facilities. We have heard about the result of these agreements being the discharge of employés. I am sure at the present day they do not object to
  1296
  reasonable economic arrangements for saving labour. They would not object to the introduction of a crane that might economise a certain amount of labour. The day has gone by for that kind of objection. They recognise that reasonable economies tending to the development of the railway are as much for their interests as for the companies themselves. I hope on those grounds that hon. Gentlemen will be willing to allow the second reading.
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said, and for the kindly interest he has taken in the question of the provision of third-class "sleepers" at all times. I am only sorry he has not been successful, but that is no reason why we should not continue the agitation until we get justice done to all classes of His Majesty's subjects. The point I always wish to make is this, that if the companies give sleeping accommodation to first-class passengers, then third-class passengers are entitled to it, because a railway is a monopoly, and subject to the fixing of price each class ought to have similar accommodation. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether this inquiry he has mentioned will cover this question of third-class sleeping accommodation.
  Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL was understood to reply in the negative.
  Mr. MORTON: Then what I complain of is the desertion of the Board of Trade on this subject. When I brought this matter forward in 1906 the Board of Trade promised an inquiry. I do not know why they now throw overboard the late Parliamentary Secretary, as apparently they do. They promised an inquiry as to what could be done to induce the companies to carry out this proposal, which the Board of Trade at that time admitted was fair and reasonable. Why have the Board of Trade now given up the matter altogether? All that they have done is apparently to allow the railway companies to increase the cost of week-end tickets between Scotland and London by 20 per cent.; so that instead of doing us good the Board of Trade have allowed evil to be done. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary said on 19th March, 1907:—
  "As regards the question of third-class sleeping accommodation he last year had given certain pledges—"
  They were pledges which ought not to be so lightly repudiated.
  "as to the action of the Board of Trade on the ground that it was thought, judging by the growing feeling in

  1297
  the House, that something should be done by the companies. This grievance had been placed before the representative of the railway companies in the House, and an opportunity had been taken to see the general managers of the two lines whose Bills were, then before the House. The general managers of the various railway companies had communicated their decision to the Board of Trade on the 3rd October (1906) wherein it was said that after fully considering the suggestion mentioned by the hon. Member, the heavy pecuniary loss that would be incurred induced the companies to come to the conclusion that they would not be justified in providing the suggested accommodation."
  Later in the same speech, the hon. Gentleman said:—
  "The Board of Trade had not the opportunity of helping the hon. Gentleman that night in his desire to obtain that accommodation save by expressing their sympathy. The Instruction which his hon. Friend wished to move was out of order. If it had been in order the Board of Trade would have accepted it."
  Therefore it is clear what the Board of Trade meant at that moment:—
  "He now suggested to his hon. Friend that he would benefit the cause which he had at heart if he withdrew his Motion and allowed the Bill to have its second reading. He hoped he would take cognisance of the fact that the Board of Trade would press to have the experiment tried in order to see if it was, as they thought it was, a paying proposition."
  Instead of pressing them in the direction I wanted, the Board of Trade now apparently repudiate the matter altogether, and will not even have an inquiry:—
  "That was not an unfair proposal. Although they were sometimes charged with making expensive changes on railways, they had not done so, and he would not advocate the third-class sleeping car experiment if he was not absolutely convinced that it would open to the company not a losing but a profitable trade. He hoped the right hon. gentleman representing the North-Western Railway would believe him when he said that he had only spoken in the way he had because he thought the railway company in this matter were standing in their own light."
  On 18th July, 1907, when I brought up the matter on another company's Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said:—
  "The Board of Trade always endeavoured to induce railway companies to supply third-class sleeping accommodation, and personally he believed that they would not find it a losing matter."
  The only point raised by the Board of Trade is that it was suggested that I should try and pass a Bill to compel the companies to do this. That suggestion did not come from the Board of Trade. It came from Mr. Speaker, who once suggested, when I had an Instruction down which he had to rule out of order, that I could bring in a Bill. But it is impossible to carry out that suggestion, because it is nonsense to suppose that I can carry a Bill through this House in reference to railway companies. I do not know that the Government themselves would have time to carry a Bill of that sort, and certainly for me to get the time or opportunity is absolutely impossible. I am very
  1298
  sorry that the Board of Trade should in so short a time alter their policy. The Board of Trade should represent the public, not the railways companies. They ought, in the first place, to consider and consult the representatives of the public, and leave the railway companies to look after themselves. The railway companies are much stronger than the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, and, therefore, they have no right to his assistance in the first place, but the public have. Why is the policy laid down for the Member for Devonport, who stated that he spoke in the name of the Board of Trade, to be thrown overboard? The only point of any value put forward by the railway companies is that the provision of third-class sleeping accommodation would not pay. They have even gone so far as to say that the first-class sleeping accommodation does not pay. I believe that that is quite correct, and also that the first-class carriages do not pay. You have only to look at the empty first-class carriages and the packed third-class coaches to realise that the profits made by the railways come from the third-class passengers, and not from the first. But if they do not make money out of their present sleeping accommodation, who has to make up the loss? The third-class passengers. It is they who pay the railway companies, and if favour is to be shown to any class it ought to be to the third class. If all these things were taken into consideration they ought to lead the companies in the same direction as I am glad to say my right hon. Friend has been led, namely, in favour of this accommodation; because it is a well-known fact that every one of the reforms which from time to time we have pressed upon the railway companies has in the end been in their favour, and done them good rather than harm. The better the railway companies treat their customers the better they will pay. I do not know that it is worth while taking a Division to-night, because I am not opposing this Bill, nor have I opposed any other, simply for the purpose of getting rid of the Bill or of doing the company any harm. What I want is third class sleeping accommodation and any other improvements I can get. I desire, if possible, to have some reply from the Board of Trade, and to tell them that it will not do for them to lay down a policy one year and repudiate it the next. That will neither do for the Members of this House, nor for the public outside, who are the masters of the Board of Trade. I want to have it distinctly understood,

  1299
  although I may not take a Division tonight—because this is somewhat wrapped up with other matters—that there will be other stages of this Bill to be taken on which I can take a Division. I do want the Board of Trade, and the House, to take a serious view of this, and at least to go so far as to say that the company should try it. The Board of Trade should give us their influence to get this reform carried out. I hope, although this is the eleventh hour, that the right hon. Gentleman will allow the Committee of Inquiry that he has spoken of to also consider this question.
  Mr. WARDLE: In view of the very satisfactory statement which we have received from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, and from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, I desire the leave of the House to withdraw this Motion. In doing so, I should like to say that I made no charge with regard to their action towards their employés of the London and North-Western Railway Company. I desire to say that I appreciate the action they have taken in this matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HODGEhad given notice of the following proposal: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert the following Clause:—
  "The company shall pay to all its workmen employed in the construction, repairing, and engineering establishments, and any contractor engaged on work for the company shall pay to all the workmen in his employ, not less than the minimum standard rate of wages recognised by trade societies in the district where such men are employed, and shall observe the recognised hours and proper conditions of labour; and if there shall be no such standard rate of wages or recognised hours and proper conditions of labour in such district, the company or the contractor shall pay to such workmen not less than the minimum standard rate of wages recognised by trade societies customarily executing such class of work, and observe the recognised hours and proper conditions of labour prevailing in respect of the particular trade in which such men are employed. These conditions shall also apply to any sub-contractor engaged on work for the company."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Instruction of the hon. Member is not in order, because it would seek to impose on one or two railway companies a clause which should be imposed on all by general legislation. It is also in a wrong form, as it dictates to a Committee the express terms of a clause before the Committee has had an opportunity of considering the Bill.
  Mr. BOWERMANhad given notice of his intention to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert the following Clause:—
  "The company shall pay to all its workmen employed in the construction, repairing, and engineering establishments, and any contractor engaged on work for the company shall pay to all the workmen in his employ, not less than the minimum standard rate of wages recognised by trade societies in the district where such men are employed, and shall observe the recognised hours and proper conditions of labour; and, if there shall be no such standard rate of wages or recognised hours and proper conditions of labour in such district, the company or the contractor shall pay to such workmen not less than the minimum standard rate of wages recognised by trade societies customarily executing such class of work, and observe the recognised hours and proper conditions of labour prevailing in respect of the particular trade in which such men are employed. These conditions shall also apply to any sub-contractor engaged on work for the company."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The same ruling applies to the hon. Member for Deptford.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL [by Order].
  Order for second reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: I did hope the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity I invited him to take to give some reply to my observations, but I have another opportunity on this Bill. Although I am not going over again what I said before, I take the opportunity to move the rejection of this Bill, pro formâ, to allow the right hon. Gentleman to reply. I

  1301
  think we are entitled to a reply after the promises of the President of the Board of Trade, as to whether he will allow this matter to come before his Department and be dealt with.
  Amendment proposed: "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—[Mr. Morton.]
  Question proposed: "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. HUDSON: I second the Amendment for the purpose of taking the opportunity of having a word or two with regard to this company. The hon. Member on the other side of the House, in a very considerate statement, said in the matter of these companies coming together there must necessarily be alterations and also reduction of the men employed. That is quite true. We are prepared to face it, provided we are faced fairly with it. I do not think the Midland Railway Company, of all companies, has done exactly the right thing. The hon. Member for Stockport referred to the Midland Railway Company making great reductions for the purpose of this amalgamation scheme, and it is within the knowledge also of the President of the Board of Trade that the company late in last year dismissed no less than 140 goods guards from their service. These were not the youngest hands in their service either. In very many cases they were the higher-paid men. I want to say that it has always been an axiom, a recognised usage, with all the railway companies in the country that there was some security of employment for the men who had service. I want to know from whoever speaks on behalf of the company as to whether we are now to understand that seniority of service counts for nothing. These men's services ranged from five years to over 30. It becomes a very serious matter, because my experience in negotiating and in dealing with matters over a very long time has always been this: That wherever we approached a railway company for an advance of wages we were always told that seniority of service carried with it security of employment, and that security of employment counted for something in considering the maximum wage. If that is gone, so far as the Midland Railway Company is concerned, it is a serious matter.
  I want to call the attention of the House to a return of the hours of employment for October last, and particular attention to
  1302
  this fact, that at that time there was returned 2,631 goods guards by the Midland Company. That shows a great diminution from the number employed in April of the same year. Of course I can account for this to some extent in this way—that I can assume that during the summer months and the latter part of the year the men of the goods department, who were working passenger traffic, would be regarded as passenger men. But the most important thing is that the return for the month showing the hours worked show over 12 per day. These men have a 10 hours' maximum day. Let the House take that into consideration. This return takes off the time spent in travelling. It does not show the amount of time that was occupied, but it states that all is taken off after the responsible duty ends. I know what responsible duty means. After that has been done we have out of this number of men 246 cases in one month where 12 hours have been exceeded in the day's work. That, in other words, is a percentage of 9.35 of men working over 12 hours, and these men have a 10 hours' standard day. I want to point this out to the Midland Company, that they have been exceedingly harsh in their treatment of these men, in the matter of taking these men of senior service and dismissing them—a wholesale dismissal of 140 men. Forty only of them have been re-employed—not reinstated—at about 6s. or 7s. a week less than they had originally. If we do have this system of companies coming together, let us at least have a little bit of fair treatment towards the men. Instead of this class of ruthless dismissals, at least let us consider a fair reduction in the hours of work. Then there will be no need to dismiss at all. This is a fair time, I think, for bringing the matter before the notice of the railway company. I think that if all the railway companies concerned would consider this matter they would find that the claims of the men for a reduction of hours is fair and reasonable, and that if it was fairly met there would be the solution, so far as the present staff is concerned, and you need not disturb employment at all. It would only then affect the future. I should like some assurance from the Midland Company, if it is possible for anyone to speak with authority for them, that at the least this matter of dismissing men with long service will be done away with, and that security of employment will be ensured for men who have served a long number of years with the company. The

  1303
  second thing I would wish to have an assurance upon is that the company should be as fair as they have been in former years. Let me point out that they were exceedingly fair during the great strike of miners in the Midland Counties of 1893. They did not dismiss their men at all, but they distributed the work amongst the whole of the men. We have seen railway companies in the past during prolonged depression in trade, when compelled to reduce their hands, always reduced the last comers-on. Why not in this case? It is only fair. Let us have some assurance in these matters of candour and fair play. I second the Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill has dealt with matters which I think ought to be replied to by someone who can speak with authority in this House for the railway company. I have been informed that the matter to which he referred in reference to the goods guards has been dealt with by the Conciliation Board. At any rate, that is not an aspect of the subject with which I shall deal. I can only say upon this Bill, as I said upon the last, that I hope the Inquiry which I have promised into a working agreement and amalgamation generally—the reference has to be very carefully drawn out to cover the whole ground—I hope that Inquiry will enable the hon. Gentleman and those interested to go upstairs and to be there heard by the Committee. The report of that Inquiry I propose to lay before Parliament. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutherland has said, I may remark there is nothing in this Bill about the matter, and there is nothing in the Inquiry to which I referred about it, but, at the same time, I will answer him. The Inquiry will deal with railway amalgamation, and I do not think it would be a good thing for us to mix that up with any other subject. If we were to open the door a great many other things would press for consideration. But I certainly do not stand here to represent any new view of policy on the part of the Board of Trade with regard to third-class sleeping accommodation. It think it is extremely desirable, and as far as we have any influence, we shall endeavour to persuade the railway companies to adopt it, whether we shall be successful or not I do not know. I certainly think that to people travelling a
  1304
  long distance at night—very often women, and young women—it is a matter of very considerable hardship that there is no lying-down accommodation similar to that provided for those who pay larger fares, and certainly I will do what I can if the opportunity is offered to induce the railway companies to make that experiment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there does not seem to be any ground for assuming at present that it is an experiment which it would be financially impossible to carry out. I have made that reply not because I wish to intervene again, but because in courtesy I thought an answer was due to the hon. Member.
  Mr. BEALE: I regret to be obliged to inform the hon. Gentleman for Newcastle-on-Tyne that I have no authority to make his position any stronger against the railway company in this matter. I do not think that these points were at all communicated to the railway company in connection with the opposition to this Bill. Other points which were communicated to the company will, I have no doubt, be entertained and discussed, and some suitable arrangement will be arrived at. I am sure that any railway company which chooses to entertain such matters in a reasonable way will be acting to their advantage. There was one point to which the hon. Member referred, and to which I understand due consideration will be given. He spoke about the goods guards. He must be aware there has recently been an award upon that matter, and it was only to-day that the secretary to the Central Conciliation Board wrote in these terms to the general manager of the Midland Railway:—
  "No complaint has reached me from any source that the company had failed to carry out fully their part of the arrangement. A certain number of the goods guards have been taken back into the company's service, and although naturally I should like to see more taken back, I am of opinion that every promise made by you in connection with the goods guards service has been faithfully carried out."
  The hon. Member may rest assured that every grievance between the company and its servants will be inquired into and adjusted to the satisfaction of both parties in the same spirit.
  Mr. MORTON: I desire to withdraw the Amendment, and to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and to say I have no wish at all to injure this company in any way whatever or to prevent legislation on their behalf.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed.

  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
SUPPLY.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  Postponed proceeding on Question, "That a sum not exceeding £98,169 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum required to defray the charge which will come into course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1910, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; including certain grants in aid," resumed.
  Earl WINTERTON: When this Debate was interrupted [at a Quarter after Eight o'clock this evening] I was venturing to make some comments upon the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by some hon. Members below the Gangway on the question of small holdings. I think upon this matter that the Board of Agriculture ought to steer a middle course, and the hon. Baronet, representing the Board of Agriculture, should not allow himself to be rushed by the speeches which have been made this afternoon into taking precipitate action, which the Committee and the Board of Agriculture may afterwards regret. There are many difficulties in the way of carrying out the Act, both in the spirit and the letter. There are many difficulties of a physical nature which it is really impossible to get over in a short time. Several hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to the fact that one of the difficulties in the way of the quick application of the Small Holdings Act is the fact that a large number of tenant farmers object to the land being taken away from them. I think it is noteworthy that we have not heard from those quarters, which are by no means friendly to the landlords, any general complaints of the attitude of landlords. It is generally admitted that one
  1306
  of the principal difficulties in the application of the Act is the grievance of tenant farmers that the land is being taken away from them, and I think that is a very important aspect of the case. Undoubtedly there is at the present time a demand for holdings not merely of the nature technically known as small holdings, but a demand for land in larger sections. Any farm put up for letting always finds a great many applicants.
  The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Warwickshire said the tenant farmers objected to their land being cut up for small holdings for the reason that it would prevent them getting another farm elsewhere. In the Act which created small holdings it was laid down that no farm under 50 acres should be sub-divided into small holdings. It is not possible now to criticise the provisions of that Act, but I am not at all sure that the limit should not be higher than 50 acres. I know many cases in the county of Sussex and all through the South of England where a man has a farm of 60, 70, or even a hundred acres. Such farms are generally worked by a man and his son, who manage to make a living out of the farm. As a rule they do not employ any labour, or at the most only one labourer, but by sheer hard work and ability they are able to make a living, and sometimes do very well.
  There are a number of people living in the neighbourhood who have small businesses, and they are anxious to obtain small holdings. These people go to the local authority, and say they want land, and the land societies and other clubs which have sprung up recently like wildfire, and which are not altogether unconnected with the propaganda of some hon. Members of this House, say, "Here are a number of men who want land and are unable to obtain it." What is going to happen to those unfortunate men already in possession of the land who are not big men, but simply working partners? What is going to happen to them if their farms are split up into small holdings? It is certain that they will not be able to obtain another farm of that size in that neighbourhood, or any other neighbourhood. I ask the Committee to consider this point when speaking of the delay which is alleged to have taken place in providing small holdings. It is by no means an easy thing to find land which is suitable for small holdings without doing an injustice to the existing holders.
  I am now speaking of these small farms, and perhaps I may be allowed to give a

  1307
  personal case. A short time ago a man applied to me for a small holding. The farm in question is between 80 and 100 acres. It is good land, farmed by a man and his son, and they occasionally employ labour in the summer time. The bulk of the labour, however, is done by the man and his family. They are very respectable people, and no one will deny that they are just the sort of people who ought to be farming. The man who applied to me for a small holding wanted 15 or 20 acres. He had already got three or four acres at the back of his house, on which he was able to keep a cow, but he wanted 20 or 30 acres more in order that he might keep two or three cows. He said he was employed as a jobbing painter on cottages and farmhouses, and he thought he could fit in his painting with a small holding. No doubt it is desirable that he should have a little more land, but it is equally desirable that this tenant of mine should be allowed to continue in the enjoyment of his farm, upon which he and his family are making a living. This farm contains the statutory number of acres provided for in the Act. If you take land from a small farmer in this particular way you should bring in a Bill giving him compensation. You should properly compensate a man if you are going to take any of his land from him. That spirit has been already recognised by the Land Tenure Bill, which is now the law of the country. It is not right that land should be given in this way without compensation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture will bring in a Bill for compensation. I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Barnstaple quite agrees with that principle.
  I want to say one word on a point referred to by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, and that is the question of horse supply. It is intermingled with the Army question and with the Army generally. I do not wish to refer to what was said on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on the Army Estimates. We may agree with him that the figure he gave—namely, that 116,000 horses represents the number of horses which will be required on mobilisation if this country should be engaged in a great war. There may be sufficient horses in the country; but what organisation is there to obtain the horses if war should break out? If war broke out it would take months to get the
  1308
  horses together. There is another point. If this country should have to go to war we must not assume that all trade and commerce would cease, and of course a certain number of horses would be required for trade and commerce. But I believe that at the present time we are in a most serious condition in this matter, and it is impossible to exaggerate the position. During the past two years questions on this subject have been constantly addressed to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of endeavouring to extract from him information as to whether the Board of Agriculture and the War Department were doing anything in this matter, and the replies have been most unsatisfactory. I venture to say that the root of the evil has not been touched by the present Government. They have not done a single thing with regard to the horse supply of this country. Judging by the replies which have been given to questions, it would seem that the Department of Agriculture has not taken the matter into consideration at all. We had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very interesting and important statement with regard to the Development Grant. Every word that he said on the subject might have been said three years ago. All he said about assisting agriculture might have been said by former Governments. Right hon. Gentlemen on this side are as much to blame as right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I venture to suggest that the Noble Earl who represents the Board of Agriculture in the House of Lords would perhaps have used his great talents to greater advantage to the State if he had devoted more time to this subject than in perambulating the country making speeches on other subjects. The Government, during the time they remain in office—whether it be two or three years—might take the question of national horse-breeding into their consideration; and is it too much to hope that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture will confer with the War Department on the subject of horse-breeding?
  I should like to ask the question whether the Department of Agriculture has taken any steps to verify the figures given by the Secretary of State for War? Are the inspectors able to inform us what is the number of light horses suitable for cavalry which could be obtained at short notice should war break out? This is a matter in which the Board of Agriculture might co-operate with the War Department. I

  1309
  hope that the Government will give their attention to this important matter before the Session comes to a close.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The hon. Member for Oswestry, in opening the discussion this afternoon, referred to counties in Wales in which he said that nothing has been done under the Act. We are not sanguine as to the practicability of the Act nor optimistic as to the value of small holdings. The explanation is perfectly well known to agriculturists in Wales. It must not be forgotten that sub-division leads to an increased number of applicants, and once you increase the number of applicants for land you increase the price. This has been the bitter experience of the Welsh farmers. When people buy agricultural land on a big scale it is only from £30 to £35 per acre, but when land is bought for small holdings the price ranges from £60 to £100 per acre. Land purchased at £100 per acre is hardly likely to carry with it the economic rent upon which an applicant for the first time would expect to take land. But there is another danger. Not only has the subdivision of land led to enhanced prices, but the interest charged on loans from the Government are so high that it is practically impossible for the county councils to let land at a fair rent to the tenant. I do suggest that if the Government is really in earnest they will effect improvement in one of two ways—either that they will allow the loans to be of a permanent character or that councils should be enabled to buy land and give in exchange a yearly rent charge equal to the present rent. Reference has been made to the question of the diseases of cattle and to tuberculosis and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Somerset made no reference to that very serious question. Experiments which have been made by the Agricultural Department of Aberystwyth College have proved that tuberculosis exists in dairy cattle to the extent of 24 or 25 per cent. Experiments in Anglesey proved that the proportion suffering from tuberculosis was practically the same. The farmer is thereby faced by a serious problem. I think if a severe test is to be applied to cattle, and the farmer is to be prohibited from selling milk from the cow suffering from tuberculosis, according to that test, the Board of Agriculture ought to take the matter in hand, and, for the first years at any rate, compensate the owner partially if not wholly for animals destroyed.
  Mr. A. H. SMITH: I am very glad the hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to the very important question of tuberculosis in cattle. I intended to ask the hon. Baronet opposite when we are going to hear about the Milk Bill? We have been waiting for a very long time—
  The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The question of the Milk Bill does not arise.
  Mr. SMITH: Then I will pass on to other subjects. I do not wish at this late hour to enter into details of the various questions which have been brought before the Committee during this Debate. I have listened to the greater part of the Debate with interest, and have been impressed by the difficulties which have had to be faced by the county council in Warwickshire and those in other parts of the country. I do wish to make one or two quite general and quite short remarks as to the difficulties of administration, which those who are called upon to administer the Small Holdings Act, and the other matters which have been mentioned this afternoon are confronted. I should like to say with regard to the Small Holdings Act that from my own personal experience, and what I have heard of what has been going on in other parts of the country, I believe the county councils have, on the whole, been doing their very best under great difficulties to administer that statute fairly, and I believe also that the President and the other officials of the Board of Agriculture have also been doing their best, and working to the best of their ability. But I do wish to draw the attention of the Committee to a rather curious fact, which I have noticed this afternoon, and that is with regard to three very important questions which have been brought before the Committee the same criticism applies, and that is, that in connection with the administration of these three matters, two Government Departments are concerned in each, and I think it is pretty easy to show that that is a state of affairs which leads to a great deal of delay and difficulty. Take, for instance, the administration of the Small Holdings Act. The county council has to find land available, it has to arrange with tenants who wish to become small holders, it then has to submit the scheme to the Board of Agriculture, and that scheme is open to a great deal of criticism, and in some cases the Board has a great many suggestions to make with regard to it. When it comes to spending any money on buildings and land, then the unfortunate small holdings committee has

  1311
  to go to the Local Government Board, and there they have a fresh crop of questions and difficulties to encounter, and I think a great deal of the delay which hon. Members have complained of, and in some cases justly, has been due to that fact.
  In connection with another matter which has been mentioned this afternoon—one of great importance—the horse supply, there again we have two great Departments concerned. I am glad to say they are both represented by two hon. Friends of mine on the Treasury Bench at this moment, but I think they will admit that it does cause a great deal of difficulty. We were told a year ago, or even more, that the President of the Board of Agriculture had a scheme which was going to solve this most important question, but we have heard very little of it since, and if we knew the truth, I have no doubt we should find that there is a great deal of discussion, a great deal of correspondence, a great many memoranda passing between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture on the question of horse breeding. Last year I had an opportunity of giving my views to the Committee with regard to this Question, and I will not, therefore, go into the details of it tonight, but there is another subject to which I think hardly enough attention has been given to-day, to which the same difficulty applies, and that is the most important matter of rural education. There we all know that very serious difference of opinion has arisen between the two Departments concerned in this matter, namely, the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education. This is a question, especially in view of the increase of small holdings throughout the country, which I for one hope will go on and progress. It is a matter of increasing importance that the rising generation of farmers and the rising generation of small holders should have an opportunity of obtaining that practical and technical education which is absolutely essential for the successful carrying on of their business as cultivators of the soil. Unless the Government Departments, for which I have the very greatest respect and admiration, which are concerned in connection with this and other great questions, are able to come to some working arrangement, or unless some new arrangement can be made in which their several interests can be represented by some Joint Committee or other body re-
  1312
  sponsible for both, it is quite impossible that we can have that progress in this matter and that good administration which is so necessary in order to ensure success. I do not wish for a moment to criticise the Board of Agriculture in connection with any of the matters which have been brought before the Committee. I had the advantage at one time of seeing something of the inside of that Department, and I am perfectly certain, not only in connection with the small holdings question, which is a new question, but with all the other important matters which they have to administer in the interests of our great agricultural community; they all do their very utmost to bring the matters brought before them to a successful issue. I listened with great pleasure to the statements which were made on behalf of the President of the Board of Agriculture, by the hon. Baronet, and I have no doubt he will be able to give a very satisfactory answer to the various questions which have been raised.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think, on the whole, we may congratulate ourselves on having had an eminently businesslike and satisfactory discussion on the question of small holdings and on other matters affecting the Board of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon asked me the average price of land. I can only give that roughly. The average price of land purchased by county councils varies from 20 to 30 years' purchase. Then, again, he asked me to compare the price given for the land acquired voluntarily and the price for land acquired by compulsion. It is very difficult to compare these two at the present moment, because for all practical purposes a very large amount of land has been acquired by voluntary agreement, and hardly any has been acquired by compulsion, although a very large number of compulsory orders have been submitted and have been approved. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare them. I should think, on general principles, there would be very little difference in price between the two unless, of course, in those cases where county councils made bargains by buying land cheaply at auctions. Where land is acquired by compulsion the proper and fair value has to be given as valued by competent valuers. Then again the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon asked what was the average rent. Well, I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is himself very well acquainted with the manage-

  1313
  ment of land, that he must know very well that the average rent varies as regards particular counties, and depends upon the question whether it is good or bad land. It is perfectly impossible to say what is the average rent even in a particular county. Take the case of Somersetshire. You have there land varying from 2s. 6d. to £5 per acre, so that it is perfectly impossible to say what is the average rent. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the question of the supply of horses. That is a question which is very properly being considered by the Board of Agriculture and the War Office. I think the Noble Earl the Member for Sussex said that we were thinking too long about it. I have to say that if an important question like this could not be solved by hon. Members on the other side of the House during the 10 years they were in office, we ought not to be in too great a hurry, and we ought to have a practical scheme before announcing it publicly. The hon. Member is aware that there is not the same demand for horses in time of peace. In time of peace we only require from 2,500 to 3,000 horses per annum to replace the wastage in cavalry. It has been pointed out by my hon. Friend that we have done something by legislation to provide for the supply of horses in case of war. We have taken power to compulsorily acquire horses in this country for the purpose of remounts. Therefore, a very valuable power has been taken to obtain horses in case of emergency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon referred to the question of glanders, and to the outbreak of the disease which has occurred in London. With that I agree, but that does not detract from what I said with respect to outbreaks of glanders. It only shows that the Board of Agriculture are now informed and notified of outbreaks of glanders, and that there is not the concealment which occurred in the old days. There is practically no concealment now, and, of course, there being no concealment, when an outbreak takes place we are able to take precautions to prevent the spread of the disease. The right hon. Gentleman further referred to the question of swine fever, and said the present state of affairs was most unsatisfactory. I do not go so far as to say that it is satisfactory, for I think all agriculturists feel that it ought to be better than it is at the present moment.
  The President of the Board of Agriculture hopes, however, that a real improvement will be made, and he only asks that
  1314
  time should be given to us to ascertain whether the regulations now in force will produce a greater reduction in the outbreaks than has been the case up to the present moment. There has been a reduction, so far, under the working of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the unsatisfactory state of things as having gone on during the last 10 years. That only shows that during the last seven years when the late Government were in office they were not more successful in stamping out swine fever than we have been during the past three years. Going back over the 17 years I have been in this House, I can state that we have always had swine fever with us, and from hon. Members on both sides of the House there have always been complaints that the disease has not been dealt with successfully. It seems to me that both Governments have been groping in the dark in trying to find out a remedy. I hope that we may be able to find out a remedy, for there can be no doubt that this is a serious matter for agriculturists. Speaking as the representative of one of the counties where there is a large number of pigs within the area, I can state that it is a question of great importance in that part of the country as elsewhere, and, so far as I am concerned, I assure the Committee that I will always do my best in connection with the efforts which are being made to find out a remedy for this terrible state of things. When the right hon. Gentleman complains that local rates were affected by the question of swine fever, I may remind him that £50,000 a year is voted by this House for the purposes of swine fever administration, and therefore for all practical purposes the local rates suffer very little. In reference to the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Woodstock Division of Oxfordshire, I may state that we have appointed special Commissioners in the case of Lancashire, and Wiltshire, and I hope that before very long they will be able to remedy the backward condition of these places; and, if necessary, my noble Friend will not shrink from appointing other Commissioners if he thinks necessary. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Woodstock will feel that in this case the Board of Agriculture may be very safely trusted to do what is right in this matter.
  Then, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodstock referred to a certain number of applications being thrown out. No doubt the county councils find that a certain number of applicants were unfitted

  1315
  for one reason or another. I was glad to notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire, sitting below the Gangway on the other side, said it was quite right for the county council to see that the applicants were fit persons who would be likely to work the land properly. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Woodstock when he says that a certain number of men are struck out. I think it quite right that a certain number should be struck out who are not likely to cultivate small holdings effectively. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford said that not sufficient consideration had been paid to the county councils. I am sorry to differ from him, but I think that the Commissioners have done their utmost to treat the county councils with the utmost deference and courtesy; and from the information which I have I believe that the great majority of the county councils quite appreciate that they are always met with the greatest courtesy by the Commissioners who come to them and speak to them as friends in consultation in reference to any points that may arise. As regards the question that the Noble Lord has raised that the Report made to the chairman of the small holdings committee by a Southern Commissioner was not submitted to the county council, there was no reason why it should not have been submitted to the county council by the chairman of the small holdings committee.
  Viscount VALENTIA: It is marked confidential.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I quite accept the explanation of the Noble Lord that the chairman of the committee was under the impression that he could not communicate the Report, but I may say he was mistaken in that. I cannot conceive for one moment how a chairman of a committee could consider that there would be any communication of such a confidential character as to prevent him from showing it to the chairman of the county council. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford as chairman of the county council of Oxfordshire will be glad to know that so far from there being any reason for not communicating the Report the Board have not the slightest objection to Reports by the Commissioners to the chairmen of small holdings committees being communicated to the county councils. There must be some misunderstanding on this point, and I trust that the Noble Lord will confer with me later on about this.
  1316
  I do not admit that there has been any undue delay as regards the Board's sending down inspectors in reply to communications from county councils, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman who raised this point that there has been no want of courtesy either to the county council or to himself. If anything can be done to expedite any scheme which comes before the Board, it will be done. The hon. Member for the Rugby Division claimed that tradesmen should have an opportunity to obtain land. We know that a circular has been sent out to various county councils by the Board dealing with this very question: that men carrying on trades in villages should have land in the same way as other men are now obtaining holdings. The hon. Member for Barnstaple, who referred to the question of horse supply, considers that mares should be ear-marked, though he did not wish to prevent the owners of them from obtaining better prices. But in connection with this matter, the difficulty is that the very fact of a mare being earmarked might prevent its owner from getting the good price which he would otherwise obtain. The hon. Member for Oswestry referred to certain photographs which appeared in a publication issued by the Board of Agriculture, and he said that they did not precisely represent the kind of animal which he would recommend. Out of ten photographs there was only one he complained of.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said which one was the worst.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think there may be justice in the criticism of the hon. Gentleman as regards one of the photographs, but, taken as a whole, they are admirable. We know, too, that photographs sometimes turn out very badly, and do not properly represent the subject, whether animal or human.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My point was that they deliberately chose a mare which was not in condition.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Gentleman has been perfectly frank, and I do not pretend to defend the particular photograph in question; but I do not think that he is justified in complaining that the whole of the photographs are actually bad. In regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway as to applications which have been refused, I fully appreciate on behalf of the Board of Agriculture the way in which he approached this subject, and we shall do

  1317
  our utmost to see what can be done in the matter. The hon. Member for West Shropshire, and other hon. Members, referred to the question of tuberculosis of cattle, and the question of milk. I cannot now go very much into detail, and I would be out of order if I referred to legislation. I can assure hon. Gentlemen, as far as the question of tuberculosis of the udder, to which no doubt the hon. Member referred, that is a question that has been for some time under the very serious consideration of the Board in view of the legislation that may be introduced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. I can assure him this very important question is not lost sight of, and it will be very seriously considered whether the Board should exercise their powers of making tuberculosis of the udder a notifiable disease. I rather gather that the hon. Member for Shropshire and other hon. Members desire that it should be made a notifiable disease.
  The hon. Member referred to the Departmental Report of the Board on agricultural education. I will not yield to anyone in my desire to see a large amount of money spent on agricultural education. The difficulty has always been that the Board has not had the money to apply and to promote agricultural education. It is to be hoped that all that will be altered from the statement that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget as to the Development Grant. Hon. Members who desire to assist agriculture and agricultural education can do so by assisting to pass the Budget, and thus place money at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture for agricultural education, both as regards primary and secondary schools. The hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire also referred to this question. He went further, and said as regards the question of experimental farms that we ought to set up experimental farms out of the £100,000 which has been placed at the disposal of the Small Holdings Account. May I remind my hon. Friend that as regards the £100,000 we would have no right to spend money on experimental farms, much as I might like to do so. We can only spend money upon such farms to demonstrate the feasibility of small holdings in different parts of the country. If there was ever any doubt as to the feasibility of small holdings it is perfectly certain there is none now. The hon. Baronet said he desired experimental farms for the purpose of educating small holders in farming. Personally I should
  1318
  be only too glad to see such experimental farms not only for small holders, but for larger occupiers, so that the experiments could be made at the cost of the country, as I have found such experiments to be very expensive indeed. But for that again I look to the money to be provided from the new Development Grant.
  Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: Is not the hon. Baronet aware that the agricultural colleges now supported by the Board of Agriculture, with their insufficient funds, are carrying out these experimental farms for the benefit of farmers?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I am quite aware of that, but it is also true that a totally inadequate amount of money is voted by Parliament. It is not only desirable to teach men how to farm their land properly, but it is of the utmost importance to teach the teachers by experiments and by research, so that they may tell agriculturists how to make the best use of their land. The Noble Lord is amused, but it is of the greatest importance that we should get this money through the Development Grant. I only hope the Noble Lord will change his mind and support the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that we may get this money for experimental farms and the benefit of agriculture.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: It will not cover everything; it is not a bottomless pit.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It is a very large sum of money, and a great deal more than any other Government has ever suggested should be applied for the benefit of agriculture. I think I have now replied to all the questions which have been asked, and I hope the Committee will allow us to have the Vote. Although there has been criticism of the Board, there has been no general disagreement, the general view being that the Department has impartially done its duty in administering the various Acts. As regards the Small Holdings Act, although there has been a certain amount of criticism—it is very desirable that there should be criticism, so that the Board should be kept up to its work in the same manner as the Board desires to keep the county councils up to theirs—that criticism has not been hostile; it has simply been with the object of keeping the Board up to its work. Therefore I hope the Committee will now agree to give us the Vote.
  Mr. SOARES: The hon. Baronet has not dealt with the question of compensation to tenant farmers.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Nor with horse-breeding.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: We have always been led to suppose by the President of the Board of Agriculture that one of the most important items in his horse scheme is the census. The hon. Baronet has not referred to that.
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: The War Office is doing that.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I understand that the War Office have shifted the burden on to the Board of Agriculture. A circular with a most extraordinary picture has been circulated to a large number of persons with regard to horses, though it has not reached me. I should like to know how this census is being carried out?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The circular is supplementary to the one always sent out as regards the number of stock on the 4th of July in each year.
  Mr. F. D. ACLAND: The War Office is not trying to shift its burden on to anybody. We have taken money in the War Office Estimates this year for that purpose and we are going ahead as fast as we can.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Is the Board of Agriculture educating the War Office as to the proper type of horse, or is the War Office educating the Board of Agriculture? Then what is the policy of the Board in regard to the working of the Fertilisers and Food Stuffs Act? There are practically no prosecutions at all under that Act, and I would like to ask whether it is to be an absolute dead-letter? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not rest satisfied with what has happened in the case of the prosecution of the Needham Company versus the Worcestershire County Council. The decision which has been given now remains law. If it is allowed to remain as it is now the Fertilisers and Food Stuffs Act will be an absolute failure. I hope that the Board of Agriculture will appeal against the decision, and that steps will be taken by which that Act will be made effective. I know that want of action in these matters is largely due to apathy and want of knowledge. In this case it is the duty of the Board of Agriculture to help those concerned as far as they can. I know that my hon. Friend opposite knows the facts thoroughly, and is anxious to help all that he can.
  Mr. PHILIP MORRELL:I want to refer briefly to some remarks made by the hon.
  1320
  Gentleman in his two speeches in dealing with the Small Holdings Act. I believe that my hon. Friend is considerably mistaken as to the general satisfaction which he believes exists in the country as to the working of the Act. No one denies that a great deal has been done. We all know that matters are going forward, and that negotiations are in progress, but, compared with the task which is before the Board of Agriculture, compared with the number of applications and the number of persons who are waiting, and, moreover, compared with the simple expectations which have been aroused, and justly aroused, by this Act, I think that the progress which has been made is altogether disproportioned to what we were entitled to look for. I do not want to follow hon. Members in discussing the conduct of the county councils in these matters. I want to confine myself entirely to the working of the Act, and whether it is a fact that the Board of Agriculture have carried out satisfactorily the powers conferred upon them by this Act. Here is an Act which, for the first time, sets up a central authority to deal with this question of small holdings. Commissioners are appointed for the special purpose of seeing that this demand is met, and not only are Commissioners appointed, but in express terms certain powers conferred on them are pointed out. They express definitely the powers given for the satisfaction of that demand.
  Everyone who knows the rural districts knows that they were relying upon the policy of the Commissioners. But these applicants are waiting now—many of them at considerable risk—in the hope that the Board of Agriculture will put into force the powers conferred upon them. May I have my hon. Friend's attention for a moment? In his earlier speech he said I was mistaken in the view I took, and that I have endeavoured to express on other occasions, that the Commissioners have failed in their duty in not preparing reports, and sending down reports to the county councils, of the schemes which were required in order to satisfy the demand.
  May I ask the hon. Gentleman's attention of sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Act which has already been referred to. It is quite true that the Commissioners were within their powers in asking the county councils to inquire into the demand; but the Commissioners, surely my hon. Friend will agree, are responsible for ascertaining the extent of the demand. When they have attained that information

  1321
  what have they to do? They are to report the information acquired by them in respect to any county to the Board. They are to embody this information in a Report. The Act reads:—
  "Where the Board after consideration of the report and said representation in respect to any county are of opinion that it is desirable that a scheme should be made, the Board shall forward the report to the Commissioners with such modification as the Board considers desirable to the county council."
  The complaint we make is this, that from that day to this no Report has ever been made by the Commissioners to any county council as required by this Act. It is not a question of putting into force the full powers, but it is a question as to whether the Commissioners of the Board of Agriculture have carried out the statutory duty placed upon them by the Act of Parliament. A great deal has been said about endeavouring to dragoon the county councils and endeavouring to force the pace. I do not believe anyone wishes to do anything of the sort. We said, and always have said, that these powers were put into this Act by this House with the intention that they should be carried out by the Board of Agriculture, and it is a flagrant case of the overriding of the will of this House by the Executive that the Board of Agriculture has failed to carry out the provisions of this Act in the manner laid down for them. We all agree that the Board of Agriculture have excellent intentions in this matter. They are willing to issue circulars, to send down inspectors, to do everything but to carry out the Act in the way the Act provides. And because they have not done that, however urgent may be the case, however obvious may be the course of terrorism and boycotting which exists in many of these divisions, yet any county council delaying or declining to take action—the Board are not in a position to take action—to say to them, "This man is entitled to get the land you promised to give him." I say that is a very unsatisfactory state of things, and I am very much disappointed that we have no sort of assurance from the Board of Agriculture to-day that anything is to be done to improve matters.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Why do you not move a reduction?
  Mr. MORRELL: One other point, what about the special Commissioners which have been promised? If this Act is going to be properly carried out there ought to be more special Commissioners. Some time ago it was clearly stated in this
  1322
  House that it was the intention of the Board of Agriculture to appoint six sub-Commissioners. I believe I am within the recollection of my hon. Friend in that. Now we know that only two have been appointed, one for Wiltshire, and the other for Lancashire. I ask on what principle have these two counties been picked out. I have no objection to Wiltshire having its inspector, but if my hon. Friend will look into the matter he will find that the proportion in other counties of the applicants waiting for their land is every bit as great if not greater than the proportion disappointed in Wiltshire, and it is extremely unfair that this preferential treatment should be given to one county alone—
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  The House adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.