Commons Sitting of 6 November 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order).
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Hertford, Northern or Hitchin Division, in the room of Doctor Alfred Peter Hillier, deceased.—[Lord Balcarres.]
EAST INDIA (SMALL-POX IN ARMY).
Address for Return "showing the cases of and deaths from small-pox occurring amongst officers, women, and children, respectively, with the British troops in India, and amongst British and Native officers respectively, with the Indian troops, together with the ratio per 1,000 of the strength in each case, for each year during the last ten years for which the Returns are available."—[Mr. Pointer.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Commercial Treaties (Oversea Dominions).
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has, in accordance with its promise at the Imperial Conference, 1911, opened negotiations with the several Foreign Governments having commercial treaties which apply to the oversea dominions, with a view to securing liberty for any of those dominions which may so desire to withdraw from the operation of the treaty without impairing the treaty in respect of the rest of the Empire?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Yes, Sir.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to secure British merchant ships, from the dangers of mines of contact placed either on neutral or on belligerent coasts during the present war between Italy and Turkey; and, in view of Sir Ernest Satow's declaration that The Hague Convention, No. 8, of 1907, signed and ratified by His Majesty's Government without being submitted to Parliament, imposes no restrction whatever as to placing anchored mines, which may consequently be placed wherever a belligerent pleases, and that neutral Powers are authorised to lay such mines under the same rules as are imposed on belligerents, will His Majesty's Government take steps to diminish the new dangers thence arising?
  Mr. ACLAND: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the 7th Article of the Convention. So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, neither of the belligerents have yet ratified it. The Porte have notified His Majesty's Government that the ports of Salonica and Smyrna having been defended by contact mines, pilot boats have been stationed there to conduct neutral ships in and out of those harbours. No steps have, so far as we are aware, been taken by either belligerent which would warrant us in taking any action at present in the interests of British shipping, but we should not fail to do so should the necessity arise.

  Portuguese Republic (Filibustering Expeditions).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communication from either the Portuguese or Spanish Governments relating to the use of the frontiers of Spain for collecting and organising filibustering expeditions into the territories of the Portuguese Republic; and, if so, what has been the result of such communications?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Portuguese Government have informed His Majesty's Government of the presence of monarchist bands on the frontier between Spain and Portugal; but we cannot interfere in the matter, which must obviously be treated by direct communication between the two Governments concerned.
  Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent these expeditions being engineered or originated from this country?
  Mr. ACLAND: Oh, yes.

  Captain Webster (Arrest in Siberia).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report from the British Vice-Consul at Krasnoyarsk, in Siberia, or from any other source, as to the arrest and treatment of Captain R. F. Webster by the Russian authorities on his arrival at that town after making the voyage from Liverpool, through the Kara Sea, and sailing up the River Yenesei; whether any explanations have been received from the Russian Government; and whether, in view of the importance of opening up this new trade route by British enterprise, he will endeavour to secure the co-operation of the Russian Government with those who are undertaking the pioneer work?
  Mr. ACLAND: My right hon. Friend has received a report from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at St. Petersburg, from which it appears that Captain Webster was accused by the Russian authorities at Krasnoyarsk of selling a portion of his cargo on the way up the Yenesei, although he had given an understanding to the contrary. Captain Webster is now at St. Petersburg, and is in communication with His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, who has recommended him to the Russian authorities. I understand that he has not as yet preferred any claim against the Russian Government.

  Canada and United States (Reciprocity Agreement).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked whether there is any portion of the Act of Congress embodying the Canadian Reciprocity Agreement which is now in force; and, if so, what is its nature?
  Mr. ACLAND: The only Clause of the Act referred to, of which the provisions are at present in force, is that which relates to the importation from certain portions of the Dominion of Canada of articles manufactured from wood pulp.

  United States (Presidential Election).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a speech delivered by the Speaker of the American
  1248
  House of Representatives on Thursday last, at Fremont, Nebraska, expressing his intention of contesting a forthcoming election for the position of President on the question of the annexation of Canada by the United States; whether such a threat to annex territories at present belonging to a nation with whom the Government of the United States is on friendly terms is in accordance with international usage; and whether he will instruct the British Ambassador at Washington to furnish him with a full report on the incident?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have seen a notice in the Press of the speech to which the hon. Member refers, but I gathered from the report that the proposal contained in the speech was not intended seriously. I have no doubt that His Majesty's representative at Washington will report on the matter if he considers it of sufficient importance.
  Mr. NEWMAN: In the hon. Gentleman's opinion is the Speaker of the American House of Representatives a Democratic candidate for the Presidency in the near future, a species of American Hunnable?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am not aware what species of person he belongs to.

  Agricultural Credit and Insurance Societies Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in face of the criticism by both British and Continental experts of the provisions of the Agricultural Credit and Insurance Societies Bill, and in view of the impossibility of its being treated by this House as an uncontroversial measure, it is proposed to proceed with its further stages during the present Session?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I shall be glad to consider any criticisms, whether of British or Continental origin, which the hon. Member cares to send me.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I asked whether the Government proposed to proceed with this measure this Session.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will send me the criticisms to which he refers and on which he bases his statement I shall be glad to give him a more definite answer to the first part of the question.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no sympathy with the provisions of this Bill has been expressed by any expert having knowledge of the working of these societies abroad?

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked when the committee to inquire into the causes of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease will be appointed; who will be the members; and what are the terms of reference?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope to be able to publish the constitution of the committee and the terms of reference very shortly. I cannot name a date, but I am losing no time in the matter.
  Mr. STANIER: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any report from county councils and local bodies asking that no time should be lost in this matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I have already received these, and I am losing no time in the matter. The names of those composing the committee and the reference will be published shortly.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: What is the reason why the appointment of this committee is being deferred?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no special reason. The hon. Gentleman knows there has been a change in the office which I at present hold. I am trying to overhaul the work as rapidly as I can.

  Enclosure Acts.
  Mr. WALTER ROCHasked what is the the number of acres enclosed under the various Enclosure Acts in England and Wales, respectively?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: 534,618 acres in England and 113,505 acres in Wales have been enclosed under the Enclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899. The Board have no record of the acreage enclosed previously.

  Elementary Schools (Religious Instruction).
  Mr. HOAREasked in how many of the eighty-six Provided Elementary Schools in the county of Cardigan religious instruction is given?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): A Return on the subject of the question, prepared pursuant to an Order of the House of Lords in the year 1906, showed that at that date religious
  1250
  instruction was given in fifteen out of a total of seventy-five Provided Schools. Since that date seven new Provided Schools have been established, but I have no information as to the number in which religious instruction is given.
  Mr. HOARE: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the Report of the Director of Education, published in September this year, stating that there were fifty-six schools in the county in which no religious instruction of any kind was given?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information I can.

  Scottish Teachers (Superannuation).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Lord Advocate whether he could now announce when the superannuation scheme for Scottish teachers will be laid upon the Table, so that it may, pursuant to the terms of the Scottish Education Act of 1908, become operative in due course?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The scheme in question is being laid to-day. Copies of the scheme will be issued to all school boards and managers of schools in Scotland as soon as a supply is available, which it is hoped may be the case in the course of the next few days.

  Crofter Acts.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate if he has received a memorandum from the Association of County Councils of Scotland, pointing out that a crofter is not a lessee and is liable to be assessed at the sum at which his croft might be reasonably expected to be let; and whether, in view of the fact that such method of assessment has not been adopted since the passing of the Crofter Acts, he will see that the small landholders will not be placed in any more favourable position than existing crofters?
  Mr. URE: The Memorandum has been received. The question raised will come up on discussion to-day on Amendments, and I shall then indicate the position of the Government in the matter.

  Education (Scotland) Fund (Allocation of Grant).
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate (1) whether, with reference to the deputation of about 100 gentlemen received at Dover House on Thursday last in connection with the allocation of the Education (Scotland)

  1251
  Fund, he can state any precedent for deputations with divergent views on the question at issue being received simultaneously, and the proceedings taking therefore the form of a public debate; whether he can state the total estimated expense to the ratepayers of Scotland of the visit of the deputations and the number of days given up to attending the proceedings by many of those present; and whether, seeing that the answer of the Secretary for Scotland, which was read from a pre-written document, was necessarily therefore without reference to many of the points touched by speakers on both sides, and could as well have been communicated by letter or by the Press to the people of Scotland, he will endeavour to stop the repetition of such proceedings in future; and (2) asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the difference of opinion among local education authorities and the Scotch Education Department as to whether the Minute of Allocation distributing the balance among district authorities is in accordance with the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, and in view of the great interests involved the Government will consent to have a special case stated and to have validity decided constitutionally and authoritatively by a decision of the Law Courts?
  Mr. URE: It does not seem necessary to cite a precedent for what was a convenient and useful method of dealing with the business in hand; but if precedent were needed it would be found in recent proceedings on the Insurance Bill. The actual proceedings lasted about an hour and a-half; but the number of persons who attended, the consequent expense and the amount of time given up by individual persons were matters determined by those responsible for the deputations and it is not possible for me to give any estimate of these. The answer of the Secretary for Scotland was framed with reference to the printed statements on the points at issue submitted to the Department by both sides prior to meeting the deputation, to which the speeches made on the occasion did not add anything. I would remind the hon. Member that the interviews in question took place, not at the instance of the Secretary for Scotland, but of the representatives of various local authorities in Scotland, and while the Secretary for Scotland would have been glad on this, as on other occasions, to have arranged for an interview
  1252
  in Scotland, he considered that he ought to have regard to the express request of the representatives of the districts opposing the Minute that the interview should take place on as early a date as possible after the reassembling of Parliament, at which time it was not possible to arrange for an interview elsewhere than in London.
  The matter referred to in my hon. Friend's question to the Prime Minister is one in which Parliament itself and not any court of law must be the final tribunal. The Minute on which the difference of opinion arises is necessarily submitted to Parliament and any question of its conformity with the general instructions of the Act or as to its acceptability in any other respect whatever is one for the decision of Parliament itself.
  Mr. PRINGLE: May I ask whether the interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer conformed to the procedure pursued by the Secretary for Scotland in this case?
  Mr. URE: As far as I know, yes.
  Mr. WATT: Is it the usual practice of the Secretary for Scotland, in exercising his judicial functions, to make up his mind beforehand?
  Mr. URE: No, but I understand in the circumstances in question the topic was one which was susceptible to thorough exhaustion, and was thoroughly exhausted.
  Mr. WATT: May I ask whether these representatives were brought all this distance from Scotland to receive this answer?
  Mr. URE: They were not. They came at their own express request.

  Lunacy Commissioners, Scotland (Secretary).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate what is the salary attached to the office of Secretary to the Commissioners in Lunacy in Scotland; and whether it entitles the holder to a pension; and, if so, how much, and at what age?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies may I ask him to be kind enough to state what organisation the Master of Polwarth, who was three times a Conservative candidate in Scotland, served before his appointment?
  Mr. URE: I cannot answer that question without notice. The salary is £600, rising

  1253
  to £700 per annum, and the post is pensionable on the usual Civil Service scale, depending upon the length of service.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate what is the age of Mr. A. D. Wood, who has been appointed to the office of secretary to the Commissioners in Lunacy; how long is it since he was in the Civil Service; and how, and in what organisations, has he been engaged since?
  Mr. URE: Mr. A. D. Wood is forty-six years of age. It is twenty-one years since he was in the Sasines Office, Edinburgh. Since then he has been engaged in the Scottish Liberal Association and the Midlothian Liberal Association.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey that service in the Liberal Association qualifies one to become secretary to the Board of Lunacy?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir.
  Mr. PRINGLE: May I ask whether Mr. McKerrell, who was a member of the Prison Commission, received his appointment after having been secretary to the Ayrshire Primrose League?
  Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that the last appointment to this Lunacy Board was given to a Tory candidate?

  Motor Traffic in London (Use of Cut-outs).
  Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the warning circular issued by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police on the 25th August, many motorists still continue to drive in London with open cut-outs; and whether, in these circumstances, he will make regulations under Section 6 of The Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, to prohibit motorists from employing the cut-out in urban areas?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have been further considering this matter; and I hope it may be possible to deal with it at an early date.

  Railway Amalgamation and Agreements.
  Mr. BARNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his Department are preparing a Bill to carry into effect the recommendations of the Departmental
  1254
  Committee on Railway Amalgamations and of the Railway Conference; and if it is his intention to introduce this Bill next Session?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): A Bill is being prepared dealing with this matter, and I hope to introduce it next Session.
  Mr. PETOasked whether, in any legislation arising out of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Railway Agreements and Amalgamations appointed 17th June, 1909, or required to give effect to the promise of the Government made on the appointment of the Railway Inquiry Commission in August last, to regard the grant of higher wages to their employés as reasonable ground for the railway companies to raise their rates for goods traffic within the legal maxima, notwithstanding the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, he will recognise the fact that there are three parties concerned, the public, including all traders, the employés, and the shareholders, and that no lasting and peaceful settlement can be arrived at without fixing a datum level and apportioning any increased profits that may result from economies effected by amalgamations and agreements entered into by the railway companies equitably between the three parties on the co-partnership principle; and whether, for this purpose, he will appoint a small Commission and give legislative sanction to their finding?
  Mr. BUXTON: In any legislation proposed by the Government on this question the interests of all parties concerned will be fully borne in mind. There does not appear to be any ground for appointing a further Commission on the subject, but any representations made to the Board of Trade by the hon. Member will have careful consideration.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    UNEMPLOYMENT CLAUSES.
    Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will, without delay, publish a Report of the deputations that he has received with reference to the National Insurance Bill (Part II., Unemployment)?
    Mr. BUXTON: In nearly all cases the proceedings at the interviews in question were of a private nature, and a report of the proceedings cannot, therefore, be published. I am, however, having printed

    1255
    with the Votes a list of the names of the principal associations' deputations from which were received at the Board of Trade on the subject of Part II. of the National Insurance Bill. This list does not include deputations which were received conjointly with the Treasury on the Bill in general. Besides these deputations there have been, of course, communications from and interviews with other bodies or persons interested in the Bill. [See Written Answers, this date.]
    Mr. HOARE: Deputations are received by the President of the Board of Trade with reference to Part II. of the Bill, while deputations are received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to Part I. May I ask why there is publication in the one case and not in the other?
    Mr. BUXTON: The proceedings in connection with every one of these deputations were of a confidential character, and no report can now be given.
    Mr. HOARE: Is there any reason why the deputations in regard to Part II. should be private and those in regard to Part I. public?
    Mr. BUXTON: I really do not know. I was not present at the deputations in regard to Part I. As to Part II. it was generally agreed that the deputations should be private on the ground that you can discuss the questions at issue in a much more free and practical way in private than in public.
    Mr. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a White Paper has been published with reference to the deputations received in regard to Part I., and, if so, is not that a reason why a similar Paper should be published in regard to Part II.?
    Mr. BUXTON: No reports of the deputations on Part II. were published for the reason I have given.

    MARRIED WOMEN PIECE-WORKERS.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether married women employed at piece-work in their own homes will come under the operation of the Insurance Bill as voluntary contributors or will be compulsorily insured; and, if in the latter way, how will their daily wages be calculated?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer): My right hon. Friend has this matter under consideration.

    TEACHERS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the grievance entertained by teachers in elementary schools owing to the inadequacy of their superannuation allowance provided for in 1898 and of their exemption from benefits under Schedule 1, Part 2 (c), of the National Insurance Bill, he will now state when and to what extent he proposes to improve such teachers' superannuation scheme in lieu of the benefits given to other classes of employed persons under the Bill.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am unable to make a statement on this subject at present, but my right hon. Friend has undertaken to give the matter his careful consideration as soon as the Insurance Bill has become law.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will some assurance be given to teachers before the National Insurance Bill is disposed of.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot go beyond the answer I have given.

    AMALGAMATION OF BRANCHES.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked whether a branch or an amalgamation of branches in Scotland of an affiliated order whose headquarters are in England may become an approved society in Scotland instead of becoming a branch of the approved society of that order in England; and whether the funds under the control of the Insurance Commissioners relating to approved societies and branches of approved societies in Scotland will have separate treatment and application?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Under the proposals of the Bill the society, and not any of its separate branches, would become the approved society; but, under an Amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend on Saturday, branches of a society grouped geographically may be treated for the purposes of valuations, surpluses, and deficiencies, as if they formed a separate society, if the total number of members of the grouped branches exceeds 5,000. As regards the latter part of the question, I do not quite understand what

    1257
    sort of differentiation my hon. Friend has in mind. There will not be a separate fund for Scotland.
    Mr. WATT: Does the figure of 5,000 apply to Scotland, or is that country to get a lower number, say 1,000, like Ireland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The figure 5,000 does apply to Scotland.

    WOMAN COMMISSIONER.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked if in view of the fact that the interests of several million women will be affected by the new insurance schemes, and in view of the powers granted to the Insurance Commissioners, he will give assurances that at least one woman Commissioner will be appointed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, Sir. It has always been my right hon. Friend's intention that a woman Commissioner should be appointed.

    WOMEN HOME-WORKERS.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCKasked whether it is intended to omit from compulsory insurance under the National Insurance Bill all women home-workers not wholly or mainly dependent on their own earnings whose husbands are insured; and whether, seeing that the effect of such omission will be to encourage the employment of these women to the prejudice of others possibly more needy, he will suggest any provision to insure that the employment of such women will not be so encouraged?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend has this question under consideration.

    APPLICATION TO IRELAND.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can explain why, notwithstanding the fact that a special Memorandum has been published explanatory of the principal Amendments proposed to be incorporated in the National Insurance Bill, no reference is made there or on the Notice Paper to any Amendment to be proposed by him on Clause 59; have the Government Amendments to nearly all the other Clauses of the Bill been already published; and can he now announce his decision in reference to that Clause so that there may be time for consideration of the matter in Ireland before the allotted day for the discussion of the Clause?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I can assure the hon. Member that the case of Ireland is receiving careful consideration, and that any Amendments that may be necessary will be published in a few days' time.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask is there not a special hardship that after six months' consideration we have not the slightest inkling of what is to be done in Ireland; and will he at least give us another day for Clause 59, so that there may be no danger that a mass of new Amendments put on the Paper at the last moment may choke discussion as to the two vital points in the Clause, namely, whether it is to apply to Ireland; and, if so, whether it is to recognise secret sectarian societies as approved societies?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is, of course, outside my sphere to promise an extra day, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman need be afraid that these Amendments will not be tabled in due time.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what notice we shall get. The Irish Members have not intervened on this Bill, and we are entitled to reasonable notice as to laws that are going to be made for our country?
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: What are they?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: As I have received no reply, I beg to give notice that to-night I will raise the question on the Motion for Adjournment.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked whether, in view of the fact that in many places in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland it will be impossible for deposit contributors to obtain, medical benefits under the Insurance Bill, he will allow the Local Government Board for Scotland power to apportion that part of the Scottish money available for the Highlands and Islands for more general purposes than sanatoria, such as increase of medical service, Grants-in-Aid of travelling expenses of medical men attending insured persons, provision of hospital accommodation, and removal of insanitary conditions in places where the public health rate is at the legal maximum?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I trust it may prove to be possible to provide medical benefit for all deposit contributors, and

    1259
    some of the expenses which my hon. Friend specifies could under the Bill as it stands be properly incurred by the local health committees. I fear it would not be possible to provide for the application of funds contributed under the Bill directly to the removal of insanitary conditions.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: May I ask whether he will consider the representations made by the authorities in Ross-shire and elsewhere showing that the present scheme, however applicable to the rest of Scotland, is certainly not applicable to the highland districts?

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide in the Insurance Bill that deposit contributors only employed for a short period in the year may be allowed to continue their insurance as voluntary contributors?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend accepted an Amendment to Clause 32 which will make this possible.

    Cost of Living.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the prices at which farmers disposed of their sheep and cattle at the recent auction fair at Weyhill, Hants, ewes 8s. 6d. and 4s. per head, and lambs 8s. and 7s. per head; and whether the Departmental Committee now inquiring into the cost of living in this country will also inquire as to the cause of the difference between wholesale prices at sales and retail prices in shops of the food of the working classes?
    Mr. BUXTON: I understand that the prices quoted by my hon. Friend are extreme minima for a very small number sold in exceptional circumstances for feeding and not for the butcher. I may remind him that the Board of Trade Cost of Living Inquiry is not concerned with the determination of the cause of the difference between wholesale and retail prices, but with the amount and distribution of recent changes in the cost of commodities largely consumed by workmen.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will it not be quite a fallacious report if the wholesale prices are not taken into account as well as the retail prices charged to the working classes?
    Mr. BUXTON: I may remind the hon. Member that there was an inquiry in 1905, and that the present inquiry is for the purpose of comparison in order to ascertain whether there has or has not been an increase. I do not think from that point of view it would be of very much use to give information which was not given in 1905, and which therefore is not available for the purpose of comparison.
    Mr. J. WARD: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman, now that he is inquiring into the subject again, to find out the prices, and that, if necessary to do so, he should extend the inquiry to wholesale prices?
    Mr. BUXTON: I will bear that in mind.
    Mr. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be in a position to announce the personnel of the proposed Departmental inquiry into the enhanced cost of living; what will be the terms of reference; will members of the public who are directly concerned be entitled to submit evidence; and will he arrange that the proceedings shall be open to the public?
    Mr. BUXTON: The inquiry by the Board of Trade will, generally speaking, be on the lines of that made in 1905, and will be conducted by the officers of the Department in the same way as other of the Statistical Investigations made by the Board of Trade. The results of the 1905 inquiry were embodied in a Report on the Cost of Living of the Working Classes in certain towns (Cd. 3864).
    Mr. COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman not answer the question—what will the terms of reference be?
    Mr. BUXTON: I think that the Prime Minister practically gave the terms. In the case of a Departmental Committee of this sort formal terms of reference are not usual, but I think that the Prime Minister gave the point.
    Mr. COOPER: Will this Departmental Committee in addition to ascertaining whether the cost of living has gone up ascertain what the causes are, and how they can be removed, for the benefit of the people?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the reference is so wide that the question of

    1261
    local rating shall not be confined to one year but shall be carried over a number of years?
    Captain CRAIG: Will the committee ascertain why the cost of living is more under a Radical Government than under a Unionist Government?
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked whether, in view of the fact that the increased cost of living is an international problem, and the fact that economists have previously suggested an inquiry on international lines, the Government would be prepared to appoint representatives on an international commission?
    Mr. BUXTON: Any definite proposal for the purpose indicated in the question would have the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. COOPERasked whether, in view of the postponement of any rise in wages amongst postal and kindred employés until the Board of Trade has collected its information on the rise in the cost of living, the Government intends to lay it down as a general rule affecting all workers under its control that no variation in wages is to be granted in the interim period?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): There is no intention of the kind.
    Mr. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the postponement of the consideration of the wages of Government employés until 1913 is causing grave discontent and may lead to serious public inconvenience?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The statement applies to Post Office servants, whose wages were dealt with by the Committee in 1906.

    River Nene (Silting).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the silting up of the River Nene, to the detriment of trade, and whether he will take any steps by legislation or otherwise to render this river again navigable?
    Mr. BUXTON: I shall be happy to consider any suggestion that the Commissioners of the Navigation or any of the local authorities concerned may desire to make with a view to the improvement of the navigation, but I cannot promise legislation on the subject.
    Mr. G. GREENWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been recently directed to the Report made by Major Marindin to the Board of Trade in February, 1892, on this subject, and the suggestions then made?
    Mr. BUXTON: That will be borne in mind.

    Devonport Dockyard (Newspapers).
    Mr. POINTERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, although the sale of newspapers is prohibited in Devonport dockyard, the distribution of newspapers is allowed before the time of commencement of work; and whether he will have the embargo on the distribution of "Labour Leaders" removed.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is the fact that no newspapers are sold in the dockyard, i.e., newsvendors are not allowed in the yard for the purpose of selling newspapers or other literature. What is allowed, is the delivery to ships, offices, and residences, of newspapers which have been previously ordered. No discrimination whatever is made as to the newspapers so delivered.

    Naval Shipwrights.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Departmental Committee appointed by the Admiralty to investigate the conditions under which the naval shipwrights serve has yet reported; and, if so, in view of the promise made in answer to the petition presented by the naval shipwrights in November, 1910, he is now in a position to give the decision of the Admiralty in the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: An interim report has been received, but it is found that the question requires longer and more careful investigation than was anticipated, and the Admiralty will be unable to arrive at any definite decision for some time to come.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say any particular time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I cannot.

    Hired Workmen (Royal Dockyards).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a further statement

    1263
    as to the views of the Admiralty in respect to pensions for hired workmen on retirement who have served fifteen years in, the Royal dockyards, in view of the fact that, when replying to the petition from Pembroke Dock asking that this concession might be granted, the reply given by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty was that a further communication would be made on the subject of the request made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of whether or not it may be possible for the Admiralty to render any advice or assistance to hired workmen, not entitled to any pension, to establish for themselves a self-supporting superannuation scheme by means of weekly contributions is and has for some time past been under consideration. I do not think it will be possible to make any statement upon the matter for some time to come.

    Naval Service (Re-engagements).
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that men who have served their time in the Navy and who take their discharge do in many cases, when they have experienced the vicissitudes of the labour market, regret not having re-engaged; and, if so, will the Admiralty consider the possibility of saving such men for the service of the country by giving to every man who reaches that period of service at which he can claim his discharge a couple of months' leave, without pay, before taking his discharge, while allowing him at any time during such period to re-engage?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Every facility is given to deserving time-expired men to re-engage for a second period of service in the Navy and complete time for pension. If a man, however, persists in taking his discharge at the end of his first engagement he is still eligible to re-engage at any time within a period of five years; and if, thereafter, he serves the full period of re-engagement for pension, the same is not abated in respect of the period during which he was outside the Service. The present proposal to give a man two months' leave to look round for civil employment at the end of his first engagement is impracticable.

    Rosyth Dock (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why his Department had
    1264
    refused to submit the dispute as to what is a fair wage for navvies and labourers on the dock works at Rosyth to be decided by the Board of Trade?
    CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): The Board of Admiralty investigated this question on the spot in June, and is satisfied that there was no infringement of the Fair-Wages Clause in the cases of navvies and labourers at Rosyth.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: The answer is not an answer to the question. The question is why the Admiralty have refused to submit the question to the Board of Trade for arbitration.
    Mr. LAMBERT: The Board of Admiralty are responsible and could not abrogate their responsibility in the matter.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is not the Admiralty aware that the contractors employ all kinds of labour for all classes of work and that scarcely any of them come up to the standard rate?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The Admiralty are aware of all the material facts and do not consider that there has been any infringement of the Fair-Wages Clause.
    Mr. J. WARD: Is not it usual to suppose that the persons who refuse arbitration show themselves to be in the wrong?
    Mr. LAMBERT: That does not apply to the Admiralty in the present case.

    Good-conduct Badge (Royal Navy).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the advisability of altering the King's Regulations (Addenda, 1911), Article 768, so that, if the circumstances of a conviction of a seaman or marine on shore are considered by a captain to be of a comparatively trivial nature, the forfeiture of a good-conduct badge may be remitted by him without having to bring the matter to the attention of the Commander-in-Chief and obtain his approval?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Except in so far as suggested in the questions of the hon. Member, I am not aware that the existing regulation has caused any hardship; but if it be found in practice to create difficulties, the question of revision will be considered. The intention is that only the more serious offences such as bring disgrace on the Naval uniform should be visit with naval penalties.

    Pay of Sailors (Royal Navy).
    Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKEasked whether the weekly pay now made to sailors in the Royal Navy includes medical treatment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Medical treatment is free to sailors, except as laid down in the King's Regulations, which provide for stoppages from pay for hospital treatment under prescribed conditions.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Bill before the House, proposes to charge the sailor for medical treatment, and if that is the case would he be prepared to see that the pay of the sailor is increased?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is more a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Members of Parliament (Free Postal Delivery).
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Postmaster-General whether, in accordance with the practice of most Governments, he will consider the question of granting free postal delivery to Members of Parliament on all letters relating to public matters?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Any Parliamentary privilege of sending or receiving letters by post free of postage was determined by a Statute of 1840. I do not contemplate introducing legislation to repeal or amend that Act.

    Coronation Holidays (Post Office).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster General if he is aware that eleven workmen employed in the electric light and power department of the Post Office were not paid their wages for the two days' holiday they were compelled to take at His Majesty's Coronation; whether he is aware that workmen employed under similar conditions in other State Departments were paid their wages; and whether he will, under the circumstances, give instructions that these eleven men be paid their wages, so that there will not be any differential treatment of the workmen in connection with the Coronation holidays?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member. Under the Post Office practice, tradesmen employed under trade conditions do not come under the ordinary rules governing
    1266
    payment or other compensation for the usual annual public holidays, but I am considering whether, in view of the circumstances of the two days' holiday at His Majesty's Coronation, special treatment on that occasion would not have been justified. The matter, however, has to be referred to the Treasury, and I will communicate further by letter with the hon. Member.

    Acting Overseers (Post Office).
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Postmaster-General whether the Tweedmouth Commission recommended that acting overseers in the Post Office during the absence of the regular overseers on annual or sick leave, and who prior to that Commission were in receipt of an extra allowance for such services, should cease to draw such allowance; if not, will he explain why the allowance was discontinued; and whether he can see his way to recommend the re-establishment of this extra pay?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware that officers acting as overseers received extra payment for such duty before the date of the Tweedmouth Committee's Report. It was the practice, however, before that date for supervising allowances to be paid to the substitute as well as, or instead of, to the regular holder according as the latter was absent on annual or sick leave, and it may be to this practice that the hon. Member refers. The Tweedmouth Committee recommended that these allowances should always be paid to the officers regularly receiving them and not to substitutes. This recommendation was generally acted upon until the date of the adoption of the Parliamentary Committee's recommendations, under which a supervising allowance is now paid to the substitute as well as to the regular holder during the absence of the latter as soon as the substitute has completed a qualifying period of fifty-six days in each year on the supervising duty. I see no sufficient reason for a modification of the present practice.

    "Conscience" Money.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a sum of £600 has been recently received as "conscience" money; and how much has been received as "conscience" money in each of the years ending 31st March, 1908, 1909, 1910, and 1911?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is

    1267
    in the affirmative. The total amount received by the Treasury in the financial year 1910–11 was £2,112 6s. 6d. The amounts for the preceding years referred to were given in the reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Renfrew on the 17th March last. Some further sums were also received direct by the Board of Inland Revenue.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked why in the Return of Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland, and Ireland) (220†), the cost of old age pensions is treated as a local and not as a general charge; and whether, in connection with financial readjustments between Great Britain and Ireland, any change is in contemplation whereby the cost of old age pensions will be treated as a general charge?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The principles of classification adopted in the Return in question are explained in House of Commons Papers 329 of 1891 and 313 of 1894. I am not at present in a position to make any statement with regard to the latter part of the question.

    Labour Bureau Tents at Fairs.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a Labour Bureau Tent was erected on the fair ground at Weyhill on 10th October; how many officials were in charge of it and how many persons applied for employment; whether he is aware that a Labour Bureau Tent was erected on the fair ground at Devizes on 20th October and three officials from Salisbury were in charge of it, and how many persons applied for employment; and whether he can state the approximate cost incurred on each occasion?
    Mr. BUXTON: Tents for Labour Exchange purposes were erected as an experiment at the Devizes and Weyhill Fairs. In each case the work was undertaken by the officers of the Salisbury Exchange, and there were six applicants for employment at Devizes and twelve at Weyhill. The experiment in question was made in view of the successful results obtained by similar means elsewhere in order to bring the advantages of the Labour Exchanges to the notice of the agricultural community. The cost cannot be separated from the general cost of the Labour Exchanges.

    Coronation Medals.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will reconsider the decision of his Department only to grant the Coronation medal to chief officers of each police force of ten years' service and over; whether he is aware that on the chief officers the heaviest amount of work and responsibility fell in connection with all the arrangements; and, in view of their small number, will he grant the distinction to all chief officers irrespective of length of service who were actually on the strength on the date in question?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am well aware of the great amount of work and responsibility which fell upon the chief officers of each police force at the time of the Coronation. It is a fact, however, that the police have been more generously recognized as regards medals than any other branch of the public service, and I regret I cannot recommend any extension of the distribution of these medals beyond what has been already approved.
    Captain CRAIG: Is it not a fact that some of these chief officers had nine years' service, or were very nearly qualified for this medal, and, under the circumstances, would the right hon. Gentleman not grant the distinction to all of them?
    Mr. McKENNA: I regret to say that for the reasons I have given I cannot go behind the rules that have already been accepted.

    Special Juries.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether in many of the poorer districts the only large class of people who possess the property qualification to serve on a special jury are those connected with the licensed trade; that out of 132 persons on the special jury list for Bermondsey 111 were connected with the licensed trade; that in political libel actions the plaintiff frequently has a direct inducement to have the case tried before a special jury because of its political bias; and whether he can now state when an inquiry into the method of selecting juries will be instituted?
    Mr. McKENNA: The figures for Bermondsey given by my hon. Friend are, I believe, substantially correct. I have no reason to doubt that the hon. Member's reflections on the existing jury system are to a considerable extent justified, and I

    1269
    am now considering the constitution of the Committee to which I propose to refer the question of the best way of amending it.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to constitute the inquiry this Session?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; certainly, I hope so—immediately almost.
    Earl WINTERTON: Could not the difficulty be got over if all members of juries to try political libels in future were chosen from members of the Gladstone League?
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing legislation to take away from plaintiffs in all cases the power to demand special juries as a right?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no doubt that is one of the questions which will be considered.

    Vivisection.
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked what are the sections of the Animals Protection Acts in Victoria and Queensland respectively which regulate the practice of vivisection; and what are the regulations made by the Governors in Council under those sections at present in force in those countries?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The Sections of the Animals Protection Acts of Victoria and Queensland which deal with vivisection are Nos. 12 and 13 in the former case and No. 12 in the latter. I regret that I am unable to give any information as to the Regulations which may be in force on the subject.

    Patent Medicines (Stamp Duty).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Customs and Excise Returns for the year ended 31st March, 1911, disclose payment of Stamp Duties in respect of patent medicines of upwards of £325,000; if so, whether this represents an increase, and to what extent, on the amount of the duties paid under the same head during the previous financial year; what number of packages of patent medicines the above duties represent; and whether, in view of the amount of such medicines widely advertised and of no curative value consumed by poor persons, the Government contemplate introducing any legislation dealing with this question?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The yield of the duty on patent medicines in the year ended the 31st March last was £325,646, which was an increase of £12,532 on the receipt for the previous year, but is little more than £2,000 over the average receipts for the past ten years. No figures are available as to the number of packets of medicines represented by the figures for the year. The last part of the question appears to be one for the Home Office.

    House of Commons (Limitation of Speeches).
    Mr. CARR-GOMMasked the Prime Minister whether he will reappoint the Select Committee on Procedure which was set up by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1906, in order that they may consider and report on the subject of the limitation of the length of speeches and other matters connected with the closuring of Debate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but can make no definite statement on the matter at present.
    Mr. CRAWSHAY WILLIAMS: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that it has already been recommended by a Select Committee on Procedure that a Standing Order be passed for the purpose of enabling Bills which have been partly considered to be carried over to the succeeding Session, he will consider the advisability of passing such a Standing Order without the delay necessary to another Select Committee on the same subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask for notice.

    Magisterial Appointments (Advisory Committee).
    Mr. KINGasked whether an advisory committee for magisterial appointments has been set up for Sussex; if so, can he furnish the names of the committee; if not, what reasons can be assigned for the delay; and is it intended to have one committee for West Sussex and another for East Sussex?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is hoped that the advisory committee for Sussex, which there has been some trouble in arranging, will be set up before the end of this month. The division of the county will be duly considered.
    Mr. KING: Is it not yet decided whether there should be a committee for each part of the county?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think not, I have given the answer the Lord Chancellor gave me, that it is hoped the Advisory Committee will be set up before the end of this month.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister if, and when, he is prepared to grant a day for the discussion of the appointment of justices of the peace?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have already promised to give an opportunity for discussing the Motion on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wisbech; a date will be announced later.

    Railway Strike (Employment of Military).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the use of the military in connection with the recent railway strikes?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot promise more at present than to give a day for the discussion of the Report of the Railway Commission.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the only occasion when the subject was discussed or mentioned in the House he then said that the Government had no desire to burke the fullest and freest discussion, but that that was a moment when the fewer words said the better; and, under these circumstances, does he feel that a subject of this importance, in which the executive action of the Government have had such tragic consequences, has been adequately and fully discussed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My appeal, I think, was not altogether responded to. There was a long debate on the subject. All I can say is that I cannot promise more than a day at present, but I will consider any general representations that may be made.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is it fair to punish these Members who responded to the appeal for the offence of those who did not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; it is not.
    Sir W. BYLES: Are we to be allowed, in discussing the Report of the Railway Commission, to discuss the use of the military in civil disturbances?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That will be a matter for the Chairman.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state the charge thrown upon the Exchequer by the use of the military in connection with the recent railway strike?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Returns of the extra expenditure involved have been called for, but it will be very difficult to determine accurately the extra cost caused by the use of the military.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ask the railway companies to subscribe towards the expenses incurred?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether the Government paid to the railway companies any charges for carrying troops on their lines?
    Colonel SEELY: There is a question which was postponed until to-morrow in which the whole question is dealt with, addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (No. 57), and perhaps the hon. Member would wait until then.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: If the information the Government have got is not of a kind to give an accurate idea of the total cost of the military, of what use is it going to be when it is given to-morrow?
    Colonel SEELY: The question which my hon. Friend asked was who is to pay, and the question he now asks is how much it is to cost. It is obviously difficult to estimate the cost of troops when, if not engaged on that duty, they would probably be otherwise engaged in training. The question as to who is to pay will be answered to-morrow by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Shall we have information giving any indication of what the use of the military cost the taxpayers of the country?
    Colonel SEELY: I said that we had asked for a return, and I have also told my hon. Friend that it is difficult to estimate the cost, because we have to take into account what a soldier costs when engaged on other duties.
    Mr. WALTER ROCH: Will the additional expense form the subject of a Supplementary Estimate?
    Colonel SEELY: I think it would be more suitable if that question also were put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many persons were killed or injured by the military in connection with the recent railway strike?
    Colonel SEELY: Two persons were killed in Wales in connection with the railway strike. There were also two deaths at Liverpool, but those were not immediately connected with the railway strike. There is no information at the War Office to enable me to state the number of those injured in England and Wales. We have received no reports of casualties in Scotland, and from Ireland I have received official information that no collision of any kind occurred between the troops and the civil population.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Were the War Department officially represented at the inquest? Was a report taken of the evidence?
    Colonel SEELY: On what occasion?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: At Llanelly and at Liverpool?
    Colonel SEELY: I cannot answer that off-hand.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I will put down a question.

    Registration of Voters.
    Mr. WHELERasked whether the Prime Minister can now make any statement as to the introduction of legislation under which all local authorities responsible for the production of the Register of Voters in the United Kingdom shall bring the registers into force on the same date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot promise legislation on this subject during the course of the present Session.

    Transport Service (Claims of Wage Earners).
    Mr. PETOasked whether, in view of the necessity to all classes of the community of the maintenance of the food and fuel supply of the country, to which the smooth running of the transport services is essential, the Prime Minister will substitute for the proposed measure of Home Rule for Ireland legislation designed to settle on an equitable basis the legitimate claims of wage-earners employed in those services,
    1274
    and to afford the protection to non-unionists of which they are deprived by Clause 2 (1) of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

    Railway and Omnibus Companies (Amalgamation).
    Mr. MARTINasked if he is aware that an amalgamation of the London General Omnibus Company, the Metropolitan District Railway Company, and the Underground Electric Railways Company is being arranged; and whether he will introduce legislation similar to the Sherman Anti-Trust Law of the United States of America to protect the public against combinations intended to prevent competition in railway rates?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have seen it stated in the Press that some such arrangement is under consideration. The recent Departmental Committee on Railway Amalgamations recommend, inter alia, that the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1894 with regard to increase of railway rates should be extended to cover passenger fares, and the Government hope to introduce a Bill next Session to deal with the matters covered by the recommendations of the Committee.

    Phthisis (Falling Death Rate).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had under consideration the results of recent actuarial investigations carried out in the Francis Galton Laboratory of the University of London into the falling death rate from phthisis and the length of life of sanatoria patients; and, if so, whether, before sanctioning the expenditure of many thousands of pounds on the erection of sanatoria, he will cause a fresh actuarial inquiry to be made as to the effectiveness of sanatorium treatment?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that "sanatorium benefit" as defined in the Bill, which is capable of modification in accordance with the growth of medical experience, comprises the best known means of treating tuberculosis and of aiding in preventing its spread.

    Board of Inland Revenue (Appointment of Mr. Harper).
    Earl WINTERTONasked if other Gentlemen, in addition to Mr. Harper, were considered as competent to fill the

    1275
    post of chief valuer to the Board of Inland Revenue vacant in August last; and what were their qualifications and length of experience of valuation as compared with Mr. Harper's?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It would be a most undesirable precedent to make public statements as to the qualifications of gentlemen who may be considered but not selected for public appointments. It would be obviously unfair to such gentlemen.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the principal qualification of Mr. Harper did not lie in the fact that he is a relative of one of the Members of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; that had nothing whatever to do with the appointment.

    Military Expenditure (India).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a pamphlet written by Mr. Wacha, the joint general secretary of the Indian National Congress, urging a reduction of military expenditure, on the lines recommended by the late Sir Charles Dilke; and whether, in view of the financial requirements of the Government of India in connection with sanitation, education, and other needs of the masses of India, the Government of India contemplates a reduction in Indian miltary expenditure?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant) (for the Under-Secretary of State for India): I have seen the pamphlet to which my hon. Friend refers. As I stated in my Budget speech of this year, expenditure in all its branches, including military expenditure, is being strictly reviewed; and, as the Secretary of State has announced in another place, the subject is to be specially considered by a Committee presided over by Field-Marshal Sir William Nicholson.

    Prisoners in India.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in consequence of the prevalence of the practice by the Indian police of extorting confessions of guilt from suspected persons in their custody, it has been decided by the Government of India to extend to the whole of India an order from Bombay
    1276
    directing magistrates, to whom prisoners are brought by the police to have their confessions recorded, to invariably satisfy themselves by examination of the bodies of the accused, whenever feasible, that the confessions have not been extorted by physical torture; whether he is aware that in the majority of cases the torture has been inflicted upon the accused while in the private custody of the police; and whether, under the circumstances, the Government of India will put an end to the system by which, under the 167th Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prisoners are liable to be remitted to private police custody?
    Mr. TENNANT (for the Under-Secretary of State for India): It is the case that the Bombay order has been extended to the whole of India. The question of the revision of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code will be duly considered, but I must remind my hon. Friend that the remission of a prisoner to police custody can only be made by a magistrate, and point out that when the magistrate has ascertained that the prisoner when brought before him had not suffered injury, there is a safeguard against the infliction of subsequent injury. A remand is often necessary in the interests of justice, and in some parts of India this must entail a remission, to police custody. Finally, I must point out that to speak of "the prevalence" of police torture must create a very misleading impression.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether prisoners are not at present remitted for as much as fifteen days to the custody of the police, and whether it would be possible to let the House have a Return showing during the last six years the number of cases in which prisoners have been remitted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking for a Return. He must give notice of that.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether it would be possible for the hon. Member to tell me the percentage of cases in which prisoners have been remitted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must see that it is the Financial Secretary to the War Office who has given the answer, and he cannot be expected to know the details of Indian Administration.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested

    1277
    Districts Board has sent valuers to inspect the Clement estate, Maam, Connemara; and, if not, will he say when they will be sent; and whether he is aware that the tenants on the Clement estate, as on the other estates in Connemara, are dissatisfied with the delay in the purchase of estates even where the landlords are willing and anxious to sell?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board inform me that this estate has not yet been inspected and valued, but it will be dealt with as soon as practicable. There has been no avoidable delay in connection with the inspection of this estate having regard to its priority, and special steps are being taken with regard to Connemara estates many of which are at present being valued.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked what steps, if any, the Congested Districts Board purpose taking in regard to those landlords in county Sligo who openly disregard the authority of the Board, and refuse to sell at any price to their tenants, although in most cases the surrounding estates have already been purchased under recent Purchase Acts?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are at present considering the circumstances of the county Sligo estates to which the hon. Member refers, and it is hoped that they may soon be in a position to take action.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have made a demand on the tenants on the Vaugh and Hosie estates, Ballinaglera, county Leitrim, for the payment of two and a-half years' interest on the purchase money; and whether, having regard to the fact that these arrears accrued while the estate was in litigation, and the tenants are not in a position to meet the demand, the Commissioners would accede to the tenants' request by extending the time for payment of arrears?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Under Section 35 (2) of the Act of 1896, the collection by the Land Commission of interests in lieu of rent is mandatory, and the Commissioners have no power to allow time for the payment of arrears.
    Mr. DORISasked whether Miss Oliver Crean-Lynch and Mr. James Fitzgerald-Kenny have lodged with the Congested
    1278
    Districts Board the necessary maps and papers, with a view to voluntary sales of their estates situate in the district of Clogher, Ballyglass, county Mayo; and when the Board hope to complete the purchase of those congested estates?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The maps and other documents in connection with the estate of Miss Oliver Crean-Lynch referred to are being prepared with a view to the property being offered for sale through the Congested Districts Board. The Board are informed that Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenny also contemplates offering his estate for sale to them. When the documents have been received the estates will be inspected and decisions arrived at regarding purchase as soon as practicable.
    Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet got possession of the estate of Anthony M'Dermott and others, near Ballyglass, county Mayo, including the grass farm hitherto occupied by Mr. Acton; and when the Board hope to be able to distribute the lands amongst the tenants of the estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have purchased the estate of A. J. McDermott, and have got possession of the untenanted land on it. The Board will enter into negotiations with Mr. Acton as to the farm held by him under a statutory tenancy.
    Mr. DORISasked whether Mr. P. King-Joyce has offered to sell to the Congested Districts Board his interest in the grazing farm of Burriscarra, on the Nolan-Ferrall estate, county Mayo, which has been acquired by the Board; and whether the Board has taken any steps to procure the farm for the relief of congestion in the district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Mr. King-Joyce has named a price at which he is willing to sell to the Congested Districts Board his interest in the lands referred to, but the price is considered excessive.

    Reinstatement Application (Uppington Estate, County Cork).
    Mr. GUINEYasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Thomas Fitzgerald, who was evicted in 1898 from his holding on the above estate at Croughta, Ballyclogh, county Cork?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application from Thomas Fitzgerald for reinstatement in a

    1279
    holding formerly occupied by him as subtenant on the Uppington estate, and now in the possession of a tenant who has purchased it under the Land Purchase Acts, and, after inquiry and consideration, they decided to take no action in the matter.

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DOHERTYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state why the principal teacher of Malin Head National School, Roll No. 14,739, who was promoted from 1st April, 1910, has not yet received his grade salary, although Rule 105 (a) of the Commissioners states that teachers promoted from a lower to a higher grade receive on promotion the salary fixed for the grade to which they are promoted; and whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the Commissioners to pay to this teacher the arrears due to him, which up to 30th September last amounted to £18?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The principal teacher of Malin Head National School has not received the salary of the grade to which he was promoted from 1st April, 1910, in consequence of the limitation of the standard numbers in the grade.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can explain why Mr. John Cahill, principal teacher of Moylough, county Sligo, national school, Roll No. 13,831, who was promoted to a higher grade for satisfactory service on 1st April, 1911, has not yet received his grade salary, although Rule 105 (a) of the Commissioners states that teachers promoted from a lower to a higher grade receive on promotion the salary fixed for the grade to which they are promoted; whether this teacher, who is classed first class under the regulations in force to 1900, is in charge of a first-class grade school; whether, in point of attendance and reports, he claimed a salary of £132 12s. in 1901 as a highly classed teacher by special regulation of the Board and was only allowed £109; and, if so, whether this teacher will now be allowed the arrears of salary due to him?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Mr. John Cahill, principal teacher of Moylough national school, has not received the salary of the grade to which he was promoted from the 1st April, 1911, owing to the limitation of the standard numbers in the grade. On appointment to his present school, Mr. Cahill's salary was increased from £65 to
    1280
    £94 per annum in addition to capitation grant. This salary has since been increased by triennial increments to £107 per annum. He can receive no further increase pending vacancies in the grade to which he was promoted.
    Mr. O'DOWD: Arising out of the reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that this teacher would be entitled to £132 12s. annual salary under the old regulations, and whether it was publicly promised by the Resident Commissioner that none of the existing teachers under the rules in force prior to 1900 would suffer by the introduction of the new rules in 1900?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked whether any scheme is in preparation for the reorganisation of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether it is intended to charge the cost of this force, or any part of it, to the account for general services for the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    War Office Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the firm of John Jeffrey and Company, Kirkcaldy, has a contract to supply the War Office with tent duck cloth; whether he is aware that the tenters employed by the firm have been on strike for nine months in consequence of the firm's refusal to pay the current rate of wages; and whether he will have inquiry made into the matter, with a view to securing compliance with the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Mr. TENNANT: This firm holds a War Office contract. It is understood that since the beginning of this year there has been a dispute as to the wages of tenters. The dispute has no special reference to Army contracts, and several firms and a relatively considerable number of tenters are involved in it. I am afraid therefore that little good would result from a War Office inquiry.

    War Department Employés (Minimum Wages).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked when the men employed at the Gun Wharf, Devonport, might expect to receive an intimation with regard to the

    1281
    raising of the minimum wages for adult workmen employed under the War Department?
    Mr. TENNANT: The result of the consideration given to the question by the War Department and the Admiralty is that there is at present no sufficient reason to make any change at Devonport.

    Towyn Church School.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether he would grant recognition to the Towyn Church school, where there had been an average attendance of over sixty children throughout the past year, where the school-house had been repaired and a head teacher and assistant teacher maintained by voluntary contributions?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: This case, as the hon. Member is aware, was very carefully considered in the earlier part of the year, when notice was given by the managers of the school of their proposal to provide a new public elementary school. The Board then decided that the proposed school was not necessary within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9 of the Education Act, 1902. There is no proposal to provide a new public elementary school at Towyn at present before the Board, but I can hold out no hope, should such a proposal be made, of arriving at a different conclusion unless a material alteration has occurred in the facts before the Board in the earlier part of the year.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I ask what alteration of the facts is required, and whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that an average attendance of thirty is fixed in the Act as the attendance above which a school should not be considered as unnecessary?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: That is only in the case of a school actually in existence. There are a large number of facts to be considered.

    Scottish Education Minute.
    Mr. PRINGLE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether time will be found for the discussion of the Motion standing in the names of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire and the right hon. Member for Leith for Tuesday night, in view of the fact that the education authorities representing a majority of the people of Scotland have urged that the Minute to which the Motion refers should be withdrawn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: While it is the case that the whole of the time of the House has already been specially allocated for Government business, in view of the fact that this is the only opportunity that hon. Members who object to the Minute of the Scottish Education Department will have of discussing it in the House, I shall be glad to arrange that the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire shall be taken before the conclusion of Government business tomorrow night.

LETTERS "H.M.S." IN TELEGRAMS.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I think I have your leave, Sir, to mention a matter in connection with a question which I asked the Postmaster-General on Monday, 30th October. The question related to the use of the letters "H.M.S." in telegrams. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman being so unsatisfactory, I was obliged to put some supplementary questions. You, Sir, in the exercise of your prerogative, thought I had asked sufficient, and said that I had had a very full answer. Since then I have received from the Postmaster-General a very courteous letter stating that what he then said was said under a misapprehension. I would like you to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to correct his mistake across the floor of the House.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I shall be very glad to respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation. The facts are that in the course of a prolonged cross-examination the other day the hon. Member asked me whether if the letters "H.M.S." were used in a telegraph form in capitals they would be counted as one word. I told him that I thought that was so. It appears that by the Post Office regulations only letters written in small type may be counted as one word. I discovered my error and at once communicated with the hon. Member, asking his permission to correct the report in the official record of the proceedings of the House.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my question I corrected the mistake into which he had fallen, and that his answer made no reference to the particular point to which I referred, but dealt with something in regard to the text of a telegram? What I asked then and what I ask now is whether, when the letters "H.M.S." are put in an address in a telegram they are counted as

1283
one word, but that when put in capitals in the address above the text of a telegram they are counted as three words; and whether, in view of—
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better put his question on the Paper.

ITALY AND TRIPOLI.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given private notice: whether he has received from the British representatives in Tripoli any reports as to the wholesale massacre of Arab men, women, and children by the Italian troops; as to the refusal of the Italians to recognise the native population of Tripoli, defending their own country, as combatants; and the denial to them of the rights of war; as to the refusal of the Italians to respect the white flag; and as to the illegal use of the white flag and the red cross by the Italians; and whether it is the case that, as a protest against these barbarities, Mr. Francis MacCullagh, a British correspondent, has sent in his official papers as correspondent to General Caneva, refusing to remain any longer with the Italian Army.
Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir, I have received up to the present no report from His Majesty's Consul indicating that the events to which the hon. Member refers have taken place, and I have no knowledge of the circumstances in which the correspondent referred to may have returned his papers to the Italian military authorities.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given private notice; I have submitted the information upon which the allegations are based: whether, in view of the fact that the Italians are conducting the war in Tripoli by barbarous methods, contrary to the principles of the law of nations—
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think a question of that sort ought to be put in those terms with reference to a country with which we have friendly relations. Before the hon. Member asks the question he had better let me see a copy of it.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I understood you to say that you had seen a copy of it.
Mr. SPEAKER: It was a copy of the hon. Member's other question that I had seen. I was not aware that he had two questions.
Mr. DAVID MASON: Mr. Speaker, with reference to what has just taken place on the question of Tripoli, to-day being, as I understand, not an allotted day, would I be in order in asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: The limitation of not asking for leave to move the adjournment is confined to "allotted days." As this is not an allotted day it is open to the hon. Member to ask leave; but what is the point he wishes to raise?
Mr. D. MASON: Mr. Speaker, as you have just ruled that it is quite in accordance with the usage of this House—
Mr. SPEAKER: What is the question for which the hon. Member asks leave?
Mr. D. MASON: I am just coming to that. With reference to what has transpired in regard to foreign affairs in Tripoli—which, of course, we are all agreed is a matter of urgent importance—I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, so that that matter may be discussed in relation to The Hague Conference.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will remember that the Standing Order says a matter of this kind must be definite. The hon. Gentleman has not named any definite subject?
Mr. D. MASON: I submit that the atrocities in Tripoli, being a matter of urgent importance and of definite importance, affect both this country and mankind in general.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is altogether too vague. The Government are not responsible for the so-called atrocities in Tripoli.
Mr. D. MASON: With regard to The Hague Convention and our Treaty obligations, surely they throw a responsibility upon this House?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should at least have taken the trouble to prepare the form of the question which he wishes to raise.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—The Right Hon. Charles Edward Henry Hobhouse, for the Borough of Bristol (East Division).

BILL PRESENTED.
  FIRE BRIGADE OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  "To make provision respecting the pensions, allowances, and gratuities of the Fire Brigade Officers in Great Britain and Ireland; and to make other provisions relating thereto," presented by Mr. MALCOLM; supported by Mr. Hoare, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Primrose, Mr. Roch, Sir John Lonsdale, Captain Gilmour, and Sir Charles Rose; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 28th November, and to be printed.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (in Standing Committee), considered.
Mr. C. BATHURST: Before the House proceeds to the consideration of the Amendments to this Bill, I desire to move that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect to Clause 4. That Clause proposes to set up a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
Mr. WATT: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, is it in order to move that this Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House when it is a Scottish Bill that goes automatically to the Scottish Standing Committee?
Mr. SPEAKER: The point which the hon. Member (Mr. Bathurst) is going to take is that the Bill, as it now comes down to this House, does not relate wholly to Scotland.
Mr. C. BATHURST: The hon. Gentleman opposite has slightly anticipated what I was about to say. Clause 4 proposes to set up a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and to vest in that Board all the powers which are at present vested in the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with the single exception of their duties relating to fisheries. What I want to point out to the House is that this Clause, at any rate, of the Bill, which is otherwise possibly exclusively Scottish, deals with a matter which is by no means exclusively or even mainly Scottish. As this Bill left this House, and was referred by yourself, Mr. Speaker, to the Standing Committee upon Scottish Bills, it contained references to
1286
certain Commissioners who were to have certain powers defined by the Bill. As it comes back to this House, there is mentioned for the first time a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland. I can only indicate the strength of feeling which is being demonstrated and given expression to by agriculturists throughout England, by informing the House that since it became known to English agriculturists that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would no longer have entire control of the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act throughout the whole of Great Britain, every single meeting that has been held since in England in which important agricultural associations have taken part, has passed unanimous resolutions requesting the House not to allow this Clause to be passed into law.
4.0 P.M.
During the last month not only have the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture themselves passed a resolution by two votes to one against the inclusion of these provisions to set up a separate Board of Agriculture, but on 13th October, at a meeting of the North-Eastern Agricultural Federation, one of the largest associations of agriculturists in England whose interests are particularly affected by regulations affecting what goes on on the border between England and Scotland—passed a unanimous resolution against the inclusion of this Clause, as being one that seriously affects English agricultural interests. On 19th October, at a large agricultural conference at York attended by over three hundred farmers, mostly connected with the North of England, a unanimous resolution was again passed protesting against setting up a separate Department of Agriculture in Scotland with all the powers of the present Board. Last week, at a meeting of the Council of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, held in London, a very strongly worded resolution of protest was passed unanimously. This meeting was largely attended by Liberals, and expressions of opinion on the subject was voiced by two or three distinguished politicians who were formerly Members of this House on the other side. This strongly worded resolution was directed against the inclusion of this Clause as likely very largely to undo the splendid work that has been carried on for so long for the benefit of the whole of Great Britain by the British Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

1287
What we fear most is that the prompt action on the part of the central authority, which has enabled us in Great Britain in the last thirty years practically to stamp out the more serious live-stock diseases in this country, will be lessened in the future. With centralisation under one authority there was equality of treatment in the country, but under separate Departments the serious danger of cattle and other diseases arising and spreading in Scotland and coming over the border would become a serious menace to English agriculture. It was the laxity of administration as regards live-stock diseases in this country that was responsible for our having the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries set up to perform the excellent work which it has performed since it was established. Forty years ago, in the 'sixties, cattle plague was raging throughout the country, and its devastations caused immense disturbance and enormous loss to the tenant farmers, both in Scotland and in England. Later on, in the two following decades, pluro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease caused such alarm and loss as to render the cultivation of the land, and the breeding of live-stock in this country, an extremely precarious industry; but, thanks to the efficiency and prompt action on the part of a unified Department, we are able to boast to-day that there is no feeling of unrest among agriculturists throughout Great Britain as regards these very serious diseases that ravaged the country thirty and forty years ago. It would be a positive calamity if the administration of the Board were now to be split up between two authorities.
I am quite prepared to admit that it is impossible under the existing law, without the repeal of the Act of 1896, for store cattle to be admitted from Canada or any other country where these diseases are known to exist. But I should like to remind the House that the great danger with regard to the admission of cattle from Canada, as the hon. Member for Lichfield pointed out when he attended an important deputation to Lord Carrington when he first became President of the Board, is this, that, whereas Canada can issue regulations affecting the movement and controlling the export of live stock throughout the whole of the Dominion, it is the land frontier which creates the danger, because, unfortunately, there is no uniformity of administration in the United States. Every State is a law unto itself
1288
and that constitutes the danger of allowing Canadian stock being sent into this country for the reason that they must pass through a country where there is no uniformity of administration and no safeguard against the passage of these diseases across the border. Exactly the same thing will arise if you put it into the power of the Scottish Board to make regulations of its own affecting live stock diseases in this country.
This is not merely a Scottish matter. The majority of live stock in Great Britain are to be found in England. Assuming for one minute that a Scottish Board attempted to promulgate regulations in order to control such diseases in Scotland—we have very great doubt whether under local pressure it would be possible to do it—even so the difficulty of dealing with those diseases on the border will be simply immeasurable. There are farms on the border to-day, part in Scotland and part in England. How are you to deal with them? Foot-and-mouth disease, of which we have had such a bitter experience in the last twelve months, is bound to spread unless there is prompt notification and prompt action as the result of that notification, and the Board of Agriculture as it exists to-day is worthy of all praise and credit for the prompt action it has taken under very difficult conditions when this disease broke out during the last few months. But no precautions which the Board of Agriculture in England can take are going to be effective if it is possible for a Board in Scotland to issue its own regulations. They may be totally different and more lax than the regulations in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not base my case upon possible laxity, but rather upon the lack of uniformity. That is quite enough for my purpose. Remember how easily foot-and-mouth disease can be carried and how difficult it is to check its progress. Birds can carry it; foxes can carry it; cats can carry it; hares can carry it. How are you, without anything but a land frontier between these two countries, to prevent the disease passing from one country to another? It is impossible in the nature of things.
This is not only a producer's question. It is every bit as much a consumers' question. If hon. Members will look at what happened thirty or forty years ago, they will find that it was not only a very heavy tax upon the producer, but that on account of these diseases very heavy cost was incurred to the consumer. If meat becomes scarce from lack of supply the consumer

1289
must suffer. In my opinion such legislation as this affecting most seriously English as well as Scotch agriculture would be the most retrograde step ever yet taken on the part of an enlightened country in regard to its agricultural interests. We are told there are differences in the conditions between England and Scotland. I will only say as regards that, that there are differences in the conditions prevailing in Scotland itself, and I say there are far greater differences between the Highlands of Scotland and the Lowlands, than between the Lowlands of Scotland and the greater part of England. The case cannot be based on such an argument as that. All I say is that, if the House decides to treat this as a purely Scottish matter and set up separate Boards of Agriculture for Scotland and England greater injury will thereby be done to British agriculture as a whole than anyone has ever attempted before, either Government or private Member, since the days the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries was set up in Whitehall.
I most earnestly entreat the House not to regard this as a party question. £170,000,000 is now invested in the form of British live stock, and the sole reason why it is possible to make the live stock industry of this country the success which it is and thereby to some extent to reinstate British agriculture after the serious depression which took place twenty-five to thirty years ago, is the confidence that has been felt by live-stock owners in the strong and centralised administration of the one Department in Whitehall. I do appeal to the House most strongly to do nothing short sighted in this matter. Let the Scotchmen have their Small Holdings Bill if they like, and let them have such Clauses as will ensure their making their small holdings a success. We do not grudge them that if they consider it is for the interests of Scottish agriculture, but as English agriculturists we protest most strongly and vehemently against the introduction of such a Clause as this which would not only largely upset the excellent and wise administration of our Board of Agriculture in this country, but would, in my humble opinion, result in nothing short of disaster, not merely to the producers, but also to the consumers in Great Britain.
Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I rise to second the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I do so as a supporter of the general principles of the Bill, and as one who wants to see devolution
1290
carried out as far as possible, but I recognise in this particular Clause there is something more than ordinary devolution. These regulations with regard to the diseases of animals are so important that they should be made for the whole country. Land boundaries are insufficient for quarantine and regulations establishing land boundaries are very difficult to carry out. Even if Scotland had complete devolution and management of their own affairs, I think it would be unwise of her not to agree to a central body for the whole of Great Britain to make regulations with regard to the diseases of animals and matters of that kind, that are of such importance. I do not want to hinder the progress of this Bill or to delay the House of Commons, but I would remind hon. Members that the difficulties in cases where there are land boundaries are enormous. I want to see these regulations that affect the farmers of the whole country preserved under one authority. We have seen the enormous difficulty and the outcry that has arisen against regulations when there is a land boundary in the case of county and county when there has been an outbreak, of swine fever. I am told that under the present system Scotch sheep are excluded from Ireland because they have to pass through an English county. If this authority is delegated to Scotland I do not suppose it would prevent that in any way. I think at the present moment the Board of Agriculture is content to allow Scotch sheep to pass over to Ireland if they do not go through an infected county. A neglect of this precaution would do enormous injury to agriculture. I am not in any sense mistrusting my Scottish friends on agricultural subjects. We all know they are the finest agriculturists in the world except Denmark and Ireland, which is now beating them, but in the years past they were the finest agriculturists in the world, and I am quite sure they will be the first to realise the importance of these regulations being kept in central hands. May I emphasise what has been already said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and that is that every English agriculture body is opposed to the delegation of this authority, and that the Scottish farmers are themselves, I believe, opposed to it. My hon. Friends say that they do not agree with them in political subjects generally. I think the resolutions passed by the Scottish farmers—I am not talking about Scotchmen generally, because there are a good

1291
many Scotchmen who do not know much about farming—are against delegation. The farmers of Scotland, by a considerable majority, would prefer these regulations to be kept in central hands, and I am very pleased to second this Amendment. I hope the Lord Advocate will look into this matter, and see if he cannot make this concession.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: The English agriculturists who have spoken have argued in favour of committing tins Bill to a Committee of the Whole House. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the agricultural needs of Scotland would be best managed by a separate Department for Scotland. May I point out to the House what is contained in the resolution passed at Perth, with which the two previous speakers imagine themselves to be in entire agreement? That resolution sets forth that
"the creation of a Scottish Department of the present Board, fully staffed, with offices in Edinburgh. …"
I know in the past we often asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Long) for the smallest accommodation of this kind, but we never could get it.
Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I attended at least five conferences of agriculturists in Scotland, and I expressed myself rather in favour of this proposal as regards Edinburgh. I may point out, however, that Scottish agriculturists were so undecided about the matter that there never was a majority of them who voted in favour of such a proposal.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: Personally I have often pleaded for a much more modest provision than was asked for at Perth, and both the right hon. Gentlemen opposite and his successors have always resolutely declined to give it. The resolution proceeds
"and the chairman with a seat in the House of Commons, and a consultative council consisting of persons engaged in and connected with agriculture."
That practically means independent management of Scottish agriculture. If you had a department of that kind its mission would be to serve the interests of agriculture in Scotland according to Scottish needs, but I suppose, in the view of my right hon. Friend and others, if the needs of Scottish agriculture differ from the needs of English agriculture, then Scotland will have to go to the wall. The
1292
alternative proposal is to set up a Board of Agriculture under the Scottish Office. An Amendment was moved in that direction at Perth, but both those proposals differ vitally from the proposal in the Bill. There is very little distinction as a matter of practical working between these proposals, because you would get practically an independent Scottish authority charged with the supervision of the agricultural interests of Scotland. It is unnecessary to recommit the Bill to get either of the solutions which were advocated and supported at Perth. The agriculturists at Perth, whether right or wrong, were unanimously against the provision in the Bill as it stands, but they were in favour alike of a practically independent body.
Mr. LONG: No.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: If you had the Chairman of the Scotch Department with a seat in the House of Commons it would mean that that Minister would be responsible to the Scottish Members in the House, and Scottish agricultural interests would have to be taken separately. The resolution says:—
"A Chairman of a Scottish Board of Agriculture with a seat in the House of Commons."
Mr. LONG: Has the right hon. Gentleman read what the first part of the resolution says?
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: That does not really concern my point, nor does it concern the matter before the House. The first part of the resolution refers to the advantage of having the control of cattle diseases under one Board, and that means the British Board as it stands now. If you had a Board with the Chairman sitting in the House of Commons the agricultural interests of Scotland would have to be considered separately from the agricultural interests of England. I understand hon. Members wish that English interests should predominate over Scotch interests, but that is not the view of the agriculturists at Perth. There may be certain advantages in having one control. If the Board of Agriculture in Ireland is fit to be trusted in a matter of this kind, there is no reason whatever for supposing that a Scottish Board of Agriculture would be less reliable than the Board of Agriculture in Ireland. I think it would be more reliable. I should not despair of being able to set up a Scottish Board of Agriculture more effective and reliable than the British Board.
Mr. COURTHOPE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has rather misunderstood the arguments used by my hon. Friends who Moved and Seconded this Amendment. Our arguments are based on the case of the diseases of animals. It is on the ground that diseases of animals affect British rather than merely Scottish interests that we argued that this Bill should be recommitted in respect of this Clause of the Bill and not in regard to the whole Bill, which deals with this question in order that English Members as well as Scottish Members will have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. It is with that part of the resolution of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture which was passed at their meeting at Perth that we entirely agree. It was not a matter as to whether they should have Commissioners, a Department in Edinburgh under the Board, or a Chairman with a seat in the House of Commons, because those points were absolutely immaterial. The resolution passed at Perth agreed that the administration of the diseases of animals regulations should be under one Department, and that is the ground of our quarrel with this Bill as it is now drafted. [An HON. MEMBER: "They suggested a Sub-Department."] There is a great deal of difference between a Sub-Department and an independent Department. I was very glad indeed to hear the hon. Member for Lichfield seconding this Motion. He has earned the respect of everyone as being a staunch representative of British agriculture. On this point I would like to mention a speech that was made last Tuesday by another leading supporter of British agriculture (Sir Francis Channing) who, speaking at a meeting of the Associated Chamber of Agriculture, made some strong remarks against Clause 4 of this Bill. Many other leading agriculturists, including Major Craigie, have also spoken against this provision.
Most of the arguments used have been intended to show that this is more a British matter rather than a Scottish matter. It is a matter of common knowledge to everyone who has studied the question of the disease of animals with relation to the regulations of our trade with foreign countries that the advantages Great Britain has enjoyed so long in being able to send pedigree stock to foreign countries rests only on the great rigidity and strictness with which the regulations affecting diseases of animals are administered. We are given privileges which no other country possesses for sending stock to those
1294
countries, and this has been the greatest possible advantage to both English and Scottish agriculture. It is well known that the United States and the Argentine recognise no boundaries except the sea. If there is any laxity of administration, as there is reason to believe there might be in regard to the diseases of animals regulations in Scotland, the whole of Great Britain will at once lose the advantages which she possesses in this direction. There is reason for believing that there might be a laxity of administration in Scotland. I am not casting any aspersion upon the Scotch Office, but it is known that there is a prevailing opinion amongst a certain number of Scotchmen in favour of relaxing the administration dealing with the importation of stocks. I know the Lord Advocate will reply that that requires legislation, but legislation would be very much easier in case it was brought forward on behalf of the Scottish Board of Agriculture than it would be in the case of the English Board of Agriculture, because the great majority of the agriculturists of Great Britain are opposed to changing the law for the reason that the whole country, and not Scotland alone, would be adversely affected.
I think it is perfectly certain that if there was a division of administration in this matter between the two countries the risk would be so great before the new Scottish Department had got into harness that the English Board would have to treat Scotland exactly as it has to treat a foreign country with regard to the movement of animals. There would have to be the same kind of restriction and exclusion. That would be a very undesirable thing, and it certainly would be a most disastrous thing for Scottish and Irish agriculture. I hope the Scottish Members will bear this point in mind in considering this question. I wish to refer once more to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who dealt with a point which I omitted to mention before. He said Scotland was just as well qualified to have a Department of its own as ourselves. Certainly, if Scotland were an island, I should not have the slightest objection, but it has a land frontier, and that makes the whole difference, as everyone who has studied the question must be very well aware. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Motion and to recommit the Bill in respect of Clause 4, so as to give all the Members of the House an opportunity of discussing it in detail.
Mr. MOLTENO: There is a good deal of misapprehension, with regard to this matter. May I venture to remind hon. Members opposite that Ireland has had a separate Board for ten years and no difficulty has occurred. The two Boards interchange information. The English Board has been perfectly satisfied with the steps taken in Ireland, and there has been no occasion for a general prohibition of cattle from Ireland. The trade in animals of all kinds is enormously greater with Ireland than with Scotland. Ireland sends annually more than double the number of swine to this country than the whole of Scotland possesses. They send over 350,000, and the whole of Scotland does not possess more than 175,000 all told. It is the same with cattle. I would venture to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is a very simple remedy for all their troubles. The local authorities possess the powers to stop any cattle coming from Scotland. What occurred on the last occasion when there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Edinburgh? Immediately the counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Durham, exercised their powers and made orders prohibiting cattle from Scotland coming into their areas. If a separate Board were set up for Scotland it would, as in the case of Ireland, communicate with the English Board should an outbreak occur, and inform the English Board exactly what it was doing. If the English Board was not satisfied, they could issue an order against Scotch cattle.
We are not satisfied with the English Board, and we want a Scottish Board, because we feel we can do much better. I have here a schedule of all the outbreaks of diseases which have occurred in Ireland. I am glad to say there has been an enormous reduction in the number of outbreaks since there has been a separate Board. I venture to think we should have the same result in Scotland. We want to be like Denmark, and clear out swine fever altogether. Let me give an experience from my own county. There was an outbreak of black scab. The English Board did not go to investigate it; it was too far off. They simply advertised the fact. What were the actual facts? In a small back garden in a remote part of Dumfriesshire, far away from where the potatoes are grown, a case of black scab occurred. The Board advertised the fact without giving any opportunity for anyone to ascertain whether there was any real danger, and the result was that an
1296
embargo was put upon our potatoes. Let me contrast that with what occurred in Ireland. As soon as an outbreak of black scab took place in Ireland an inspector was sent down and the place was examined. The potatoes were all destroyed, the ground was levelled, and no crops were allowed to be sold there. The result was that, whilst British potatoes were excluded from the markets, Irish potatoes were allowed to go free. These are advantages we desire to get for Scotland. Can anyone suggest Scotland is incapable of finding men who can do for Scotland what Scotchmen can do for every part of the world? An effective Board would diminish the risk of disease enormously. This is a bogey which appeals to those who have not studied the facts. When the facts are examined it will be seen there is no danger whatever.
Mr. STANIER: One might suppose from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the attack on this side of the House had become a party matter. I can assure them that is not the case. We are acting purely and simply in the interests of the agriculturists of this country. One of my hon. Friends quoted Major Craigie's speech on Tuesday last at the Central Chamber of Agriculture. I wish he had gone further and given that gentleman's statement in full, because it sums up the matter in a clear and concise manner. Speaking as a late official of the Board of Agriculture in this country and also as a Scotchman, he used these words:—
"He condemned the Clause in the Bill on three grounds: first, as a Scotchman, he objected most strongly to the breaking up of the administration of the Cattle Diseases Acts; secondly, he objected as one who, as the Council would remember, had taken part in the education which brought about the establishment of the Board of Agriculture, very largely on the ground of the necessity for uniform administration within the whole of Great Britain; and, lastly, he objected as one who had been for a considerable period familiar with the official work of the Board of Agriculture."
One hon. Gentleman just now spoke of the counties in the north being able to bring forward rules and regulations prohibiting cattle affected with disease passing over their boundaries, but I can assure the House, as chairman of an executive committee, that there is very often a great deal of argument and difference of opinion, sometimes with a good deal of warmth, between my committee and the counties on our border. If those differences of opinion occur between bordering counties the land of which is roughly speaking similar, would there not be a greater difference of opinion between the farmers of this country and the farmers of Scotland,

1297
where the lands are absolutely different? What is the good of comparing Ireland with Scotland or Ireland with England? You cannot compare any of the figures or statistics given by the Board of Agriculture in Ireland with those in this country at the present time. I have often tried to quote them and to use them as argument, but the deeper you go into them the more you find you cannot compare them. If you set up a separate Department for Scotland, you will not be able to compare England with Scotland, and the confusion will be greater.
There is also the question of cost to be considered. The increase would be enormous. You would have to duplicate your staff and officials, and even now you complain there is not enough money to pay these men. The cost to this country and to Scotland would foe very largely increased. I regard the whole thing as a great retrograde movement. I look at the matter purely in the light of safeguarding the live stock and crops of this country. If you cannot have uniform administration, undoubtedly, as the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Courthope) said, our live stock will not be received in other countries in the same way as it is to-day. It is the uniform action of the Board of Agriculture which enables buyers on the Continent to arrive at an understanding as to what has actually taken place in this country and to know what are the rules and regulations which they must see carried out in order to procure live stock in this country. If you create this separate Board of Agriculture, you will upset not only the farmers of England, but the farmers of Scotland as well. I am in favour of a Department for Scotland, but not a separate Board. You can have that Department working out the different points regarding Scotland, but, if you do not have central control, you will undoubtedly in the very near future be very sorry you ever smuggled this proposal through in a Scotch Smallholders Bill. I very much hope those Members who are advocating this Clause will think very seriously before they carry it any further.
The LORD ADVOCATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Ure): I must offer an uncompromising opposition to the proposal made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. C. Bathurst). I have purposely refrained from joining in this Debate because, being merely a lawyer with no practical knowledge of the contagious diseases to which
1298
animals are subject, I was anxious to learn from those better acquainted with these matters than myself what was the precise mischief or disaster which English agriculturists would suffer if a Scottish Board of Agriculture was set up with complete and absolute control of the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act. That is the only proposition the House has to consider. I was an interested auditor of the Debate which took place on this subject upwards of four years ago, and I think I am in the recollection of those who were present then when I say the whole Debate turned upon the proposition that if a Scotch Board of Agriculture were set up it would straightway admit foreign cattle. It was not until the Debate was nearly concluded that hon. Gentlemen who opposed powers being given to a Scotch Board discovered it would require a repeal of the Statute of 1896 in order that that mischief might befall them, and accordingly that Debate concluded without anyone being able to answer the simple question I put again to-day. Since then I have read all the speeches made by agriculturists of Scotland on this subject. I read them prompted by a spirit of curiosity. I read the resolutions that were passed by the English Chambers of Agriculture. I have listened to the speeches made to-day, and I have not yet got an answer to my simple question: What is the mischief or disaster that would befall English agriculture if the Scottish Board of Agriculture had confided to it the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act? We are eager to avoid laxity of administration, because we know as well as hon. Members opposite do that laxity of administration is fatal in a matter of this kind. Do they think for one moment that a Scottish Board of Agriculture is going to be lax in the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act? We realise the great danger of that; we realise that promptitude is the very essence of administration in regard to it, and the one reason why I am favouring the administration of this by a Scottish Board is because such a Board will have confided to it a power which will enable it to act with promptitude and to avoid laxity of administration. It is on those grounds I strongly support the proposition contained in this Bill.
Let me disabuse the minds of hon. Members opposite that this proposal is being smuggled through. It is the central feature of the Bill. We propose to set up a strong Board of Agriculture in Scotland

1299
with a view to administering all matters connected with agriculture. Can it be said we are discriminating between the powers which it is intended to deprive our Board of Agriculture? What are the powers which it is essential it should possess if agriculture is to be properly administered? If I were asked to discriminate among the various powers to be entrusted to such a Board I would select the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act as the first power I was given. I would rather deprive it of almost any other power. And if we were to agree to deprive it of the power to administer this Act in its own way, I do not think our position will be safe in our native country.
Mr. LONG: The Lord Advocate, in the speech he has just delivered, allows us to make no mistake as to the situation. He not only tells us he will not listen to the proposition advanced, but he frankly admits that, speaking with authority as the head of the Scottish Government in this House, the one thing he would ask for, if he were to differentiate between the different powers the power to be conferred on the Scottish Department, would be the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act. The Lord Advocate, in this matter, is in entire and direct disagreement with the great bulk of Scottish Agriculturists, and with the vast majority of Scotchmen who are connected with the breeding, raising, and selling of cattle. The resolution to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith referred, and which was carried by 88 to 44 at this particular meeting, is confirmation in the most definite terms that in the opinion of the great majority at that representative meeting they should resist altogether the suggestion upon which the Lord Advocate bases his main ground for his advocacy of this Bill. The Lord Advocate asks a question to which he says he has been unable to obtain an answer. I will presently endeavour to give him a reply, but, before doing so, I want to state very briefly the reasons which mainly govern me in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Wilts made in a very excellent speech just now.
So far the Debate has taken the lines of discussing the desirability or the reverse of establishing a Board of Agriculture in Scotland. I want to emphasise what my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks I absolutely decline to look at this as a purely Scottish question, and I think we
1300
have good reasons for complaining when we find ourselves for the first time since the Second Reading discussion of this question on the floor of the House of Commons, dealing with it in its present form. Let the House remember what has happened in the interval. The Second Reading Debate did not take place on this Bill; it was on a private Member's Bill, which raised the bitterest controversy, and which is much opposed in many quarters, not only in England and Wales, but in Scotland. I do not think there was anybody who thought for a moment that that Bill had a real chance of passing into law. But the Bill was removed from the consideration down here, and went to a Grand Committee, Why? If it had been a Government Bill it would never have been sent to one of the Grand Committees, and, at any rate, if it had been so sent, it would have gone with a full knowledge of the House, that the proposals contained in it were made on the authority of the Government. But there was nothing of the kind in this case. This has only become a Government Bill since it passed through Committee upstairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was adopted by the Government before it passed through the Committee?"] That makes very little difference; the fact remains the Bill had been made a Government Bill since it was under consideration in this House, and it does not matter whether the arrangement between the Scottish Members and the Government was come to in Committee or afterwards. It was subsequent to discussion in this House, and this is the first time that we are dealing with it in the form of a Government Bill.
I am asked why do I believe that this Bill would not have been sent to a Standing Committee if it had been a Government Bill. I admit that with the present Government anything is possible, and it might have been possible for this Bill, as a Government Bill, to have been sent upstairs. But whether you agree with the princple embodied in it or not, I say there are reasons why it would not have been sent upstairs. Of course, I am only dealing with that part which proposes to set up a Scottish Board of Agriculture. No man can deny that you are making a radical change in the administration of the country in this respect, and you are doing it in what I believe to be an unprecedented way. We have had reference made to the Board of Agriculture for Ireland. How was that Department set up? It was done by statute; it was done in the

1301
face of the country and of Parliament. But you are not doing that now.
Another precedent has been quoted. You have established a Government in South Africa—the latest experience we have had in the setting up of Colonial Governments. What did they do there? They did exactly the same as has been done here. They centralised the control of agriculture in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture for the Union Government, and everybody knows that the present Prime Minister of South Africa is the Minister for Agriculture. They further established provincial assembly, and gave them power to deal with agriculture. But how? As defined by statute by Parliament. You are not doing that here. You are doing here what I believe has never been done before. You are not in your statute defining what shall be the powers of your Scottish Board of Agriculture. This is a very interesting fact. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been defending this Bill outside this House have used the argument that no part of it definitely transfers powers with regard to the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act to the Scottish Board. Indeed, by one or two speeches it has been indicated that it is possible that that transfer may not take place. But that argument cannot be put forward again after the statement just made by the Lord Advocate. What is the proposal in the Bill? What do you propose to do? You have now got a Board of Agriculture for the United Kingdom. I was the head of that Department for a period of five years, and I mention that fact because I do not want the House to think that I am referring to my own administration without admitting the fact that I held that position. But quite apart from that I wish to say that whatever credit may be due to past Presidents of the Department the credit is really due to the great body of Civil Servants who do the work of the Department. I say its record is a remarkable one. It is an extraordinary record.
But you are going to alter it. How are you altering it? You are actually doing it by conferring upon the Secretary for Scotland for the time being the unchallenged right to take from the Board of Agriculture which represents the United Kingdom whatever powers he thinks right and to take them merely with the consent of the Treasury. For the purposes of my argument the consent of the Treasury may be
1302
dismissed, as obviously it would apply only to the financial aspects of the question. You do not pay the President of the existing Board of Agriculture the compliment of bringing him into conference with the Scottish Secretary. He is to be allowed to take what powers he likes and to transfer them from the Board of Agriculture to the Scottish Board. What do we find next? We find in another Sub-section of the same Clause that having done this, the Scottish Secretary having made his choice of what he thinks ought to be the powers to be taken away from the Central Board, you give him the absolute right to make such regulations he chooses for the control of the Scottish Board.
5.0 P.M.
And here I come to the answer to the question which the Lord Advocate says has been frequently asked. The advocacy of those hon. Gentlemen who have supported the Bill as it stands is destroyed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith, who has made many speeches on the subject, and whose remarks in the very admirable Debate which took place in the Scottish Chamber will have made it clear that in regard to the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act he would not transfer these powers. Upon what grounds has the Bill been defended to-day? The hon. Member for Dumfries told us of a case of trouble with potato disease, but with that exception there has not been a single grievance alleged to show that under the administration of the Central Board Scotland has suffered. The Debate so far has proceeded solely on the lines that Scotland ought to have a separate Board of Agriculture. If that is the ground, no doubt you can provide a grievance. Men far less competent than are Members of this House are able to find grievances, but if it is your case that the administration hitherto has been unsatisfactory, then I say you have no right to deal with it as you are dealing with it in a Bill which does not settle the question by statutory and definite provision, but proposes to give absolutely unique powers to one Minister and enables him to take away the powers belonging to another Minister, and himself to control the subordinate officers who are to be appointed by him. What was the hon. Member's other suggestion? He told us that he wanted a Department of the Scottish Board of Agriculture presided over by a chairman who should sit in this House,

1303
and therefore be responsible to the Scottish Members. That is a new theory of Government altogether. A Minister who sits in this House is responsible, not to one or the other branch of Members, but to the House as a whole. Supposing that there must be a head of this Department, who is going to have full control of the actions of his subordinates, who is that head proposed to be by this Bill? You take away the power of the present Board of Agriculture to settle all questions for the whole country, and you propose to appoint a Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, who is to have the right to sit in this House. Under whom do you put him? You say you want better attention to your business and better work done for agriculture. But you take him away from the Ministry and you put him under the Scottish Secretary, who may have no more knowledge of Scottish agriculture than any one of us here. The general complaint of Scottish Members is that the Secretary for Scotland has already too much to do, and yet you make this gigantic change, for which I honestly believe there is no precedent, not by Act of Parliament, defining the powers clearly and distinctly, but you make it in what I must call an unfair way. You do not disclose to the House and to the country what you really propose to do. You leave these powers to be exercised by a Minister of a future time, and you leave us not knowing so fully as we ought to know what is to be the precise use the Secretary for Scotland is going to make of these powers.
We shall have to argue this again on Clause 4, therefore I will only say a general word or two now. The Lord Advocate says he has never had an answer to the question why we fear this interference with the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act. I have had a great many years' experience in the administration of that Act. Let me refer to one case. During those five years I had to deal with a very serious and almost fatal disease when it has attacked people in Great Britain. The hon. Member for Leith suggested in his speech at Edinburgh that these difficulties might be got over by some form of conference. That suggestion has been made in different quarters. The proposal is wholly unworkable. Rather than have a conference between the respective Ministers as to their powers under the Diseases of Animals Act, I think you had
1304
far better leave each Minister to do his own work, because conference means, delay and confusion of all kinds, and it will not work for a moment. I have something more than my own opinion upon this matter. The Lord Advocate says we are afraid. No, we are not afraid, because if these powers are conferred upon a Scottish Board of Agriculture you will find it will be the bounden duty of any English Minister of Agriculture to impose restrictions and bring into existence limitations, which will not injure England but which will injure Scotland, which is a country from which so many cattle come into England. The injury to Scotland will be far greater than the injury to England. When I was dealing with rabies I was unable to convince the Irish Government—I think it was the only matter on which I had a disagreement with Sir Horace Plunkett—that rabies could be stamped out. They were unwilling to adopt the rigorous precautions we adopted in this country. What was the result? We had this country absolutely free of that disease for three years before Ireland could call herself clear. Who suffered there? Not England, because our dog owners were as free to deal with dogs as ever. Ireland suffered because we would not allow her dogs to come into this country, and it interfered with all breeders of dogs, and all those who had greyhounds, etc. All that business was seriously injured, and Ireland bitterly complained. That was the result of her administration.
Reference has been made to other diseases, particularly cattle diseases. I understood that the English Board of Agriculture had rendered splendid services in this connection, and I confess that I am astonished that this Debate should be going on—involving, as it does inevitably, the English Board of Agriculture—in the entire absence from the beginning up to this moment of the President of the Board of Agriculture. I think he ought to have been here to tell us what he believes are the views of that Department. What has been briefly the history of that Department? As the hon. Member for South Wiltshire says, for forty years the losses were stupendous, to be counted in millions of money, all caused by the loss of cattle. What has happened since then? Not only have we built up a magnificent system which has given security of health to our stock throughout the country, not only have we increased our stock, not only have we made the trade infinitely more valuable

1305
and greater than it was, but we have done something more than that. We have established an enormous trade, to be counted only in millions, with foreign countries who have come to this country chiefly because they know they are buying animals from a country from whence they will go to their own land absolutely free from any risk of disease of any kind. It is true that there have been some outbreaks recently.
The Lord Advocate says we need not be afraid that the Scottish Department will not be as prompt as we should be in England. I think Scotland will probably be able to provide plenty of capable educated men who will act in their own opinion promptly if they thought it necessary. That is the point of the whole thing. It is of the utmost value to have one man at the head of all this administration to whom alone reference is to be made, who alone is to be in possession of the necessary information, and who can at the moment his mind is made up, after a general survey of the whole country, act for the whole country. That is to say, you are to have one opinion, not two opinions, as to what is necessary to be done and when it should be done. You say the Scottish Department will act as promptly as we do. They may act in some cases when it is necessary, and they may act in some cases when it is not necessary. What was the complaint uttered by a Scottish speaker at the meeting the other day? He opposed the proposal, and pointed out that quite recently there was an outbreak of disease in this country, and that the Irish Department thought it necessary to exclude cattle from both England and Scotland, although English cattle only were affected. You are not going to reduce difficulties, you are going to increase them by increasing the number of those responsible for agriculture.
Agriculture is, for many reasons, the most important industry in this country. It has had to fight—I do not care what Government is in office—a very hard battle in order to get fair play. Whether it is taxation, whether it is legislation, whatever it may be, the case for agriculture has had to be sternly fought by anybody who sits in a Cabinet, whether it be Conservative or Liberal. By this action you are going to weaken the hands of successive Ministers of Agriculture. At present the Minister speaks in the Cabinet with all the authority and power derived from the fact that he controls and represents Great Britain. You are going to
1306
refuse him that right in the future, and are only going to allow him to speak in the Cabinet for England; and you are going to allow the Secretary for Scotland, little as he may know about Scottish agriculture, to speak for Scotland. I say that is a fatal mistake. It is a retrogade step not justified by the experience of the past. Everything we have learnt shows the powers should be centralised, and you are exposing to grave risk cattle to the value of many millions of money. I am confident that you will arouse in the minds of agriculturists the greatest possible anxiety. You may be determined to do it. If so, it should have been done in the full light of day in this House, and the House should have had an opportunity of discussing the matter in Committee as they cannot on the Report stage. I say, with the hon. Member for Leith, that I do not doubt for a moment if these proposals had been in Committee of the Whole House, that it would have been quite easy to have arrived at a common agreement on a scheme which would have enabled a British Department of Agriculture, sitting in Edinburgh, to deal with questions like those of agricultural education. But to take away from the Minister for Agriculture these great powers which have been so well exercised, and by their wise exercise have put this country in its present position in regard to the health of stock, is to take a step which is retrograde, which should never be taken at all, and which, if taken, should be attended by the ordinary securities of Parliamentary procedure. Therefore, without hesitation I support the Motion of my hon. Friend that this Clause, before we go any further, should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Mr. BECK: Three Members only have spoken in favour of the proposal of this Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) treated this proposal in the most curious way, because the very part of it that we object to he also objected to, and he urged upon us a policy which I think all of us will agree upon. The hon. Member (Mr. Molteno) spoke about potatoes, and that was his sole contribution. The Lord Advocate merely said it was so and gave us no argument in its favour whatever. I do not know anything about the Bill—I know better than to put my head into a swarm of Scotch bees—but I discover to my horror and surprise, that under this so-called purely Scotch Bill, even our English agriculture is in grave peril. I have never had such a small

1307
opinion of the business-like capacities of the Scotch Members as to-day, because they seem to me to be fighting for a mere shadow. They say the Board of Agriculture is inefficiently administered as regards Scotland. We say, "Have your own department, have men employed who will bring to the notice of a President of the Board of Agriculture anything concerning Scotland, but for goodness sake do not divide these two countries, united as they are by nature, into two separate agricultural departments." Every foreign country recognises Great Britain as a unit because it is surrounded by sea. Now you want to divide this natural unit up into two parts. You will raise endless difficulties. Is it not really wasting the time of the Committee for any Member to talk, because the arguments which have already been brought forward in such profusion have never been answered. If this Bill is the blessing to Scotland which I understand it is—and I hope the rest of it is better than this part which, I have looked into—Scotch Members are gravely lacking in duty to their country by standing out on this perfectly trivial point as to whether they can get better administration by a department of their own. If they are going to stand out for a separate Board of Agriculture, it ceases to be a trivial point and becomes a point on which every British agriculturist will inevitably oppose them, and certainly those who sit for rural constituencies are bound, however much we may agree with Scotch Members in other things, to fight this proposal tooth and nail as long as this remains in it.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I am induced to rise in order to contradict a statement made at the commencement of his observations by the Lord Advocate, in which he was entirely wrong. In commenting upon the Debate in 1907 he told the House it was only at the very close of that Debate that Members began to find out that, as far as the importation of pleuro-pneumonia was concerned, it was prevented by the Statute of 1906. What on earth can the Lord Advocate have been about? Probably he did not hear that Debate, or possibly he has as little experience of that part of the question as he tells us he has practical experience with regard to it, because, as a matter of fact, that statement was announced in the very speech in which the Bill of 1907 was introduced. It was one of the earliest statements made on the question. The
1308
Lord Advocate asked what is the danger to this country of these proposals. I will tell him one which I do not think has been mentioned as yet. At the present moment the Continent is reeking everywhere with foot-and-mouth disease. That makes it more and more difficult to protect this country from it. That accounts for many outbreaks we have recently had in Scotland and in England. There is no doubt that the facility with which this disease can be carried enormously adds to the danger in this country when the Continent is in the condition in which it is at present with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. When once an outbreak of that kind occurs it is the most difficult thing in the world to control, and it never can be controlled unless by a most thoroughly experienced staff. Let me give an instance of what happened in the first year of the creation of the Board of Agriculture. There was an importation of animals from Denmark, and one morning, when I was attending a Cabinet, a message was sent in to me from the head of the Agricultural Department saying that foot-and-mouth disease had been discovered in the London Meat Market, and although the utmost energy was shown, although no man ever was served better by a new staff than I was, and although within forty-eight hours all the animals that were known to have the disease were traced and slaughtered, yet it spread, I believe, to twenty-four different countries, and it took many months before the thing was finally extirpated.
Suppose you create your new Department in Scotland, and this is the moment that you desire to do so. You have it in your power, I suppose, to force this Bill through Parliament. Suppose, which is perfectly possible, that shortly afterwards there is an outbreak in Scotland. What staff have you got? Have you got a staff of experience? I admit the Lord Advocate will have a very intellectual, intelligent and most capable staff, but what is the use of their intellect and ability if they are totally without experience as to how to deal with these outbreaks? This is no exaggeration. This is a matter which demands the most serious and careful attention of the Government as to whether, whatever may be the merits of creating a Board of Agriculture at some time or other in Scotland, this is not a singularly inopportune and dangerous moment. Everybody of experience who has had to deal with these matters, and I really do not think there is any Member now who has I had a longer or harder experience in

1309
dealing with these questions than I have, knows that in dealing with these outbreaks uniformity of treatment and guidance by one mind is essential to success. Then can anyone deny that it is a retrograde step to appoint a divided instead of a central authority? Now I have given the right hon. Gentleman one or two answers to questions which perhaps he has not received before. The hon. Member (Mr. Molteno) pointed to Ireland and argued from that what an advantage it would be to Scotland. I daresay it may be, but he has altogether forgotten what it might be to England. Supposing an inexperienced staff has been unable to cope with a sudden outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease within three or four months from now, and it spread all over England. What would be our position then? The right hon. Gentleman entirely forgets the difference of frontier which they have. One is a sea frontier and the other a land frontier, and the difficulties of guarding a land frontier, of course, are enormous. They are difficulties of which none but those who have had to deal with them have the smallest idea. Do not let it be supposed that I am indifferent to the just and the right claims of Scotland. Have a Scottish Department of the Board of Agriculture with all the pleasure in the world, but, as regards these cattle diseases, for heaven's sake be content with what you have at present. Be content with that which, on the whole, has been infinitely more successful here than in any other country in the world, and do not embark on a course which is contrary to the best experience.
Sir W. MENZIES: I suppose this proposal of the Scottish Members has come on the House as a great surprise. I think instead of hearing speeches from a number of hon. Gentlemen who were not on the Committee we should hear the voice of the Scottish Conservative Members who were on the Committee. It would be very illuminating for us to hear exactly what they think of a Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. I can assure the House that we in Scotland are entirely unanimous in the wish that we should have a Board of Agriculture for Scotland. If anyone came into this House he would suppose that the only purpose of a Board of Agriculture for Scotland would be when diseases of animals came up. The Board of Agriculture is to promote agriculture, to aid it in every way and to promote forestry and everything else. Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of Members of Parliament
1310
on that side to frame some Amendment when the Clause does come forward, so that, in the case of disease, there shall be unison and unanimity of conduct between the two Boards. What we in Scotland want is a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland with a Member of Parliament at the head of it on that bench replying for Scotland, in order that we may make some progress. I trust if there is any objection we shall hear about it from Scottish Members now.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I am very pleased to accept the challenge of my hon. Friend (Sir W. Menzies) to say a word on this question. None of us on this side of the House have intervened because we regarded this as a purely English question. It is not so much a question whether or not the Board should have power to administer the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in Scotland as whether the Bill should be recommitted in respect of the Clause which deals with that matter. That is the point we are dealing with now, and although you, Mr. Speaker, have admitted of considerable latitude in dealing with it, I do not know that it could have been dealt with at all without that liberty having been given. So far as we are concerned on this side of the House, I agree with the hon. Member for South Lanark (Sir W. Menzies) that it might be quite easy to construct an Amendment to exempt from the authority of the Secretary for Scotland a particular question. This is a very much broader question. You cannot deal with it on the Report stage of the Bill in the same way as in Committee. There is very much greater freedom of debate in Committee than on Report, and I think English Members who are interested in this question are perfectly entitled to ask that that freedom of debate should be granted to them which is denied on this stage. That is the point they are asking for. It is very reasonable, and I do not know why the Lord Advocate should object to it, except that I think he himself rather drifted into the general question and mistook the narrow point at issue. But speaking for myself on the wider question, I do think there is a very great deal to be said for the maintenance of the management and administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act under the one head. I know that agricultural opinion has expressed itself strongly on that point. I think if we are to have a Department of Agriculture in Scotland, which is to be a separate Department of

1311
the Board of Agriculture, it ought not to be under the Secretary for Scotland, but under a Minister directly responsible to this House. I understand that the Government object to appoint a Minister for that purpose. They are always making appointments, and I do not know why in this case they object. I do not suppose that there is the slightest chance of getting a Minister appointed. We do think that there should be a retention of this administration under one head.
Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I am glad that the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) has brought the House back to the strict interpretation of the Motion. I do not desire to discuss the broad issues which have been discussed this afternoon. I will deal only with the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill. The Motion was not on the Paper this afternoon. So far as I know, the course to be taken in respect of this Bill was perfectly clearly indicated on the Second Reading when the Government stated that if they were not going to adopt the Bill, they were going to give it very favourable consideration. I ventured to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), and to point out that the Bill had been actually adopted by the Government before we reached Clause 4. I also pointed out that in the Grand Committee we enjoyed the presence of fifteen English Members. Therefore if there was any grievance felt by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst), the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanier), and other hon. Members, I cannot understand why they were not advised of the facts by the Members of the Scottish Unionist party who were members of the Committee. I do not understand why they did not get themselves appointed members of the Committee. I believe it is not difficult to get added to a Committee. I do not understand why this matter was not discussed at the proper time. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite had ample opportunity for having it discussed. While the Bill was going through Committee the point now raised was dealt with, and although I fully recognise that the speeches which have been made are not obstructive at all, I hold that hon. Members opposite neglected their opportunity at the proper time.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON:: The speech of hon. Member (Mr. Harcourt) seems to me
1312
to be an extraordinary one. He must be aware that nobody objects to agriculturists having English gentlemen to represent them. I say that an Amendment was proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) to substitute for the Secretary for Scotland the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The hon. Member was not there to vote against it. I notice further that later on the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Harry Hope) moved that the transfer of powers should not include powers and duties under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. I think the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Harcourt) was not present on that occasion.
Mr. R. HARCOURT: I was getting married at the time.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I did not suggest that the hon. Member had not a most excellent reason, and I am sure all of us will agree that no better reason could be given, but when an hon. Gentleman who is in that position comes down here and lectures us for bringing forward an obstructive Motion, I must say that it savours to me as something which does not come from him with a very good grace.
Colonel GREIG: I would ask the House to take its memory back to the discussion which took place on the Second Reading of the Bill—the Bill which was printed on 9th February, 1911. The object of the Bill was
"To encourage the formation of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, and to amend the law relating to the tenure of such Holdings (including Crofters' Holdings); to establish Agricultural Commissioners for Scotland; and for other purposes connected therewith."
Therefore, all the provisions with reference to the establishment of a Board of Agriculture for Scotland were fully before the country.
Mr. C. BATHURST: There was nothing in the Bill as it left this House with reference to a separate Department of Agriculture for Scotland.
Colonel GREIG: I will read the Clause which deals with that matter in the Bill as presented. Clause 4, Sub-section (1), reads thus:—
"It shall be lawful for His Majesty, on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, at any time after the commencement of this Act, and from time

1313
to time as vacancies occur, to appoint not more than three persons to be designated the Agricultural Commissioners for Scotland (in this Act referred to as the Agricultural Commissioners) and to appoint one of such persons to be Chairman of the Commissioners."
Mr. BATHURST: It does not say "Board."
Colonel GREIG: Sub-section (2) of the Clause is in the following terms:—
"The Agricultural Commissioners shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries in Scotland, and shall also exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred on or transferred to them under the provisions of this Act. In the discharge of their duties they shall comply with such instructions or regulations as may from time to time be issued by the Secretary for Scotland, and they shall submit an annual report of their proceedings to him, which report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament."
Sub-section (10) says:—
"It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland from time to time by order under his hand—
(a) To direct that from and after the date fixed by the order such powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries exerciseable in or in relation to Scotland as may with the consent of the Treasury be specified in the order, shall be transferred to the Agricultural Commissioners."
I shall now pass to the Bill as amended, but before doing so I would point out that when the Second Reading Debate took place I was present, and not one of the Members representing the Scottish agricultural constituencies got up to offer any objection to that part of the Bill. I will read the Clause as it stands after passing through the Grand Committee, premising that we had a full discussion on this very point. If hon. Members opposite can draw any distinction between the Clause I have read and the Clause I am going to read, I shall admire their ingenuity. Clause 4, Sub-section (1), in the amended Bill says:—
"It shall be lawful for His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, at any time after the commencement
1314
of this Act, and from time to time as vacancies occur, to appoint not more than three persons to be designated the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (in this Act referred to as the Board) and to appoint one of such persons to be Chairman of the Board. Any act or thing required or authorised to be done by the Board may be done by one or more of the members thereof as the Secretary for Scotland may from time to time direct."
I admit that there is an alteration there. In the original Bill they were called "Commissioners"; in the Bill, as amended, they are called "the Board of Agriculture," but there is not an atom of alteration otherwise. Sub-section (2) says:
"The Board shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries in Scotland, and shall also exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred on or transferred to them under the provisions of this Act. In the discharge of their duties they shall comply with such instructions or regulations as may from time to time be issued by the Secretary for Scotland, and they shall submit an annual report of their proceedings to him, which report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament."
Sub-section (11) of the amended Bill says:
"It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland from time to time by order under his hand—
(a) To direct that from and after the date fixed by the order such powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries exerciseable in or in relation to Scotland as may with the consent of the Treasury be specified in the order, shall be transferred to the Board, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may with the like consent be prescribed in the order;"
The Bill was discussed on the Second Reading and no objection was made to that part of the Bill. It was discussed in Grand Committee and there was an alteration made in the name. I notice that there is a proposal that the Chairman of the new Board, as it is called, should be a Member of this House, but what we say is essential here is that there shall be a separate and independent Department for Scotland. That is opposed by hon. Members opposite on the assumption that Scotland is unable

1315
to manage her agricultural affairs. The speech of the hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), was based upon that assumption. It is true that there was a suggestion made in a speech earlier in the day that there would be a laxity of administration in Scotland. That was withdrawn, and in substitution for that it was suggested that there would be lack of uniformity. Of course, there would be lack of uniformity, when you have countries where the conditions are different, but to suggest for one moment that Scottish agriculturists are unable to manage what is after all one of the main things in relation to agriculture, is surely to libel Scottish agriculturists. What is the reason for raising this question at this stage of the Bill? We never heard of this before. Is it because hon. Members opposite are beginning to shirk the rest of the Bill. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Certainly not."] Why are English Members asking the recommittal of the Bill? This goes very much deeper than would appear from this discussion. We are looking forward to the time when there will be a Parliament in Scotland. If you are going to say that, because of possible lack of uniformity between England, Scotland, and Ireland, Scotland is not to have a separate Parliament, where are you going to stop? Take one instance. It is said with regard to the laws of local sanitary administration, "We do not want to retain in England control over them in Scotland." Those laws are just as much local, there are just as great possibilities of evil effects, and there is just as much chance of the transmission of disease from the other side of the border in those matters as of diseases of animals; and yet no one would oppose the transfer of those powers to Scottish control. I do not say that hon. Members opposite do not really honestly fear this, but I say that they cannot conscientiously say that in this respect only is Scotland to be deprived of the control of its own affairs. To raise this point now at this stage of the Debate, in face of the facts I have stated, is to show that they are not very much in favour of the rest of the Bill.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: The speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken (Colonel Greig) is a striking instance of the evil done by this Grand Committee system. Scotch Members are very anxious to have Scotch Members discussing their
1316
Bills. They apparently object very much to any Englishman having a say in it when it comes down here. The reason for not objecting to this particular Section before is a very simple one. These particular words were not in the Bill when it came before the House on a Second Reading. And also, it being a Scotch Bill, some English agricultural Members were inclined to let the Scotch people settle it, if they could, among themselves. Our only reason for interfering now is that it really affects the welfare of the agriculture of the whole kingdom. I do not know if Scotch Members opposite really want to get this Bill through. If so I would strongly suggest to them that they are not adopting the kind of tactics conducive to that end. There is a very strong feeling in England against this proposal to set up a new Board of Agriculture for Scotland. It must be recognised that in Scotland itself there is a very strong feeling against giving to a local board of agriculture in Scotland the administration for the Animal Diseases Acts. If hon. Members do not want to intensify English opposition to the other parts of the Bill I would strongly advise them to give this House an opportunity of discussing in Committee this one particular Clause, to which opposition is taken by both English and Scottish Members. The hon. Baronet opposite says that all that is required is to move an Amendment which will except this Board in Scotland from having the power of administrating the Diseases of Animals Acts. I do not think that he could have listened to the speech of the Lord Advocate. If he had done so, he would have realised that the first and primary duty to be given to the Board of Agriculture in Scotland would be the Administration of Diseases of Animals Acts. It is impossible to reconcile those two speeches.
Sir W. MENZIES: May I suggest that the two Boards should act in unity?
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I do not want to go over that argument, as it has been all threshed out already. Our main argument against it is that it all tends to give a greater chance for the diseases of animals to be spread in both countries. The hon. Member who spoke last said that we were opposing this Clause because we had no faith in the Scotch agriculturists. That is a very unfair charge. We do not in the least wish to insinuate that Scotch agriculturists are not quite as good as Englishmen.

1317
In a great many cases they have in Scotland far more advanced methods of agriculture than the English people. What we do say is that it would do injury to the agriculture of both England and Scotland to have two separate bodies both administering the Diseases of Animals Acts. Speaking for myself, I say it is absolutely essential that the administration of the Acts should be under one body, and I do not honestly care whether that one body is in Scotland or in England. All I say is that there must be one body having complete control over the diseases of animals in the two countries. That is the point on which I lay most stress. It is only begging the question to say that we do not trust the Scottish agriculturists. I look in vain for some argument in favour of this change. One hon. Member said that if there was a separate Board of Agriculture Scotland would have complete control, and they would not have any embargo on their cattle because there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England. Do you really mean to say, if there were separate Boards of Agriculture in Scotland and in England, and you had an outbreak of disease in England, that the Irish Board of Agriculture would admit Scotch cattle into Ireland? Ireland would, like the Argentine and all the big South American ports, look upon England and Scotland as one country agriculturally, for the very simple reason that there is no sea boundary between the two countries, and therefore, no matter how many Boards of Agriculture you set up, even if you have separate Boards for England, Scotland, and Wales, the other countries would continue to regard England, Scotland, and Wales as one individual agricultural country.
Therefore, it is ridiculous to say, that by setting up this Board for Scotland you are going to do anything in the way of promoting freer trade between Scotland and Ireland. Another hon. Member said that they were going to stamp out diseases in Scotland much more quickly than the Board of Agriculture in England had been able to do. He said, "We will stamp out swine fever in Scotland at once." The only ground apparently for saying that is that the Scotch people keep much fewer pigs than the English people, and therefore it would be easier to stamp out that disease. The hon. Member had no justification for such a statement, and must be sorry now that he had the audacity to make it. No possible good can come to Scotland itself from setting up a Board
1318
with these particular powers. I must join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) in his protest against the absence of the new President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Runciman). Surely this is one of the most important Bills which concern the administration of agriculture in this country, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have made his appearance on this occasion when a Debate affecting the agricultural interests of England was in progress. I regret his absence, and hope that he is applying his time to learning the elementary principles of agriculture, which we are led to believe he is not acquainted with at the present moment. I would respectfully suggest to Scotch Members that if they want to get this Bill through they would do themselves no harm in having this particular Clause committed, and I sincerely hope that they will do so.
Mr. WEIGALL: The only concern that the English agriculturist has in this matter is the administration of the Disease of Animals Act. So far as the appointment of Commissioners is concerned for the interior agricultural economy of Scotland, I for one do not see any objection; but, as an English agriculturist, may I add my answer to the Lord Advocate. He asked how we were going to be hurt in England if this Board of Agriculture was going to be set up in Scotland. The answer is this. It is everything to the agriculturist to be secure in the investment of his capital. It is everything to the farmers of this country that they should not have a feeling of insecurity in the moving capital of the farm. If you are going to have a separate administration of these Acts you will create a feeling of insecurity among all the farmers of this country. Every English agriculturist knows perfectly well that we cannot maintain our herds at the pre-eminence to which they have arrived without incursions of Scotch blood. And if you create any feeling of insecurity as between Scotland and England you will cause an enormous loss to the farmers of both countries.
If you are going to introduce a separate form of legislation for the administration of these Acts you will introduce a feeling of insecurity which must in the end reflect on Scottish agriculturists all round. With regard to the statements of hon. Members opposite that we should have raised this matter before, I say we have never had an opportunity, because as the Bill

1319
was formerly drawn there was only the mention of these Commissioners, and anyone could imagine that they were intended merely for local purposes. So far as these local purposes are concerned, I have no doubt that the appointment of these Commissioners would do no harm to us as English agriculturists. I only rise to make my protest as an humble agriculturist representing an agricultural constituency, and I feel perfectly sure that so far as the stock-breeders of this country are concerned, you are going to do them an irreparable injury. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite realise that what the agriculturist is chiefly dependent upon for his prosperity, however small it may be, is the pre-eminence of our stockbreeding. That has been brought about simply because other countries realised that we were more free from disease than any other country in the world. If you preserve that you preserve the most valuable asset that the farmers of this country have got, and I do most earnestly appeal to right hon. and hon. Membrs opposite, before they allow this separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland to be set up, to remember that in doing so they cannot fail to strike a very severe blow at the most valuable asset that the stock-farmers of this country possess.
6.0 P.M.
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who spoke last on the other side (Colonel Greig) attempted to show by reading extracts that the Bill, before it was amended, did not differ from the Bill as it is now. I will not argue upon the difference between "Board" and "Commissioners," though personally I think there is a considerable difference between them, but I fail to see how Section 11 of Clause 4 can possibly be reconciled with the Clause as it originally stood. Section 11 of Clause 4 contains a decree, which I am sorry has now become a common practice among Radical Members, both official and non-official, of incorporating in a Bill a Clause which gives power to the Treasury to do certain things of which the House of Commons has no knowledge whatever. If that Clause were the only one in dispute, I should be in favour of recommitting it in order that it might be considered by Committee of the Whole House. That Clause alone is sufficient to damn this particular Bill. The hon. Member who spoke last on the other side said there was no difference between the two Clauses. Will he support us if we put the Clause back into the form in which
1320
it originally was. I do not find any eager expression of opinion from Scotch Members in support of that suggestion. My hon. Friend behind me says that that would not be enough; but it is too much for Scotch Members, who want the whole thing. They will give away nothing to English Members, who after all are "the predominant partner," to use the words of an ex-Scotch Liberal Prime Minister of England. After all, England is the predominant partner, and is entitled to some little consideration. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs asks why we did not take action earlier, and why we did not become Members of the Scotch Committee. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is impossible for an English Member to become a Member of the Scotch Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] There were only fifteen, I believe, while the English Members of the House number about 480. Fifteen out of 480 is a very small proportion, and it is almost impossible for an English Member to become a Member of the Scotch Committee. For the sake of argument, supposing that fifteen English Members joined the Scotch Committee with the desire of speaking upon this Clause, how could they represent 480 English Members who were not on the Committee?
I submit that all these measures ought to be committed to the Whole House. The least hon. Members opposite can do is to see that every single opportunity is afforded to every Member of the House to express his view, either by vote or by voice, on all matters of importance, and certainly on all matters relating to England. In days gone by I used to read every private Member's Bill brought into the House. I do not think many hon. Members have done that, and I do not cast the least blame on them for not doing so; but it is idle to say because an English Member does not go through every single private Member's Bill which is brought in, looking at every Clause, and then demand to be appointed to the Committee upstairs, that he has no right to move in the House that the Bill should be recommitted when he finds on the Report stage that it contains a Clause vitally affecting the interests of this country. Not only ought he to do so, but it is his duty to do so, and this practice of endeavouring to smuggle through Bills upstairs which are in the interests of certain sections of the House, when the majority of the House do not know its contents, is a reprehensible practice, and one which ought to be

1321
stopped. We are told that it is necessary to have a Scotch Minister with a salary, to whom Scottish Members may address questions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Member opposite says "Hear, hear." I have never objected, and I do not believe a single hon. Member on my side of the House has ever objected to Scotch Members asking questions merely because they are Scotchmen. We have never said that every office must be filled by an Englishman; we draw no distinction between Members representing different parts of Great Britain. We certainly recognise no distinction between English, Welsh, and Scotch Members, and we are quite willing that they should be able to address their question to a Scottish Minister if he be capable, and whether he happens to be a Scotchman or one of those Ministers who have taken refuge in those quiet Scotch havens for certain Englishmen who are not appreciated on their proper merits by English constituents. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you not go to Scotland?"] There is no necessity why I should go to Scotland, because I am taken at my proper worth, and returned to this House by a majority greater than any majority in Scotland. I am quite content to stay where I am.
I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and I have not heard a single reliable argument advanced as to why this Clause should not be recommitted. No Member can get up and say that the Clause does not touch England. Nor can he say that English Members have had an opportunity of discussing it. I therefore appeal to hon. Members opposite to show their sympathy, which I am sure they feel, to English Members, on whichever side of the House they sit, and allow them to have an opportunity in Committee of discussing this Clause. Are they afraid that the arguments which will be advanced would be completely unanswerable, or that fallacious arguments might be put forth which would be exposed by people capable of answering them? Is their love of free speech, which has been demonstrated to be such a varying character lately, such that on this particular question, which vitally affects not only Scotland but England, they would decline to allow this one small favour? I call it favour because they have the power in their hands. Now that this particular Chamber is the predominant one, ought it not to be occasionally influenced by arguments and not merely depend upon the counting of noses. I see the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy
1322
smiles, and I recognise that he has been converted by my argument. I am afraid I have not gone so far as to get his vote, though I can see by the expression of his countenance that he agrees with every word I have said. Let him for once cast off the shadow and tyranny of the Whips and come with us into the Lobby.
Captain GILMOUR: We are asked why there is all this bother and disturbance at this period, and why more was not heard of it before. As one of the Unionist Members of the Committee, I confess that I am not as well versed in Parliamentary procedure, either in Committee or elsewhere, as are many other hon. Members, but so far as my recollection carries me, and so far as the proceedings in Committee are concerned, not only did we speak on the subject, but we, as Unionist Members from Scotland, made our protest on this Clause and divided against it. Furthermore, we made it perfectly clear that in our opinion the power ought to be in the hands of the President of the Board of Agriculture. I think it is perfectly clear to the House, as it certainly was to the Committee upstairs, that the Unionist Members of the Committee in what they did voiced the opinion of the agriculturists of Scotland.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I deprecate the introduction into the Bill of any question as between England and Scotland, because, in my opinion, it is not a question between those two countries at all. The question is one which affects the whole agricultural interest of the United Kingdom. It does not affect the Scottish farmer simply, it also affects the English farmers. The whole question is whether there shall be one single authority to control the diseases of animals in the United Kingdom. That is the point. I think it is really a pity that we should be discussing questions such as the fitness of Scotchmen to manage their own agriculture, as to which I have not the remotest doubt. Our duty as Members of this legislative assembly is to try and do our best for our constituents. Here is a plain issue which we have to decide, not according to something which will happen or may happen, but according to its merits. It cannot be suggested that the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and the North of England Chamber of Agriculture have brought this subject forward for the purpose of obstructing this Bill. No one could make such a suggestion. The question is one of importance to farmers on the border. Sheep are

1323
passing from Scotland into this country and from this country into Scotland constantly, so that it is obviously in the interests of agriculture as a whole, whether they be English sheep or Scotch sheep, that they should come under the same control. There is this further point: it is obvious that the movement of stock from the other side of the border to this side would require two separate orders.
Look at the enormous trouble and inconvenience which will be caused to agriculturists on both sides of the border if there are two authorities. There is a movement of stock from Ireland to this country, and practically Ireland is the only country from which stock is exported to England. But between Scotland and England there is a continuous and free movement of stock across the border—at all times, from all quarters, and under all conditions—and surely this point which has been raised is at least one for argument and for discussion in
Committee. The position we take up on these benches is that this is a debatable question, that it is not a Scotch question, and that it is a question which affects the whole of the United Kingdom. On behalf of the farmers on both sides of the border I ask the House of Commons not to prejudge this question, not to look at it as one between Scotland and England, not to consider it with regard to what has happened, or to what has not happened in Committee, but to realise that it is a subject which concerns the whole agricultural interest of the United Kingdom, and which, therefore, ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. If we refuse to do that we shall give to agriculturists on both sides of the border very good reason to complain of the action of this House.
Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, in respect of Clause 4."
The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 197.

Division No. 365.]

AYES.

[6.15 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Nield, Herbert

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Falle, B. G.

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Fleming, Valentine

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Peto, Basil Edward

Astor, Waldorf

Forster, Henry William

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Baird, John Lawrence

Foster, Philip Staveley

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Pretyman, E. G.

Baldwin, Stanley

Gilmour, Captain John

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Grant, J. A.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Barnston, H.

Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Barrie, H. T.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Sanderson, Lancelot

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Stanier, Beville

Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

Harris, Henry Percy

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Bird, A.

Hills, John Waller

Talbot, Lord E.

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

Burn, Col. C. R.

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Touche, George Alexander

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hunt, Rowland

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Kerry, Earl of

Valentia, Viscount

Cassel, Felix

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Cator, John

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Clyde, James Avon

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

Wolmer, Viscount

Courthope, George Loyd

MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mackinder, H. J.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Dairymple, Viscount

Macmaster, Donald

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Malcolm, Ian

Younger, Sir George

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Mount, William Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Doughty, Sir George

Newdegate, F. A.

Mr. Charles Bathurst and Mr. Cecil Beck.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Newman, John R. P.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Barnes, George N.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Nuttall, Harry

Booth, Frederick Handel

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Dowd, John

Brocklehurst, William B.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Grady, James

Brunner, J. F. L.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bryce, John Annan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Burke, E. Haviland-

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Higham, John Sharp

Pollard, Sir George H.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Hinds, John

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Chancellor, H. G.

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hudson, Walter

Pringle, William M. R.

Clough, William

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Radford, George Heynes

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cowan, W. H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Crean, Eugene

Jowett, Frederick William

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Crumley, Patrick

Joyce, Michael

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Keating, Matthew

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rowlands, James

Davies, Timothy, (Lincs., Louth)

Kelly, Edward

Rowntree, Arnold

Dawes, James Arthur

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Devlin, Joseph

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Scanlan, Thomas

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Dillon, John

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Donelan, Capt. A.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Sheehy, David

Doris, William

Leach, Charles

Sherwell, Arthur James

Duffy, William J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Logan, John William

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Snowden, Philip

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lundon, Thomas

Tennant, Harold John

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

McGhee, Richard

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macpherson, James Ian

Wardle, George J.

Falconer, James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Waring, Walter

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Callum, John M.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Ferens, T. R.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Watt, Henry A.

Field, William

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Webb, H.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Martin, J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Gilhooly, James

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Masterman, C. F. G.

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Glanville, H. J.

Meagher, Michael

Whitehouse, John Howard

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Meeham, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Goldstone, Frank

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wiles, Thomas

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Millar, James Duncan

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Guiney, P.

Morrell, Philip

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Hackett, John

Munro, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Bill, as amended, considered.
Mr. MORTONhad given notice to move the insertion of the following new Clauses:—
Pluralist Farming.
It shall not be lawful after the passing of this Act to continue the present system of pluralist farming.
It shall not be lawful after the passing of this Act, without the consent of the Land Court, for any holding by one individual to exceed five hundred acres arable land.
When there is a farm held under lease by a pluralist farmer, and on which he does not reside, such farm or farms shall be available for the formation of small land holdings under this Act.
Ground Game Act, 1881.
The benefits of the Ground Game Act, 1881, are hereby extended to all landholders under this Act in the Highland crofting counties as defined in the Act of 1886, and it shall be lawful for such landholders to fish for trout in any loch or stream situated on the holding or common

1327
grazing appertaining thereto, subject to statutory regulations as to methods of fishing and close time.
Deer Forests.
Existing deer forests shall be fenced in such a manner as to prevent deer escaping on the adjoining lands.
It shall not be competent for proprietors to extend deer forests or create new forests, except with the consent of the Land Court.
Waste or Skinned Lands.
Waste or skinned lands, that is lands from which peats have been removed, situated in the Island of Lewis and similar localities, are hereby declared to be lands available for the purposes of this Act; and such lands may be utilised for the erection of fishermen's dwellings notwithstanding the fact that they at present form part of the crofter's common grazing.
Mr. MORTON: I took the opportunity during the Recess of seeing my Constituents regarding this Bill, being the Bill in which they are most interested. The general opinion was that the Bill was weak, and that it had been much weakened by the Amendments that had been accepted. They asked me, and I put down the new Clauses which are on the Paper, but I am afraid that the Lord Advocate will not accept any of them. If he would I should be glad to move them, but, as I understand the matter now, perhaps it would be wasting time to discuss them, and, under the circumstances, owing to the lateness of the Session, and the lateness of the season, and the lateness of the night, I do not propose to move these new Clauses.
Mr. HARRY HOPE: I beg to move, that the following new Clause be read the second time:—
Establishment of General and Central Councils of Agriculture.
For the purpose of assisting the Department in carrying out the objects of this Act there shall be established—

(a) a general council of agriculture (in this Act referred to as the "general council"); and

(b) a central council of agriculture (in this Act referred to as the "central council").

By this Bill the Government propose to carry on very valuable and important work
1328
with the object of improving and developing the agricultural industry in Scotland. In the words of Sub-section (2) of Clause (4) "The Board shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries in Scotland," and, again in Sub-section (4) of the same Clause we read "it shall be the duty of the Board to promote, aid, and develop instruction in agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries." We on this side of the House welcome and approve of this work being done. We recognise that technical instruction can be of the greatest possible value. We consider that, perhaps, too late in the day, we are now beginning to do something to give our people that technical instruction that has been given to other people abroad, and also in our Oversea Dominions. We recognise that our holders, and especially our small holders, must be equipped with the newest kind of instruction and the best and most up-to-date methods of carrying on their business, but that instruction can only be of use and can only be made the most of if that work is carried on in accordance with public opinion and with local requirements. In each district of Scotland we have various types of agriculture; it is of no use beginning to give to one district, which is, say, a dairy district, instruction in another branch of the industry in which it is not particularly interested. Besides that we know how very conservative and slow to adopt new methods the Scottish people are. We know that it will take a very great deal of time and energy on the part of those instructors of technical education to get our people to adopt new methods very quickly. The object of these Clauses is to bring all this work within the reach of the people by having them directly represented in councils that will have an advisory power. We know the wild field covered by all this technical work, and we know how our agricultural colleges, experimental and research stations, can form schools which may give poultry instruction and other instruction to our smallholders, and how much all that and all the instructions given by itinerant instructors may do for our people. This new Clause provides that all that shall be carried out along the lines of the people's desires and of local requirements. We propose to act on the Irish model and to create a general council with advisory powers. We propose also that there should be district committees to voice the requirements of each of the four districts that we suggest should be created. We

1329
propose also a central council, to be drawn from the general council. All these bodies will, as in the case of the Irish Department of Agriculture, have advisory powers only. Contrast such a proposal with the proposal contained in the Bill. Under the Bill there is to be an autocratic Board set up. We have seen enough of the Scottish Education Department to know the harmful effect that an autocratic Board can have. We know that at the present time the Scottish Education Department is doing an immense amount of injury to the educational interests of Scotland by its autocratic methods of procedure. It is out of touch with public opinion and local requirements. The proposed Board is to be on the same lines, and therefore, we consider that it is not the best possible Board to carry on this work. We have adopted the Irish model, because we recognise that the Irish Department of Agriculture is doing real good work. It has proved itself to be a Department that can do an immense amount of service for the people. It has done much to enable the smallholders of Ireland to adopt new methods and to improve the general manner of conducting their industry. We see how the Irish Department has proved itself a success; therefore in creating a Department for Scotland, with the great object of doing something for the development of the Scottish agricultural industry, we say that we cannot do better than adopt the Irish model and give the Scottish people the right of having something to say in the conduct of this business. I would appeal to Irish Members were they present not to deny to Scotland what they themselves have got. I appeal to Liberal Members not to vote simply on party lines and deny our people some control over this work. We can only have the full fruition of all this good work if we take the people along with it and conduct the work in line with public opinion and local requirements. It is for that reason that we have framed the Clause which I have the honour now to move.
Captain GILMOUR: I second the proposed new Clause, in the first place, because the demand for a council of the nature outlined is general among the agriculturists of Scotland. All who listened to the recent discussion will agree that, while there may have been differences of opinion on various points, one thing was made amply clear, namely, that the agriculturists of Scotland desire that there should be set up in connection with the Department of Agriculture a consultative
1330
council. They base their desire on the ground that by such a council the Board would be kept in close and constant touch with agricultural opinion throughout the country. In the words of one speaker, they want a practical council to assist and advise the Department to be created in Scotland. It is amply evident that agricultural opinion in Scotland is ripe for some council of this kind. As to the details, so far as I am personally concerned, I think representatives might well be chosen by the county councils of Scotland. I should like also to see the various agricultural bodies have some say in the nomination of the council. There is also the question of the agricultural colleges. However the council may be constituted, we urge on behalf of the agriculturists of Scotland that something of this nature should be put into operation. Our main reason is that we feel that a Department or Board such as is proposed under this Bill, unless there is added to it some council of the nature suggested, will become autocratic, like many another Government Department, and that the state of agriculture in Scotland will be worse rather than better. Looking at all the facts of the case, I think we are making and urging upon the Government a course which will in no way detract from or reduce the power of the executive of this new Board, but one which will keep the Board closely in touch with agricultural opinion and give the agriculturists of Scotland the opportunity of expressing their views. We have had an excellent example of the use and utility of such a council in connection with the present Board of Agriculture in this country, where there has been set up a scheme for the furtherance of horse breeding. The Board have called in for their assistance the guidance of an advisory council, which has worked most harmoniously and whose work has tended greatly to increase the value of the efforts made in that direction. Having such a practical example before us, I think the time has come when in considering this matter the Government should give careful thought to the proposal now made.
Mr. URE: There are so many objections to this proposal that it is really a little difficult to know where to begin. It will be in the interests of the rapid dispatch of public business if I confine myself to objections which go to the root of the proposal and are unanswerable. It so chances that in this case there is such an objection, namely, that you can more efficiently

1331
achieve the object aimed at by voluntary act than by a statutory enactment. The desire of the hon. Member is to bring to bear the educated agricultural opinion of Scotland with a view to advising and guiding the actions of the newly-created Board of Agriculture. How does the hon. Member propose to achieve that object? The proposed Clause would set up by a grandiose process a general council. To do what? To meet, not frequently but once a year, in order to discuss topics of public interest relative to this measure. What is to hinder the intelligent agriculturists of Scotland—the Chambers of Agriculture, the Highland Agricultural Societies, and the rest—from electing a General Council, if they prefer that to their own organisation, to meet once a year to discuss topics of interest? By an equally grandiose process there is brought into existence a second body, entitled the Central Council. What is it to do? It is, if and when asked by the Board of Agriculture, to discuss such questions as the Board dictates. The Board is not bound to pay the smallest attention to anything the council recommends, and certainly it is not bound to take action upon the recommendations. What is the use of a statutory enactment to end in such futilities? At present the intelligent agriculturists of Scotland are able, if they please, to elect a council, which can pass resolutions when it pleases, on whatever topics it pleases, and send them to the Board of Agriculture, with a polite request that the Board will take them into consideration and act upon them if it thinks fit. So that by voluntary act the agriculturists of Scotland can much more efficiently achieve the very object which the hon. Member has in view. I am not saying for a single moment that the Board of Agriculture would disregard any advice given by the agriculturists of Scotland; I am not saying that they might not welcome resolutions passed and reasons given for pursuing a particular line of action. The desired object is not precluded by anything in the Bill, but may be very much better achieved if agriculturists meet and pass such resolutions and send them to the Board of Agriculture if and when they wish.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: In the Committee upstairs I proposed for the consideration of Members that the model of the Advisory Council of the Irish Board
1332
should be followed, and the suggestion then met with a favourable reception. The Lord Advocate now says that the object aimed at can be achieved better voluntarily than by Statute. I agree with the right hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) that the weak point in the constitution of the Scottish Board of Agriculture is the absence of any statutory regulations affecting it. I think the Council ought to be statutory. The Chambers of Agriculture in Scotland have already passed resolutions, and it is our business as Scottish representatives, in so far as we agree with those resolutions, to submit them to the judgment of this House. At that recent conference at Perth—I agree with the Lord Advocate that the debate was very well conducted—every agriculturist was in favour of an advisory council, of a properly equipped Board—for which we have no security, the matter being now left to the discretion of the Scottish Executive—and a chairman of that Board with a seat in Parliament. To my mind these three points hang together in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute. It therefore has my entire support.
On these points I would submit some general considerations in favour of that proposal. If this House would bring this new Department under representative control, it would be well, instead of it being another limb, a withered limb, of the great tree of administration which overshadows Scotland and which has been the curse of our administration. It is said that we are moving towards devolution proposals; to the increase of representative national and local control. Here is a proposal to increase representative, intelligible control over the action of the Executive, yet in this Bill the scheme as it stands is without this advisory council, without security for a properly equipped Department, and for a chairman of that Department having a seat in this House. A scheme is proposed which in effect rivets more firmly the fetters of bureaucratic government, from which Scotland, more than any other part of the United Kingdom, suffers. No one in England can realise what it means to us Scottish representatives, representative of agriculture or representatives of Scotland in this House, to be able to get up against those responsible for the agricultural order and administration of our country. Our questions are always put off by some written statement by a permanent official,

1333
who, it appears, cannot be trammelled for a moment, even by the advice of an advisory council of competent agricultural representatives. If we find that out in Parliament the case is far worse when we find ourselves in Scotland.
A man in England wants an explanation of the executive, educational or agricultural policy of the day; or an inquiry into local Government administration. He comes down to this House and tackles the Minister directly responsible. We have nobody directly responsible for agriculture, or, indeed, in this House for any of the Departments. If we cannot have that security ourselves, at least let our bureaucracy be brought into touch with the representatives of great interests like that of agriculture. We Scotchmen have to be satisfied here on agriculture with third-hand answers. The voice is the voice of Jacob always, but the hand is always that of the permanent official—and a very heavy hand it is. It is one that is rapidly crushing the powers of self-government out of Scotland. Here at last is an opportunity of departing from this intolerable system. We are opening out a new field of administration, and one in which owing to the long controversy which has raged around the proposals of this Bill great interest has been aroused. Is that vital interest now taken in agriculture to be choked, and the life to be taken out of the new departure from which we had hoped so much under the Scottish Board by placing those responsible for it behind the perdah, and adding yet another to the veiled prophets who administer Scotland?
This proposal, taken in conjunction with those two other points, is really of vital interest to this measure; a far greater measure than the subject we were discussing earlier. I think this Amendment is moved under circumstances which ought to give it the favourable consideration of this House. Consider how agriculturists fare without an advisory council at present. Agriculture jostles along in Dover Street along with legislation, local government, education, and lunacy, and with the business of other Scottish Departments. Not only has agriculture got to jostle along in that Department, but in the Department that supervises it, in the Scottish Education Department, the head of the Department turns from superannuation schemes and education distribution grants to the improvement of the breed of pigs! I maintain that under these conditions, under the conditions of the Bill, say, that there is a
1334
certain need of a centre, and a new person at Dover Street who has the confidence of the agriculturists of Scotland. I hold that that these advisory councils are an essential element in the scheme, and I much regret the answer the Lord Advocate has given.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I do think that the Lord Advocate has not given sufficient attention to this aspect of the matter. Surely if the Irish Board has worked so well we might well copy the example by adopting the proposal which my hon. Friends have made. The Lord Advocate said that the object aimed at could be achieved by voluntary effort, but it is surely perfectly clear that if statutory recognition were given to these councils they would occupy a very different position to that of any voluntary association. I confess it seems to me that this is so because the council, having been created by Parliament, the Board, I think, would undoubtedly pay a great deal more attention to a council so constituted than to any voluntary body. I submit that this is a proposal which does not in the least interfere with the principle of the Bill, which would add valuable machinery, would give that machinery the imprimateur of Parliament, and therefore give it a status which constituted voluntarily it would never have.
Sir G. YOUNGER: When we discussed this question in the Committee stage the Lord Advocate promised carefully to consider the propriety of adding an advisory council of some kind. May I express my personal regret that he has given such a very uncompromising answer to my hon. Friend's Motion. This is a very important question, and it becomes more important when you consider the attitude of this House towards the opinion, and the very effective and strongly expressed opinion of the only voluntary body we have at the present moment to reckon with. How did the Lord Advocate treat the opinion of the Chamber of Agriculture this afternoon? He flouted it. How are we to suppose that the Agricultural Commissioners are not going to do the same thing to any voluntary association? I do not believe that bureaucracy ever pays much heed to these institutions. One does not find that it is their natural habit. They generally resent interference of that kind. They tend to get hide-bound, and they do not readily listen to outside opinion. Gentlemen opposite are always talking largely of their trust in the people, and they are

1335
those who deny what they ask. I think it is very unfortunate. The Lord Advocate is responsible for having raised a most reasonable hope that an advisory council of one kind or another would be embodied in the Bill. He must not forget the Chamber of Agriculture, for while it was
divided on the point under discussion earlier in the day, it was unanimous upon this particular question.
Question put, "That the Clause be read the second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 195.

Division No. 366.]

AYES.

[6.55 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Faber, Captain W. B. (Hants, W.)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Falle, B. G.

Newdegate, F. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Fleming, Valentine

Newman, John R. P.

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Forster, William Henry

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, W. W.

Foster, Philip Staveley

Nield, Herbert

Astor, Waldorf

Gardner, Ernest

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Baird, J. L.

Haddock, George Bahr

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

Peto, Basil Edward

Baldwin, Stanley

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamersley, A. St. George

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Pretyman, E. G.

Barnston, H.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barrie, H. T.

Harris, Henry Percy

Rolleston, Sir John

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hills, John Waller

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bird, A.

Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Boyton, J.

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Stanier, Beville

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hunt, Rowland

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Talbot, Lord E.

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

Cassel, Felix

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Cator, John

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Valentia, Viscount

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts., Watford)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Courthope, George Loyd

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wolmer, Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

Mackinder, H. J.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Dairymple, Viscount

Macmaster, Donald

Younger, Sir George

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Malcolm, Ian

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mount, William Arthur

Mr. H. Hope and Captain Gilmour.

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Cowan, W. H.

Fitzgibbon, John

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crean, Eugene

Gilhooly, James

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Crumley, Patrick

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Glanville, H. J.

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Barnes, George N.

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Goldstone, Frank

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Dawes, J. A.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Devlin, Joseph

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Gulney, P.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Dillon, John

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Bowerman, C. W.

Donelan, Capt. A.

Hackett, J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Doris, W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Duffy, William J.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Bryce, J. Annan

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Burke, E. Haviland

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Hayward, Evan

Clancy, John Joseph

Esslemont, George Birnie

Helme, Norval Watson

Clough, William

Falconer, J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Farrell, James Patrick

Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Ferens, T. R.

Henry, Sir Charles

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ffrench, Peter

Higham, John Sharp

Cotton, William Francis

Field, William

Hinds, John

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Meagher, Michael

Rowlands, James

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rowntree, Arnold

Hudson, Walter

Menzies, Sir Walter

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Millar, James Duncan

Scanlan, Thomas

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Molteno, Percy Alport

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Morrell, Philip

Sheehy, David

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Munro, R.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'lets, Stepney)

Nolan, Joseph

Snowden, Philip

Joyce, Michael

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Keating, M.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tennant, Harold John

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Dowd, John

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Kelly, Edward

O'Grady, James

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wardle, George J.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)

Waring, Walter

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pollard, Sir George H.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Logan, John William

Power, Patrick Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Webb, H.

Lundon, T.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Pringle, William M. R.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

McGhee, Richard

Radford, George Heynes

Whitehouse, John Howard

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Macpherson, James Ian

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Wiles, Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

M'Callum, John M.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc, Spalding)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I beg to move the following new Clause:—
Advances to Tenants for the Purchase of Holdings.
"The Department, out of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, may, if satisfied with the security, advance to any tenant, for the purpose of purchasing his holding, the whole or any less part of the price of such holding, on such terms and conditions as the Department may, with the sanction of the Treasury, prescribe."
The House may remember that on the Second Reading Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) said that one provision we desire to see added to the Bill was a provision such as that contained in this new Clause. When the Lord Advocate replied for the Government he said:—
"It has been further suggested that you should not impose an exclusive system, and that we should give an opportunity to the men who desire rather to become proprietors than tenants. I quite agree it would be very well to introduce that alternative, and if I understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs rightly, that is his proposal."
That is exactly the proposal which I ask the House to adopt. I do not think it requires any lengthy argument to commend it. We have heard again and again about the magic of peasant proprietorship and how men will endeavour to develop their land better even though they have fixture of tenure and fair rents, if they
1338
have the prospect of becoming peasant proprietors. And although the provisions of this Bill tend to give fixity of tenure, and to secure fair rents, and all the rest of it, the right hon. Gentleman opposite admitted at that time that it would be well to produce the alternative system of purchase. If the House will look at the proposal they will see it is no new importation at all. It is merely giving the power to the Board out of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, if they are satisfied with the security, to advance to any tenant for the purpose of purchasing his holding the whole or any less part of the price of such holding on such terms and conditions as the Department may, with the sanction of the Treasury, prescribe. What conceivable objection can there be to giving the Board that power if they are satisfied with the security to make the advance to the tenant to enable him to buy his holding. They may make advances to enable him to improve his holding, and what objection can there be to making such advances as to enable him to purchase his holding? It seems to me the proposal is one that can hardly be objected to by any land reformer. I shall listen with interest to what objections there may be urged against it. I think this proposal is one that would improve the Bill, and in that view I recommend it to the House.
Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I second the Motion. It cannot do any possible harm. It is a very distinct advantage, I think, that the small holder should have an opportunity of purchasing his holding. If the Government could accept this new Clause it would tend to remove some of our objections to the Bill, and it would do good all round.
Mr. URE: I am afraid I must oppose this Clause, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman opposite why. He is quite right in what he says that on the Second Reading of the Bill, in answer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, I said it might be well to introduce into the Bill an alternative. That is to say, that the Board of Agriculture and Small Holdings Commissioners might have power not merely to take land by compulsion on lease, but also to take land by compulsion on purchase. I adhered to that view in the Committee upstairs, but when I gave expression to it Member after Member rose and fell upon it, and the attack not coming from my own side alone but from the other side also. I think the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) will remember no favour whatever was shown to the power of compulsory purchase being given to the newly constituted Board of Agriculture and the Purchase Commissioners. And accordingly it will be found that no such alternative powers are conferred, and no one approves of conferring such powers upon them. That was the whole length I went, on the Second Reading of the Bill, or in Committee; but it falls very far short of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in this new Clause, because he proposes that powers should be given to advancing public money not in the case of compulsory purchase but in a voluntary transaction of sale and purchase between landowner and tenants. To that I never gave my assent. I am strongly opposed in the principle of advancing money on such conditions, and I think it will be strongly opposed in this House. I refused to give my assent to advancing money for any such purpose; and really, if hon. Members opposite will reflect that none of them raised their voices in favour of the alternative proposal suggested on the Second Reading of the Bill, it would be entirely out of the question to give this power now by a side-wind, as it were, for something which has no relation to the real principle of this Bill, and which, in principle, most of the Scottish Members regard with aversion.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not think the Lord Advocate is quite fair to us upon this question of purchase. I would remind him he is riding off on another horse altogether when he talks about the compulsory purchase of land. What I said in my Second Reading speech was that among other forms of tenure there should be the opportunity of right to purchase, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to agree with me that that was a very desirable condition to import into the Bill. I am in no way blaming him for his failure in not trying to carry that proposal in Committee because I quite agree he was rent by Gentlemen behind him the moment he indicated any desire to proceed in that direction. He was regarded as an outcast by his Friends, and that is a somewhat unusual position for the right hon. Gentleman to occupy. This is one of the few occasions undoubtedly in which he was right and they were wrong. We specifically moved the inclusion of these words. One of my hon. Friends moved to include the words, "acquisition of holdings by the occupier"—in Clause 6, I think—and everyone of us voted for it. I have a list here of the Division in the report of the proceedings in the Standing Committee, and it shows that every one of us voted for it. But I am bound to say there was a unanimous vote on that other side, including the Lord Advocate, against it. In dealing with this matter there is no necessity for any recrimination between the Lord Advocate and ourselves because he is not to blame. It is like holding a red rag up to a bull to say a word about the purchase of holdings to Liberal Members for Scotch constituencies. I cannot understand it except that they regard every small landowner as certain to become a Conservative in course of time. That is the reason they oppose it. It is a blot upon the Bill that we do not give the opportunity of encouraging the purchase of small holdings. There are certain things you cannot do unless you have the power to purchase land or to feu it. You have neither in this Bill, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith will agree with me that unless you have these powers there are many useful things you cannot do. Therefore it is essential, if we are to have a Bill which embodies fixity of tenure, to have an Amendment of this kind, and I shall support the Clause.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to oppose this new Clause, because I know that Scottish constituencies are satisfied that

1341
there is no desire for any principle of purchase. In the Highland counties, for which I am able to speak, they have had experience for some twenty or twenty-five years of the system of crofting tenancies. They have fixity of tenure, fair rent, and all the advantages of possession without any of its disadvantages. Every crofter in the Highlands is quite satisfied with the present system. The people in the north have no desire to purchase at any cost, and apart from the fact that there is no desire on the part of the people of Scotland to purchase their own holdings, how is it possible under this Bill to adopt a system of purchase. A sum of £200,000 per annum has been promised for this system by the Treasury. Supposing we were to grant power to purchase with such a limited amount, the money would be expended in a very short time. In Sutherlandshire we bought a piece of land in one part, and in another part we simply acquired it. We let it out under the crofting system of tenancy, and we found that for every one person we could put on a holding by purchase we could put fifteen or sixteen persons on the land under the system of tenancy. For these reasons, first, because there is no desire on the part of the people of Scotland to purchase their holdings; secondly, because we have only a limited amount of money which we wish to put to the best possible use, I say that we ought not to accept this Clause, and I shall unhesitatingly vote against it.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I do not agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that there is no desire in Scotland to purchase. The hon. Member has been speaking for a big part of Scotland with a sparse population which has been under the Crofters Act for some time. It was the rating question which knocked out any idea of a purchasing system in the north, but I feel sure as time goes on, the tenants will be very glad indeed to have an opportunity of purchasing their own holdings. This proposal will give certain opportunities in certain individual cases to allow people to purchase their holdings where they desire it, and where it would be an advantage for them to do so. The proposal contained in this new Clause is amply safeguarded because the matter has to go before the Treasury and has got to be looked into by the Commissioners. It was quite unnecessary, as the Lord Advocate pointed out, to suppose that the Liberal party generally ever accepted an
1342
Amendment of this sort, but that is no reason why such an Amendment should not be brought up. Over and over again during the last week or two I have seen some Liberal Members glorying in the fact that this Government has brought the people within sight of the promised land. That is exactly what you have done—you have brought the people within sight of the land, but you do not mean to let them own it.
There is absolutely nothing in the shape of fixity of tenure at all in this Bill. One hon. Member spoke of the fixity of tenure which was given to the crofters. With so much fixity of tenure it is very curious that a great many more tenants have not remained there. The whole idea of fixity of tenure established by this Bill is a sham and a delusion. There is a certain amount of security of tenure, but there is a great deal of difference between security and fixity of tenure, much more than between the quibble about fair rent and equitable rent. The whole idea so far as I can make out is, that they go back and talk about fixity of tenure in the country when, as a matter of fact, a man can be turned out for 101 things, and it cannot be fixity of tenure if a man can be turned out for one thing. They spend their time abusing the landlords, but on no account is the landlord to be eliminated. We hear a great deal about the iron girdle of land monopoly, but that is the very thing you are trying to keep. I thought hon. Members opposite wanted to do away with land monopoly, but in this case you are preventing the people of Scotland, or rather more of the people of Scotland owning their own land. You talk about getting back the land for the people, but you are doing everything in your power to prevent them owning a small pitch even of a few acres. At present the tenant can be turned out for several things, and as the matter stands at present you are going to force a great many tenants to put their money into bricks and mortar on another man's land without allowing them a chance of building on their own land. I am sure a tenant would take double the interest in the matter if he felt he was putting these improvements upon his own land. A great many of them take other crofts when they get married, and have no intention of coming back to the old home, and that home will be lost at the end of their father's time. If there were a purchase system then they would want to come back to their old home, a

1343
privilege which hon. Members opposite are going to deny them.
There are three systems of holding. In the first place, there is the system of three tenancies which we have now; secondly, there is the system of dual tenancy, which you are proposing now to inflict upon Scotland; and, thirdly, there is the proprietary system. I am certain that the system of dual tenancy is the worst. The hon. Member opposite raised the question of expense, and he said that was one of his main objections. He has suddenly become very economical in these matters for a Member of the Liberal party, but I will tell him where he can find the money. It would not take so very much money, and a regular purchase system would not in the long run cost so much as the right hon. Gentleman's salary; and if hon. Members opposite who are so anxious to get the people of Scotland back to the land would deny themselves their salary of £400 a year for a few years they would be able to purchase most of the holdings in Scotland.
Sir J. JARDINE: I am not going to indulge in any invective against hon. Gentlemen holding different opinions, and I will confine my remarks to that part of Scotland which for ten years I have been keeping an eye on the agricultural conditions and ascertaining the wishes of the people. I am going to refer to the county of Roxburgh, which is famous in the agricultural annals of Scotland. I do not think the crofters are inclined to take advantage of any great land Bill, and amongst the ploughmen and bailiffs with whom I have come into contact who are anxious to get a footing on the land and become farmers I have never heard any demand for purchase, and so far as I can ascertain their wishes they are satisfied with the principle which this Bill brings in. I have consulted many other people as to their means, and the invariable answer I receive is that, while they have sufficient money to stock a farm they have not sufficient to buy a farm, and I think that is a very cogent argument in connection with this class of people. They manage to save about £100 or £200 after twenty or thirty years' service and acquaintance with all the operations of agriculture, and they consider that is enough to make a start with.
To every Scotchman the money argument is one of enormous importance. The money the Treasury will provide will be sufficient for putting a great many people
1344
on the land under the dual system of this Bill, and the proportion would be fifteen under this system to one under the purchase system. These people who have been deprived for so long of all chance of raising themselves in the world are now most anxious for the speediest way of getting on. Instead of emigrating to Canada they would like to stay in their own country and create a better home than they have got, and have "nae mair flittin'." We have money enough under the proposed plan to make a start in that way, although I do not think we have enough money to make a start under the purchase system. Many other countries have this kind of dual system, such as India and Belgium. The class of people interested in this Bill have been waiting for a whole generation to get a footing on the land, and they have been deeply disappointed at the delay in passing this measure. The system which is advocated by hon. Members opposite is quite unsuitable. There is a great need of making haste to put the people on the land with a good sound tenant right in scores, and not in ones and twos, and that is the prominent merit of this Bill.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I remember, on the Committee, the Lord Advocate expressed views in the direction of the purchase system, and no sooner had he done this than his Friends sprang upon him and he abandoned that principle.
Mr. URE: I postponed it.
Mr. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman said there was this difference between the Amendment of my hon. Friend and the views which he expressed on the Committee. If I understand him aright, he was prepared to consider it. At all events, provided it was compulsory purchase. My hon. Friend's proposal, on the other hand, relates only to voluntary purchase, and that I understood the Lord Advocate to say was an idea he could not entertain for a moment. If he did not say that, I misunderstood him. At all events, he was not prepared to support the Amendment. If the object is good, what does it matter whether the purchase is to be by compulsion or whether it is to be voluntary? It depends, of course, entirely upon the circumstances under which an arrangement of that sort is carried out. For my own part, if agriculture is flourishing, and if there is a reasonable prospect of it flourishing in the future, I have no

1345
hesitation in saying ownership of land is the best possible tenure in the world, both for the man who has to cultivate it and for the land itself, because it offers every inducement in the world to do the land, as it is called, as well as it possibly can be done.
I do not speak altogether without experience on this subject, because in Lincolnshire, the county which I used to represent, there were one thousand freeholds. In those days they prospered and flourished in a most remarkable degree. No people in the world were prouder of their little holdings and of the manner in which they were cultivated, and they delighted in showing you their samples of corn and pointing out how they compared with the best samples grown by their brother farmers, farming perhaps thousands of acres. Then came that unfortunate period of agricultural depression when prices began to drop, and these poor little men fell on evil times. Now the whole situation has changed again, and prices have risen considerably of late. It is a common complaint now how much more the food of the poor people costs them than it did some few years ago, and I do not see much prospect of any improvement in that respect until the time arrives when we shall carry, as undoubtedly we shall carry some day, our proposals of Tariff Reform. Why is there this marked hostility to proposals which are made to facilitate the ownership of land? Would it not be popular with the people in Scotland? Is that not one of the things they desire most in the world? I must say, having listened to the whole Debate, I really have heard nothing to justify the unbending opposition to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I am afraid it is no use making appeals to the Lord Advocate when he has once made up his mind, but I cannot see why some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House should not support us in an Amendment which would lead to the advantage of great numbers of the smaller people of Scotland.
Mr. MUNRO: Listening to some of the speeches delivered from the other side of the House, one would be apt to suppose there was some provision in this Bill whereby tenants in Scotland were to be disabled from purchasing their holdings even if they wished to do so. That, of course, is not the Bill. The truth of the matter is that where we separate is on a matter of principle, and that is whether State money should be applied
1346
for that purpose. When one considers whether that principle shall be applied to Scotland or not, it is surely not asking too much that heed should be paid to the opinion of the majority of the people of Scotland as voiced through their Members in this House. I desire to emphasise what has already been said with regard to opinion in the north of Scotland on this matter. I am fairly familiar with that part of the country, and I am bound to say I have never heard any expression of a desire by any crofter in the north of Scotland in the direction indicated by this new Clause. I speak with much more diffidence with regard to the south of Scotland, though I have spent a considerable part of my life there. It is significant, however, that one should have had the testimony of the hon. Member for Roxburgh (Sir J. Jardine), and that at the conference at Perth, of which we have heard so much, not a single word was spoken in favour of the principle of purchase. All I can say is that if there is any particularly strong feeling in that direction in the south of Scotland, those who entertain the feeling have kept wonderfully silent with regard to it up to now. You have security of tenure provided under the conditions which the Bill embodies at present, but security of tenure would not be present under many conditions which one can figure if the tenant were to become the purchaser of his holding. Suppose bad times came again, what would be the position of a man who owned his holding? A tenant may give up his tenancy, but a man who owns his holding is tied to it and cannot get rid of it.
The experience of other countries is often referred to in this connection. I read quite recently that during bad times in France where this system of purchase, I suppose, abounds, the number of compulsory sales of small holdings rose by 110 per cent. in ten years. I have also read that in Denmark during comparatively recent times there were £60,000,000 of mortgages on the small holdings which are owned there. Surely to sell up a man compulsorily under, say, foreclosure in England is just about as bad as to evict under the old system in Scotland. However desirable it may be for a man to purchase his holding if that is his wish, we do respectfully protest against the employment of State money to subsidise what we consider to be both an inferior and in Scotland an alien principle.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I confess I do not really understand the somewhat blind and unreasoning opposition to purchase of hon. Gentlemen opposite or their objection to the particular Amendment before the House. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said there is no desire to purchase in the north of Scotland. I do not know a great deal about the conditions there, but I know the southern counties of Scotland very well. I go about them a good deal, and I have constantly met men who are trying to save money and would like to save money to enable them to become owners of a small piece of land. The difficulty is they cannot find the money both to buy the land and to stock it. It is all a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. Do let hon. Gentlemen opposite realise what we are now proposing? Some who have not heard the Debate might think we were proposing compulsory purchase by the State. It is purely a permissive Amendment. If there be no desire to purchase, then the Amendment will have no effect. The Bill will never come into operation unless there is a desire to purchase. Why, under those circumstances, hon. Gentlemen should really stand in the way I confess I cannot see, unless they found themselves on a broad opposition to all purchase and to all ownership of land by small holders. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last in condemning that system. It has led France and Denmark to prosperity. It is going on in Austria to-day, and it has triumphed in New Zealand over the tenant-holding system. After a system of land tenure was first instituted, there was a reversion to a system of purchase. More than that. It is in successful operation in Ireland to-day. It has saved agriculture in Ireland. It really seems strange that in this year 1911 we in Great Britain should have to pay a very large sum of money to rescue Ireland from that very state of dual ownership into which hon. Gentlemen are now trying to thrust Scotland. Whether you take the particular question of this Amendment or the general question, I venture to say the opinions expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite are really not warranted by the facts. I suggest they should consider the facts seriously. This is purely a permissive Amendment, and, if indeed they are right—which I doubt—in saying there is no desire on the part of smallholders in Scotland to own their holdings, then this Amendment will have no effect whatever, and they need have no anxiety in putting it into the Bill.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I am bound to confess I do not take any deep interest in this Amendment. I think the principle of both voluntary and compulsory purchase ought to have been embodied in the Bill. There are many objects mentioned in the Bill which cannot be met under the tenure of the Bill, and which you can only meet either by voluntary or compulsory purchase or by feuing, and that the Government have refused to put in. I think they have made a great mistake. The crofter is a very important element in the community, but he is not everybody, and what we are dealing with mainly under this Bill are the general agricultural, horticultural, and sylvi-cultural interests of Scotland, which are great economic interests. The crofter tenure is no help at all for sylvi-and horticulture. I should say certainly in Scotland, as in England, State aid for the purchase of holdings ought not to be necessary. A distribution of the soil is taking place in England in a large measure without any aid from the State. The only question is how far land will be rendered unsaleable under the provisions of the Bill. If land is rendered unsaleable, then I admit some other steps will be necessary, and probably purchase is one of them. The land may be rendered unsaleable in two ways: either by having too great a complexity of tenure in the relations between landlord and tenant, or the burden of compensation may be such that either free sale or purchase would be found the only way to keep the bottom in the Act. I will just give an example of what I mean. A valuation was taken of the improvements of a tenant of a £6 10s. croft at Lentran, in Inverness-shire. The valuation amounted to £260, which is nearly about sixty years' purchase. If there were many such "Lentrans" on an estate the bottom would be knocked out of the Act. That estate would be rendered unsaleable by the operation of the Act. If claims of that kind were presented there would be no means by which the crofter could get his compensation. In the case I have mentioned, the compensation due to the outgoing tenant would have to be drawn from the other resources of the holding. It could not be drawn from the croft. I forget what the acreage was. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thirteen acres."] The rent was £6 10s. gross, and that would represent £5 net. The expenditure is £500, and the compensation payable is sixty years without purchasing the holding. Unless there can be a limit to claims of that kind an estate would soon become

1349
bankrupt. I do not know whether there will be a large number of claims for compensation, but supposing there are, supposing, for instance, that there are a dozen or two in the Island of Lewes, all wanting at the same time, how could compensation be given? They would not get it at all. This matter must be dealt with either through free sale or free purchase. In cases of that kind you might have to deal by means of free purchase. I believe there is no general desire to institute free sale, but, so far as the owner is concerned, it would be an infinitely lighter burden than the compensation payable in these cases, which would mean paying £12 a year out of other properties for the honour of being made proprietor of the croft. I think it is a matter of primary importance that there should be reserved in the Bill the power suggested unless the Government is prepared to give free sale, which is another way out. Therefore I support the proviso.
Mr. STANIER: I should not like it to go forth that the hon. Member for Wick rather led us to believe the people in Scotland do not want the particular line which is worked out in this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to study the proceedings in the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture he would have found that at a number of large meetings this land purchase scheme worked out through Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill, had been unanimously approved by the directorate of that body and that resolutions in favour of it had been carried by the Chamber. It should not, therefore, go forth that in Scotland no one has ever advocated the idea. It is very amusing to think that the Lord Advocate, who has always been making such very strong speeches on the subject of the land monopoly, and how it was to be brought to an end, should now turn round and say: "You must not have this Clause at any cost." How is it the Government is advocating it in Ireland, though no doubt they are pushing it forward there at the bidding of Irishmen? But why should they deny it to Scotland? The Lord Advocate tells us that in his part of Scotland it is not wanted. But it is very curious when I was in Beauly recently I met a man who immediately told me he wanted to buy his holding if only some such scheme as that foreshadowed in the Amendment now before the House had been in existence. That may be an isolated case; still it is strange I should have stumbled up against
1350
it when I was up there. I think we ought to have this Clause in the Bill. There are many cases in which it will be wanted. I cannot see that it will do any harm at all, and I am sure that many people in Scotland would be only too pleased, when these great land sales are taking place, to try and get the Treasury, through the Board of Agriculture, to make advances in order to enable them to buy.
Mr. COWAN: I wish to controvert the statement made so frequently on this side of the House that there is no demand or desire for purchase in Scotland. Speaking for that part of the county of Aberdeenshire which I have the honour to represent, and speaking too from my own knowledge of the whole country, I say there is an undoubted demand for purchase, that there are a large number of smallholders who desire to become freeholders, as well as a large number who wish to become small cultivators on the basis of purchase rather than of tenancy. In this House one is accustomed to find diametrical opposite views as between the two sides on almost all matters of policy, but one seldom witnesses such an extraordinary divergence as this on mere matters of fact. On this side of the House almost every speaker has told us that there is no desire for purchase in Scotland, and on the other side almost every speaker has said that from his own knowledge he is enabled to say there is such a desire. What is the explanation of this extraordinary difference of opinion? The fact is both statements are true. There is no demand in Scotland for that sort of purchase of which our Friends on the other side speak.
The demand in Scotland for purchase is a demand for what the Lord Advocate has described as compulsory purchase, and that is the form of purchase which is desired in my own Constituency. It is a form of purchase which I have recommended in two election addresses, it is a form endorsed by my Constituents, and I am clear in my own mind that if the people were offered a system of compulsory purchase which would enable them to obtain their land at a fair and not an inflated price—at a price fixed by an impartial public authority—there is no question whatever that they would desire to have such a scheme. We are told that there are no funds available for the purpose. Those who are opposed to the whole principle of the Bill, those who are supporting it with extreme reluctance and more as a matter of party policy and tactics, no

1351
doubt would be glad to divert the funds which are set aside for the working of the tenancy portion of the Bill in favour of an illusory purchase scheme, because thereby the Bill would be practically wrecked. I have no desire or intention of lending myself to any scheme of that sort. This is a Tenancy Bill, and it is quite impossible to draft a system of purchase on it. For that reason, strongly as I believe in compulsory purchase, I shall still vote with a good conscience for the Amendment.
Mr. BAIRD: There appears to be a great variety of reasons which induce hon. Gentlemen opposite to take one view or another on this Amendment. The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs objects to the principle embodied in it. It seems extraordinary that it should be right to give State money to enable a man to build a house on the land, and that it should be wrong to give State money to enable him to own the land, without which the house is perfectly useless. That, I take it, is the principle advocated by the hon. Member for Wick. Then another hon. Member is quite content if the principle of compulsion is applied to private land to be sold at a fair price. I do not know what he calls a fair price. I should say the market price of land is fair, as is the market price in the case of any other commodity fair. There is any amount of land in the market at the present day. Half Scotland is practically for sale, and there are no buyers. There is any amount of land in Scotland for which no single buyer is forthcoming. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is it?"] All over the country. I do not know whether the strict attention of the hon. Member to his duties here has prevented him knowing what is going on in Scotland, otherwise he would be well aware of the vast number of estates up for sale. But one must go a little deeper for the reasons which inspire hon. Members opposite. According to their lights—they are sound enough—they hope that the tenants will get the land for nothing. That being so, is it not ridiculous not to put in a provision to enable them to get it at a fair price or any other price?
8.0 P.M.
It does seem an extraordinary thing that you have people leaving Scotland and going to a new country where there is a kind of tenure in existence such as is proposed to be set up in this Bill, and where the first object of a man is to endeavour to get his own bit of land. If you want
1352
to keep people in this country, surely it is advisable to enable them to own a bit of soil in their own country. Why make them go to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or any other Colony in order to get a bit of land. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They get it for nothing."] Of course if they are content to go to the backwoods and put up their own houses they may get a bit of land for nothing. But that is not the way in which emigrants ordinarily go about the business. There is always land to be found for sale near the railways in nearly all our great Colonies, and people leave Scotland in order to try and acquire some of those holdings. Why should they not have an opportunity of doing so in Scotland itself? That is a matter well worth discussing. To say that nobody desires to buy land in Scotland, and that it is right to advance the money to build houses, but wrong to make it possible that State money should be advanced in order that land should be purchased, and ownership extended, is a curious kind of argument. There is another question which is fundamental; that is the difference between the crofting system and the system that obtains in the Lowlands. A great part of Scotland in the crofting district has been deserted by the lairds or rented by some wealthy southerner who, by hiring the crofters as gillies, enables them to eke out a living there. To such men their estates are absolute toys and nothing else. To maintain that the crofter desires in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred to own his own land is ridiculous. It is his own, so long as he pays no rent and somebody else buys his house for him. There are other parts of Scotland where that does not obtain, where the claim is better, and where everybody is agreed as to the necessity of increasing the number of holdings, whether of occupiers or of tenants, and where it is desirable to have more men on the land. But why the hon. Members opposite should say that although there is a number of these people who desire to take tenancies and rent land there is nobody who desires to buy, I cannot understand, except on the principle that they have been going about the country—whether they have been misreported or not I do not know—but the impressions their speeches have given to their hearers was that if only they were sufficiently supported by the votes of those people in due course the laird will disappear and the land will belong to the people. That is the crude

1353
notion they have been spreading. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] You have said the laird is disappearing. Is that the object of the Bill? Is that what the hon. Member desires? Is this a Bill to kill the lairds or to help the people?
Mr. MACPHERSON: Your system of purchasing would make every person a laird.
Mr. BAIRD: It is not an Amendment to make every person a laird, but to enable advances to be made where there is proper security and a desire to purchase. You have done it in Ireland, and it has been a wonderful success. This is a conditional Clause. There is no ground for opposing it except with the object of securing that present occupants shall get the land not at a fair rent, or at a fair price, but for nothing. Your refusal to put in this Clause throws away your case, and shows that you have not the real interest of Scotchmen at heart, because you will not give them the chance of doing in their own country what they can do in Canada, Australia, and every civilised country under the sun.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I rather feel with my hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) that there is not much interest in this Amendment, because although I am, and always have been, in favour of giving facilities for purchasing land, I do not see that this Amendment does it. It goes such a little way and deals with a fund which is otherwise appropriated under the Bill. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Cowan) says this is a tenancy Bill, and that it makes no provision whatever for purchase by a holding tenant. I should like to have seen some such provision made, but unfortunately the feeling of the majority of Members from the north is against it. We are told there is no desire whatever for a tenant owning his holding. I challenge that statement entirely. I will take the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire. He made it a distinct plank in his election address. He spoke of it frequently at many, many meetings, as I did myself, and yet he was returned to the House with one of the best majorities of any Scottish Member. I am quite certain that there is such a desire. I do not say that it is widespread, and I do not say that if a man can get fixity of tenure, at a fair rent, and all this assistance, that he may care for purchase. But there is something in the feeling of ownership
1354
which makes a man put more into a house or land than he would otherwise do as a tenant. The instances that were cited in favour of that are Ireland, Denmark, and France, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro) said that there were an enormous number of mortgage sales in Denmark and France. The obvious answer to that is, that if a man cannot as an owner make a holding pay, surely there is less chance of his being able to make it pay as a tenant. The retort to it is that in Ireland there are hardly any arrears of the instalments due from the tenants.
I know that there is a feeling amongst certain Members on this side of the House that nobody should own land at all, that it is a sort of immoral purchase, and that they treat the principle of Scotch small ownership accordingly. Yet the very same people who object to that voted millions of the country's money to establish the same thing in Ireland. Why is it so good for Ireland and so bad for Scotland? We have been told that Ireland is prospering and that Ireland is going to go ahead, even of Scotland, and I believe that the co-operative system and the way that they work on their holdings will make it very likely that they will, unless we get on and get the same privileges that they have. I have never seen any reason why we should not have the same facilities in Scotland as they have in Ireland. I know there is a very strong feeling among Scottish Members, particularly among those who represent the towns, and who do not know much about agricultural matters, that if they could keep the number of landlords few it would be easier to deal with them. This Amendment does not really touch the question at all. If you want to enable purchase to be carried out under this Bill it will be necessary to recast the Bill entirely. The Bill allocates £200,000 for the purpose of building dwelling houses and other buildings, and I do not see that by this Amendment you provide any money for the purpose of purchase, and therefore I do not believe there is any interest in it.
Mr. MALCOLM: Unlike the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I take considerable interest in this new Clause. I do not know what has come over my fellow countrymen. I always understood they were not inclined to look a gift-horse in the mouth. Here is a gift-horse, and yet many of them have looked it in the mouth. I agree that under one of the Clauses there

1355
is not nearly enough money to establish voluntary purchase on a large scale. But it is my experience, seeing how you dealt with Irish land purchase, that once you establish the principle of voluntary purchase, it does not much matter how large the sum of money is to be, because you can always apply a certain form of pressure with which the Treasury is familiar, and that pressure will enable the amount granted to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund to be largely increased. I cannot conceive why it should be a party question as to whether or not we should vote for this Amendment. I think it is of paramount importance that where we can for our own country we should try to get this system of optional purchase into the Bill. I understand from many of those who have spoken that there is no desire for voluntary purchase in Scotland. That is certainly not my own experience, either in the south or west, and I do resent it when I am told that the Members from the North do not desire it. Those who live in the west and south do not see why they should be dragooned by the Gentlemen from the north, who do not desire purchase, who live under a much more favourable tenancy than those who live in the south or west and are not technically known as crofters. Land hunger I do not think there is in the sense that it is so well known in Ireland, yet there is a seaboard which approximates to that of Ireland. I think the people there would be appeased if the system of optional land purchase were agreed upon as proposed in this Clause. I can speak from considerable experience in Ireland as to the extraordinary results upon the morale and material prosperity of the people who have purchased their holdings owing to the extraordinary generosity of the British Treasury. I should like similar treatment to be meted out to tenant farmers in Scotland and in England. There seems to be no question of principle. Several hon. Gentlemen have really held up their hands in horror against this Clause as though it were a matter of principle in giving public money for voluntary purchase. No such thing. We have already spent £105,000,000 of the British taxpayers' money in purchasing holdings in Ireland. If the security is good in Ireland I think it would be better in England and in Scotland, and I am perfectly convinced that what one hon. Member said is true, that you can get far better work and far more contentment out of a man who owns his own bit of land than
1356
you will out of a tenant farmer, however secure he may be in his tenure. Therefore, although I admit that at present there is not enough money in the Scottish Agricultural funds to carry on purchase for a very long period, or to a very large extent, still I think it is immensely important to allow this principle to go into the Bill and squeeze the Treasury hereafter, and then I think if party spirit could be put aside on this important point we should have done a very good day's work for Scotland.
Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Malcolm) said no principle was involved in this Amendment. The principle is not the question of purchase or of leasehold, but whether State funds shall be provided for purchase, and invariably the result of providing State funds for the purchase of land has been to raise the price. The price has been raised by six years' purchase in Ireland alone. The result in the Colonies has been that the price of land has gone up by leaps and bounds in spite of an impartial tribunal presiding over decisions as to land values. The principle is that if you bring in an unlimited purse for the purchase of land without pressing the land into sale, the price of the land goes up. Hon. Members opposite have extolled private ownership in land. I heartily concur. I believe there is nothing so good for the land as to be owned by a man who has to make a living out of it, but, on the other hand, there is nothing so good for a man as to have sufficient land, but only sufficient, to make a living out of it. I believe in private ownership. When a man owns land he will do more for it than if he leases it. He will tend it better, and fence and drain and weed it and maintain its nutritive properties infinitely better if he owns it. But how are you to get the people to own land since the land is now in the hands of the few, when it is wanted and needed by the many? You can persuade a man to sell his land in two different ways. One is by offering a high price for it. If he will not take £10 an acre for it give him £20. If he will not take £20 give him £30, and if he will not take £30 give him £40. You can persuade anyone to sell if you offer him a high enough price. On the other hand, you can persuade him to sell by putting on a graduated system of taxation, so that he cannot afford to hold it in idleness. The evil is not land monopoly in

1357
itself, but land idleness, and it is because land monopoly leads to land idleness that we oppose land monopoly.
You may, on the other hand, compel him to sell by a system of compulsory purchase. I believe you have no right whatever to use State funds for the purchase of land from one man to give it to another, unless, concurrently with that, you have a system of graduated land taxation. If you have not that system of land taxation you have nothing to induce a man to sell. You can compel him to sell by law, and set up an impartial tribunal, as is done in Australia and New Zealand, but this impartial tribunal has been guided in its decisions by the general upward trend in land values, and they have invariably given their decisions according to that gradual rise, and thus they have not been able to keep down the price of land to a normal limit. Consequently more has been given for the land than it was worth. More has been given in Ireland to-day than it is worth, because you have placed at the disposal of the Irish people an unlimited purse, and on the other hand you have not pressed land into sale. The hon. Member (Mr. Munro) is against small ownership in land on the ground that it almost invariably becomes mortgaged and very often there is a large number of sales. If a man cannot pay his interest on his mortgage he cannot pay his rent, if it is leasehold. It is as a rule easier to pay interest on a mortgage than to pay ordinary rent, so that he loses in either case. He is sold up if it is mortgaged, or he is evicted if it is leased. Therefore I consider the fact that a man mortgages his land is no objection whatever to private ownership in small areas.
I believe the ideal for an agricultural country is to have a maximum number of land users consistent with a man having no more than he can use effectively and economically. In that way you get all the land into use and you get its best use and its maximum productivity, and therefore the maximum increase of the national wealth, but the question is how you can bring about that small ownership. It is a bad bargain for the State to supply unlimited funds for that purpose. In New Zealand they have called a halt. The resources of that Colony have been taxed in order to supply an enormous amount of money for the purchase of land because of this tendency to increase in price, and during recent years in New Zealand and Australia they have greatly limited the
1358
State purchase of land and the provision of State funds and, instead, they have put on an enormous increase in the graduated tax, so that if a man has 5,000 or 10,000, or 100,000 acres of land in comparative idleness, he is induced by the pressure of the tax to become a small holdings commissioner himself. He goes about and looks for people to use his land, and he reduces the area to that upon which he thinks he can pay the tax. It may be 10,000 acres or 5,000 acres—it depends on its value. He cuts the land up into small holdings, and makes it available at the price which people can afford to pay. The price then becomes a normal economic price which the user can pay when he puts it to its best use. I believe in the purchase of land and in small holdings, but I believe we should not place State funds at the disposal of those who want land until first of all we have a system of graduated taxation of land values by which we can bring the land into the market at its use value.
Mr. J. WARD: The argument has been used with reference to Ireland as though it were applicable to the case under discussion to-day. I do not think land purchase in Ireland has had a fair trial yet. I know there were men who were quite as sympathetic to Ireland as anyone can De imagined to be in the House now, who were utterly opposed to the policy, and prophesied that after a fair trial its advantages might not be so apparent as they seem to be at present. Mr. Michael Davitt himself opposed the scheme from beginning to end, believing that, sooner or later, it would end, as peasant proprietorship has ended in many other countries, in not altogether the best system of land cultivation and ownership which could be devised. It is assumed that the Amendment is put forward officially by the Conservative party as their policy relating to land. I understand that the Amendment is moved by at least the Scottish section of the Conservative party as their solution of the land problem in Scotland.
Sir G. YOUNGER: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for interrupting, I would point out that it is merely to give another option to the Commission in dealing with the money. You cannot in a Bill like this adumbrate schemes.
Mr. J. WARD: At any rate, the principle of it is the same, whether you attempt

1359
it on a small scale or not. Once you adopt the principle of using State funds for the purpose of creating small ownerships, I should say that you would be obliged to extend the principle, and the question we have to consider is whether this is a correct principle. I remember attending the Industrial Remuneration Conference when I was a youngster of nineteen, and just beginning to think of public affairs. I remember hearing a paper read at the conference by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) on some of the systems of land tenure. I hope that somewhere among my papers I will be able to find the paper which he read. He took the whole of the land systems of Europe particularly, and dealt with them. He dealt with the establishment of peasant proprietorships in France, and pointed out that while they were largely instituted with the idea of people getting away from a system of oppression in the shape of great landlords, they had resulted as a matter of fact in a much more awkward system of ownership for the tenants themselves. He referred to the number of proprietorships that went into the market every year, and he wound up by pointing out the disadvantages of small ownership as compared with small holderships, the two principles being entirely in opposition to each other. He declared at that conference that of the systems of land tenure there were in the country peasant proprietorship was the most horrible form of tyranny you could impose upon an agrarian population. I do not know whether he holds that view now. I hope I may be able to rake up the actual paper he read. I was wondering if the view of the Conservative party had been reversed in relation to this proposition—whether they had altered their tactics from what they were years ago. In that paper the right hon. Gentleman was only following out the expressed policy of the Conservative party relating to this matter which is now before the House. It is well known that at the same time the late Lord Salisbury, then Leader of the Conservative party, went to Newport and delivered one of the most violent speeches against this proposal which is now before the House that has ever been delivered by a prominent statesman. I cannot understand why this Amendment has been brought forward to-day unless we are to take it for granted that the Conservative party on this, as on many other matters, have entirely altered their position.
Captain GILMOUR: I wish to say a few words in regard to this Clause, which I heartily support. I think it is quite evident that those hon. Members who are refusing to listen to the proposal are refusing to give to the agriculturists of Scotland, and particularly small agriculturists, that right which all other Scotchmen look upon as part of their heritage. I venture to say that there is no country where the desire to own their own property in the shape of a piece of land has been more strong than in Scotland. I know that there are in most counties in Scotland a certain number of men who are very desirous of becoming actual owners rather than tenants. The reason why this Amendment is proposed is perfectly evident. It is quite clear that, owing to the manner in which this measure was drafted originally, it would be impossible for us to graft upon it a thorough system of land purchase. Speaking for myself and some of my friends, and also for my Leader, I have to say that there are those of us on this side at least who would have earnestly desired, if the opportunity had been given in this measure, to support a larger, more extensive policy of purchase. I believe myself that this is a thing which the House of Commons has no right to withhold from the people of Scotland. After all, all that we are proposing is that on certain conditions, and in a very limited manner, men who are tilling the soil, and who have a desire, as is evidenced by the fact that many are going to other countries, to become proprietors, should have the opportunity of doing so.
In every great city there are innumerable men who make a little money in their ordinary business, and who, as one sees every day, on coming out from that city purchase, if possible, a portion of land, be it ever so small. That feeling which animates those men, and which is carried out in practice, is a feeling which is in the minds of many agriculturists, and I think that hon. Members are denying to the people of Scotland that which undoubtedly we have granted to the agriculturists of Ireland. Whatever hon. Members may think as to the success or failure of the Irish scheme, it is quite clear that the Irish people and the Irish peasants are only too willing to take advantage of it, judging from the amount of money which is being spent by the Imperial Treasury. I wish to say something in regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple). The ideal of some hon. Members on the

1361
Government side of the House as to what should be regarded as progress in the agriculture of Scotland is indeed a curious one. According to hon. Members opposite men are only to hold sufficient land on which to make a living. On what basis does the hon. Member for Stirlingshire work? According to him the only measure of land that a man ought to hold is a small holding. That is to say, no man in Scotland is to have an opportunity of improving his position.
Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. Member is not representing correctly what I said. I said the State's ideal is to have the maximum number of men using areas of land, that they can put it to the best use.
Captain GILMOUR: I cannot see where I am doing the hon. Member an injustice. It is quite clear that the ideal set up is that which hon. Members are endeavouring to carry out in this Bill, namely, a system of small holderships. They are going to give the agriculturists of Scotland the great benefit of having a portion of land on which they can make a living. Therefore it seems to me they are forgetting altogether that in agriculture, as in everything else, there must be graduation. If hon. Members on the other side of the House are going to lay down that no agriculturist in Scotland is to have an opportunity of becoming owner of the soil, and not only that, but is not to have the advantage of going from a small holding to a large holding, where he may make progress in connection with the husbandry of his country, then I say that you are inflicting a grievous wrong on the agriculturists of Scotland, and I think it is high time that a protest was made.
Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: The real objection to this proposal is that taken in connection with the other proposals in the Bill, if you once introduce the principle of purchase at the cost of the State you will inevitably tend to ruin, as the purchase Acts in Ireland have ruined, the operation of what has been called improperly a dual system of ownership. Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1881 never had a chance, because the subsequent Acts of Lord Ashbourne and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) destroyed the operation of Mr. Gladstone's Act. Similarly, if you have voluntary purchase at the expense of the State, as proposed by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, you will tend eventually to destroy the operation of the other Clauses of this Act. That is the real objection that the people of Scotland have. They feel that if you once embark upon this system of purchase at the cost of the State we shall get upon a landslide which may end in a demand for enormous sums of money, such as the Irish land purchase scheme has instituted. I was surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen who spoke on the other side talk quite gaily of the desirability of having for Scotland a scheme such as is now in operation in Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always talking about the price of Consols. They do not seem to consider what the price of Consols would be if we had on top of the £200,000,000 which will eventually have to be issued, another £200,000,000 for Scotland, and perhaps £700,000,000 or £800,000,000 for England.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 88: Noes, 148.

Division No. 367.]

AYES.

[8.40 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Clyde, J. Avon

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Courthope, George Loyd

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Hunt, Rowland

Astor, Waldorf

Craik, Sir Henry

Hunter, Sir Charles (Bath)

Baird, John Lawrence

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Balcarres, Lord

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Baldwin, Stanley

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Barnston, H.

Eyres-Monsell (Bolton, M.)

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Barrie, H. T.

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

Fleming, Valentine

Macmaster, Donald

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Foster, Philip Staveley

Malcolm, Ian

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Gardner, Ernest

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Bird, A.

Gilmour, Captain J.

Mount, William Arthur

Boyton, James

Goldman, C. S.

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Grant, J. A.

Newman, John R. P.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Gretton, John

Nield, Herbert

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Campion, W. R.

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Perkins, Walter Frank

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Peto, Basil Edward

Cassel, Felix

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Cator, John

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cave, George

Hills, John Waller

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Whyte, A. F.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Touche, George Alexander

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Stanier, Beville

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

G. Younger and the Marquess of Tullibardine

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Welgall, Capt. A. G.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Wheler, Granville C. H.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

O'Dowd, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gulland, John William

O'Grady, James

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hackett, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barnes, G. N.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brady, P. J.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Brocklehurst, William B.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Brunner, John F. L.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayden, John Patrick

Radford, G. H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Helme, Norval Watson

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Higham, John Sharp

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Clancy, John Joseph

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clough, William

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rowlands, James

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rowntree, Arnold

Cowan, W. H.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Crumley, Patrick

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

Scanlan, Thomas

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Joyce, Michael

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Keating, Matthew

Sherwell, Arthur James

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Dawes, J. A.

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Snowden, P.

Devlin, Joseph

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Dillon, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Donelan, Capt. A.

Logan, John William

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Doris, William

Lundon, Thomas

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Duffy, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

McGhee, Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Watt, Henry A.

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Webb, H.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

M'Callum, John M.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Wiles, Thomas

Falconer, James

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Wilkie, Alexander

Farrell, James Patrick

Meagher, Michael

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Ffrench, Peter

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Field, William

Millar, James Duncan

Young, William (Perth, East)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Mooney, John J.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Goldstone, Frank

Munro, Robert

Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn

Greig, Colonel James William

Nolan, Joseph

Mr. CLYDE: I beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:
Voluntary Agreements.
Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or in any way affect the right of any owner of land, which is not a holding held by a landholder, other than a new holder, or by a statutory small tenant within the meaning of this Act, to constitute and equip the same of whatever extent for the purposes of an agricultural holding, and to let the same to any other person at such rent, for such period, and on such terms and conditions as may be
1364
agreed on between them, and none of the provisions of this Act shall, except by the joint consent of such owner and such other person, apply to such holding.
The purpose of the Clause was to make it possible for the proprietor in Scotland, notwithstanding the passage of this Bill, on his own land to equip and let to the smallholder, a smallholding on terms to be voluntarily agreed. In other words, it was to save the possibility in future of a voluntary bargain, which, as the Bill stands, is impossible. It is fair to say that as the Clause was drawn it went further

1365
than the object for which it was put on the Paper. The words in the last portion of the Clause are, "none of the provisions of this Act shall, except by the joint consent of such owner and tenant, apply to such holdings" voluntarily constituted by the landlord at his own expense on his own land, and I propose to qualify the words in this way—"none of the provisions of this Act, with the exception of those relating to the circumstances of new holdings." This would save and leave open, in the case of holdings made in future of more than fifty acres in extent, the possibility of such an interference with a holding under the general scheme, and for the purpose of breaking it up into smaller holdings for smallholders. I do not know whether it will be necessary to press this Clause in order to save the possibility of free bargaining in the future. I understand from a hint which the Lord Advocate gave me a few minutes ago that he intends to alter the Bill in other respects in such a way as will remove every such voluntary holding in future from the tentacles of the Bill, and I understand he proposes to delete Sub-section (4) of Clause 33. If the Lord Advocate tells me that he is going to delete Sub-section (4) of Clause 33, so far as I can see, the purpose I have in view will be met, because such voluntarily created holdings in the future will be free. If the Lord Advocate tells me he is going to delete the Sub-section to which I have referred, I shall not press my proposal.
Mr. URE: I cannot accept the Clause which stands on the Paper, though I quite understand the object which my hon. Friend has in view. He desires that voluntary bargains between landlord and tenant should be untouched by this Bill. They are untouched by the Bill, and I intend them to be untouched by the Bill, under 150 acres. Of course, if large tracts are taken and large farms are constituted over 150 acres, it would never do to say that they must be for ever outside the purports of the Bill. I give the undertaking to delete Sub-section (4) of Clause 33, which is one that creates some difficulty, and then there will be found sufficient protection under the provisions of Clause 32.
Mr. CLYDE: In view of what the Lord Advocate has said, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. HARRY HOPE: I beg to move, that the following new Clause be read a second time:—
Compensation to be fixed by Arbitration.
Where under the seventh and seventeenth Sections of this Act the Land Court are authorised to fix and determine any sum payable to landlord or tenant in name of compensation or for damage or injury, or where the Land Court are authorised under any provision of the Landholders' Acts to fix and determine the abatement of rent to be allowed to the tenant in respect of land taken to constitute one or more new holdings, it shall be lawful, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the said Acts, for the landlord or the tenant concerned to require that the sum payable or the abatement to be allowed shall be fixed and determined not by the Land Court but by arbitration, in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act of 1908, the Land Court being substituted for the Board in said Schedule, and where in terms of that Schedule a person is appointed as arbiter for such purpose by the Land Court his award shall come in place of a decision or determination of the Land Court on any claim or question to which it lawfully relates, and his remuneration and expenses shall be paid by the Land Court: Provided that such arbiter shall be chosen from a list to be drawn up and revised from time to time by the Land Court, with the advice and assistance of the advisory council, of persons possessing practical knowledge of the agricultural conditions of the county in which they reside and having experience in arbitrations, the list to consist, if possible, of not less than five persons from each county.
This Clause deals with a very important proposal in the Bill, which empowers the Land Court to create small holdings. The Bill also makes the Land Court the body which has to fix the amount to be paid for these small holdings. By that procedure the Land Court is both made the judge as to the compensation to be paid and the Court which is to create the holding. Such a proposal is not consistent with the ordinary ideas of justice or equity. We can all recognise that the success of this small holdings movement will depend upon the price at which a smallholder is put in. If the smallholder is to make a success of his holding he must be put in at a bed rock price. When it is the Land Court that creates the holding, and when they have so

1367
much at stake, surely some other impartial tribunal should fix the amount to be paid for the holding. That is the meaning of this new Clause, and I cannot but think that the substitution of another tribunal for the Land Court to fix the price will rather tend to increase confidence in the doings of the Land Court, and will enable the Bill to be approved of more generally in the country. I submit this proposal in no spirit of political partisanship at all, but merely that the fixing of the sum to be paid should not be done by the same body which creates the holding. I think it is only fair that it should be done by another body.
Captain GILMOUR: I beg to second the Motion. So far as I am concerned, I see no justice in the present arrangement of the Bill, unless there is some addition of this nature. It is only common fairness to the industry of agriculture and to the proprietors of the soil that some other means should be taken of fixing the amount of the payment rather than that it should be left to the Land Court, and I think this new Clause which my hon. Friend has moved is well deserving, not only of the attention of Members of the Government, but of hon. Members on the other side.
Mr. URE: I am afraid I cannot accept the proposal of the hon. Member. I am setting up in this Bill an impartial tribunal for the purpose of deciding the very question which he proposes to withdraw and to submit to, I think, an inferior tribunal. It is an entire misapprehension to suppose that in deciding the question of compensation the Land Court is deciding its own cause, or that there is any reason whatever to apprehend that it will act unfairly in fixing the amount of compensation. Hon. Members must recollect that we are setting up a Land Court for the very purpose of securing an impartial tribunal. We are not leaving the Members of the Board of Agriculture to decide the question of compensation. The Board of
Agriculture has in the first place to consider and decide the question whether or not the land is to be acquired compulsorily, and it is only after they fail to make an arrangement that the Board of Agriculture go before the Land Court and ask the Land Court to decide as between them and the landlord. The Land Court is a purely judicial function and it would be a sorry thing if, when we take the trouble to set up a judicial tribunal for the purpose of securing impartiality, we should straight away proceed to set it aside and substitute another and less satisfactory tribunal for the purpose of deciding the very question it was to decide. It is because we desire to secure an impartial tribunal that we are setting up the Land Court to decide when any dispute or difference arises.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I understand now that on the Land Court we will have a gentleman of legal knowledge, and that a gentleman of very high legal knowledge and attainments will be in charge of it. The Lord Advocate himself said that the last person he could possibly trust to be an impartial judge in those matters was a judge. I understand now we are to have a judge, a member of the Court of Session. But this impartial Land Court is to be nominated by the originator or promoter of this Bill, though I believe he will try to be as impartial as he can, he certainly will not be above suspicion in the eyes of the more prejudiced, shall I say, farmers in Scotland. I do not think it can possibly be looked on as absolutely impartial. What the people I are asking is exactly the same thing for which some of our Friends below the Gangway are asking—representation, and no doubt we shall have the Labour party voting with the Government on this Amendment, which is exactly contrary to what they are asking for.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 147.

Division No. 368]

AYES.

[8.58 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Courthope, G. Loyd

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Bird, Alfred

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Boyton, James

Dalrymple, Viscount

Astor, Waldorf

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Baird, John Lawrence

Burn, Col. C. R.

Dixon, C. H.

Balcarres, Lord

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Baldwin, Stanley

Campion, W. R.

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

Barnston, H.

Cassel, Felix

Fleming, Valentine

Barrie, H. T.

Cator, John

Foster, Philip Staveley

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Cave, George

Gardner, Ernest

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Clyde, James Avon

Goldman, C. S.

Grant, J. A.

Macmaster, Donald

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Gretton, John

Malcolm, Ian

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Hamersley, A. St. George

Mount, William Arthur

Touche, George Alexander

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Newman, John R. P.

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Perkins, Walter F.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Hills, J. W.

Peto, Basil Edward

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Hunt, Rowland

Pretyman, E. G.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Kerry, Earl of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Younger, Sir George

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Stanier, Beville

Mr. H. Hope and Captain Gilmour.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Munro, Robert

Acland, Francis Dyke

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gulland, John W.

Nolan, Joseph

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hackett, J.

O'Dowd, John

Barnes, George N.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Grady, James

Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Brady, P. J.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brunner, John F. L.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bryce, John Annan

Hayden, John Patrick

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Radford, G. H.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Higham, John Sharp

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Clancy, John Joseph

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Clough, William

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rowlands, James

Cowan, William Henry

Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

Rowntree, Arnold

Crumley, Patrick

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Joyce, Michael

Scanlan, Thomas

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Keating, M.

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dawes, J. A.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Devlin, Joseph

Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Dillon, John

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Doris, William

Logan, John William

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Duffy, William J.

Lundon, T.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

McGhee, Richard

Watt, Henry A.

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. J. T.

Webb, H.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macpherson, James Ian

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

M'Callum, John M.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Falconer, J.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Wiles, Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Wilkie, Alexander

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Meagher, Michael

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ffrench, Peter

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Field, William

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Millar, James Duncan

Young, William (Perth, East)

Gibson, Sir James P.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Mooney, John J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Goldstone, Frank

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Mr. Illingworth and Captain Guest.

Question, "That those words be added to the Clause," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Who to be Landholders.)
(1) In the Crofters Acts and this Act (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Landholders Acts) the word "holding" means and includes—

(i) As from the commencement of this Act, every holding which at the commencement of this Act is held by
1370
a crofter to whom in respect of such holding the Act of 1886 applies (hereinafter referred to as an existing crofter);

(ii) As from the commencement of this Act, and subject as hereinafter provided, every holding which at the commencement of this Act is held by

1371
a tenant from year to year who resides on or within two miles from the holding, and by himself or his family cultivates the holding with or without hired labour (hereinafter referred to as an existing yearly tenant);

(iii.) As from the termination of the lease and subject as hereinafter provided, every holding which at the commencement of this Act is held under a lease for a term longer than one year by a tenant who resides on or within two miles from the holding, and by himself or his family cultivates the holding with or without hired labour (such tenant, or his heir or successor, as the case may be, holding under the lease at the termination thereof being hereinafter referred to as a qualified leaseholder):

Provided that such tenant from year to year or leaseholder—

(a) shall be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder within the meaning of this Section in every case where it is agreed between the landlord and tenant or leaseholder, or in the event of dispute proved to the satisfaction of the Land Court, that such tenant or leaseholder or his predecessor in the same family has provided or paid for the whole or the greater part of the buildings or other permanent improvements on the holding without receiving from the landlord or any predecessor in title payment or fair consideration therefor; and

(b) in every other case shall not be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder within the meaning of this Section, but shall in respect of the holding be subject to the provisions of this Act regarding statutory small tenants as from the date at which he is registered as a statutory small tenant;

(iv.) As from the date of registration, every holding which is constituted by the registration of an applicant in respect thereof on his application under the provisions of this Act respecting the constitution of new holdings (hereinafter referred to as a new holder).
(2) In the Landholders Acts the word "landholder" means and includes, as from the respective dates above mentioned,
1372
every existing crofter, every existing yearly tenant, every qualified leaseholder, and every new holder, and the successors of every such person in the holding being his heirs or legatees.
Mr. BRYCE(who had given notice of an Amendment, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (ii.), to leave out the words "and subject as hereinafter provided"):
My object in putting forward this Amendment is simply to call attention to the very curious proceedings in connection with this Bill. The Bill is not at all the Bill which left the House on Second Reading. It has been totally changed. In so far as it affects smallholders, it was at one time a Bill applying to the whole of Scotland. Now it applies in a totally different form. The House of Commons, apart from the Grand Committee, has no idea of what the present Bill is. The Government have acted in a very odd manner with regard to the measure. It was Lord Pentland's Bill; it passed through the House of Commons twice, and was sent up to the House of Lords, where it was twice rejected.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I do not see how that is relevant to the Amendment.
Mr. BRYCE: If there was another opportunity of alluding to these circumstances I should be happy to take it. However, in obedience to your ruling, I will endeavour to find another opportunity of referring to the very curious proceedings of the Government in this matter, and will now speak only about the particular changes which have been effected. It was an essential part of the original Bill that the same principle should be applied to all parts of Scotland. That was the original foundation of the Bill as outlined by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, and we have never been able to understand why that principle was departed from. We shall be glad to hear from the Lord Advocate what has induced him to depart from the advocacy which he always gave to the principles of the Bill, which he used to say were perfect and wanted no alteration. If they wanted no alteration I cannot understand why he has altered them as they have been altered. The Bill, as it now stands, is being accepted by Scotland in a kind of sullen acquiescence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has not been welcomed by the supporters of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes, it has."] My information is different; I shall be

1373
glad to hear from other hon. Members that their experience is not the same as mine. In my part of the country there is a sullen acquiescence in the Bill, and I believe that the Government will suffer very seriously if they proceed with the compromise. I shall not press this Amendment to a Division, as under the circumstances there is no hope of getting sufficient support to make it worth while. I wished simply to call attention to the extraordinary circumstances which have distinguished the conduct of this Bill, and I will not move the Amendment.
Mr. MORTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (ii), to insert the words:
"Any leaseholder who by himself or his family has provided the buildings or equipment on his holding shall be a qualified leaseholder from the commencement of this Act."
On a former occasion the Grand Committee passed a proposal similar to this, but by some wicked influence the House was induced to strike it out. It was, however, such a good Clause that even a number of Tory Members voted for it in Grand Committee. I shall be glad to know why the Lord Advocate opposes the proposal now. In order to get at the opinion of the Lord Advocate, and with a view to doing justice to those who have made their improvements themselves, I beg to move.
Mr. COWAN: In seconding the Amendment, I do not think it necessary to add anything to the lucid exposition given by the mover. It seems reasonable that where leaseholders have to provide buildings they should be treated as having a permanent interest in the holding.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Hunter): It is quite evident that this Amendment cannot be accepted, because it will be seen from the wording of the Clause that you are dealing with a holding, and the effect of the introduction of the Amendment would be to define a holding as a leaseholder. It would render the Clause more or less nonsensical. In any event, the question of exceptions is fully dealt with under subsequent provisions.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. URE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (iii.) (a), after the word "shall," ["shall be held an existing yearly
1374
tenant"] to insert the words, "unless disqualified under Section 26 of this Act." There are a great number of exceptions under Clause 26, and we desire that it shall apply to the case of the qualified leaseholder.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (iii.) (a), after the word "held," ["shall be held"] to insert the words "as from the date of registration."
I do not propose to move this as it stands, as I am afraid it is not complete. There are other words required in order to make the Clause operative. The form in which I propose to move the Amendment is this: to add after the word "held" ["shall be held"] the words "as from the date of registration, application for which may be made by either the landlord or tenant or leaseholder to the Land Court which shall dispose of such application as they think fit."
The reason for moving these words is that we think it desirable that the question of whether a holding is a holding under the Statute should be determined definitely at as early a period as possible. The matter should not be allowed to hang over to an indefinite period. The result of the words would be that the constitution of the holding would only date from the registration and that every landholder, landlord or tenant would apply at once to the Court, and his application would be determined by the Court. An end, therefore, would be put to the period of indefiniteness, and all parties would know at once whether this or that piece of ground was or was not a holding in the sense of the Statute.
Mr. URE: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, and for this reason: There is no register provided for in this Bill except for new holders. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that after a long discussion in Committee about this matter, as to who should take the initiative in getting proof, we ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no necessity for anyone to take the initiative or for any register to be provided. There will be no period of indefiniteness. If a man is a statutory leaseholder he is; if a landlord he is, and nobody will dispute either fact. If any difficulty should arise I will make proposals to deal with it summarily.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In the interests of the leaseholder as well as that of the landholder this Amendment seems desirable, and we ought to see that justice is done. A man may be a tenant for a time and may have made improvements; or it may be that some of his predecessors have made improvements. The burden of proof that is cast upon him may be very difficult to carry out. If we have this registration no difficulty at all will arise. It is a comparatively small point, but not an unimportant one.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: It is not very difficult for the landlord to say what repairs have been done, but the longer it is put off the more difficult it is for the tenant or his successors to say what improvements really have been made. The sooner you get the matter registered, the better it will be for the people whom we are supposed to be benefiting at the present moment.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (iii.) (b), after the word "shall" ["but shall in respect"], insert the words "unless disqualified under Section 26 of this Act,"—[Mr. Ure.]
In Sub-section (1), paragraph (iii.), (b), leave out the words "as from the date at which he is registered as a statutory small tenant,"—[Mr. Ure.]
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: My Amendment is to add to Sub-section (2) the words,
(3) In the application of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts to a holding under this Act the expression "lessee" in Section 4 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1895, shall include a landholder in the same way as if a landholder were a lessee holding under a lease or agreement, the stipulated duration of which is twenty-one years or under from the date of entry under the same.
I understand that the Lord Advocate would prefer this Amendment to come on later and to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, so I will not move it now.
Mr. URE: Yes, that is so. I think the proper place for this Amendment is where it is moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I understand that he is prepared to move it in a slightly different form, which will give full effect to the intention he has in view.

CLAUSE 3.—(Constitution of Scottish Land Court.)
(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty, on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, at any time after the commencement of this Act, and from time to time as vacancies occur, to appoint not more than five persons, to be designated the Scottish Land Court (in this Act referred to as the Land Court) and to appoint one of such persons to be Chairman of the Court.
(2) One of the said persons (in this Act referred to as the legal member) shall be a person who at the date of his appointment shall be an advocate of the Scottish bar of not less than ten years' standing.
(3) One of the said persons shall be a person who can speak the Gaelic language.
(4) It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland to remove any member of the Land Court for inability or misbehaviour. Every order of removal shall state the reasons for which it is made, and no such order shall come into operation until it has lain before both Houses of Parliament for not less than thirty days, nor if either House passes a resolution objecting to it.
(5) If and when the legal member is temporarily unable to attend, or his office is vacant, the Secretary for Scotland may appoint to act temporarily in his place any person having the qualification required for holding the office of legal member, and the person so appointed shall, during such inability or vacancy, have the same powers and perform the same duties as if he were the legal member.
(6) The Secretary for Scotland shall from time to time appoint a fit person to act as principal clerk to the Land Court.
(7) The Land Court may appoint or employ such assessors, surveyors, law agents, valuers, clerks, messengers, and other persons required for the due performance of their duties, as the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, may sanction.
(8) Any Crofters Commissioner or officer of the Crofters Commission in office at the commencement of this Act, who may not be appointed a member or an officer of the Land Court, shall receive such compensation as the Treasury may determine.
(9) There shall be paid to the Chairman of the Land Court a salary not exceeding two thousand pounds a year, and to each of the other members a salary not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year, and

1377
such salaries shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof.
(10) There shall be paid to each of the other persons appointed or employed under this section such salary or remuneration as the Treasury may sanction; and all such salaries and remuneration and the expenses of the Land Court incurred in the execution of their duties, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(11) The Land Court shall submit such estimates and keep such accounts of their receipts and expenditure, and their accounts shall be audited in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury may direct.
(12) It shall be lawful for the Land Court from time to time to make rules for conducting the business of the Court.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "One of the said persons (in this Act referred to as the legal member)," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Chairman."—[Mr. Ure.]
Mr. URE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to add the words, "and shall forthwith on his appointment have the same rank as if he had been appointed a judge of the Court of Session."
The intention of the Government is to give the Chairman of the Land Court high rank. The intention of the Government is to give the chairman a very high rank and position in the legal hierarchy of Scotland. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Will he be a peer?"] Peers will not be disqualified. The intention is to put the chairman much in the same position as the head of the Irish Land Commission: that is in a position of a judge of the High Court.
Sir G. YOUNGER: We have now reached a stage in our proceedings in which we are creating this new rank, which by the way, I thought used to be the prerogative of the Sovereign, and perhaps as we have reached that stage we might get some information about this chairman; this glorified official and his subordinates and satellites.
Mr. URE: I am afraid the convenient season is not yet reached.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I understand this Board was to be absolutely impartial, and that any
1378
Amendments to that effect need not be brought forward as they would be quite unnecessary. Here is the first attempt by giving a man the dignity of a peer and a law lord. I cannot really understand what is the reason for making the head of these five people a member of the Court of Sessions, with the rank of a judge of the Court of Sessions. The Lord Advocate complained a few moments ago that suggestions which had been made would inflict indignity upon him. Is it not really inflicting an indignity upon a judge of the Court of Sessions to make it necessary that the consent of the Sheriff of the county must be given before his acts can be carried out. His decisions will have to be signed by the Sheriff before being administered. I cannot see why that is necessary. If he is to receive this rank and dignity is it to carry a pension with it?
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: While the chairman is to have the same rank as a judge of the Court of Sessions, it seems to me he is not to have anything like the same salary.
Mr. GRETTON: Before this Amendment is passed I want to call attention to the fact that the Government is creating a new series of posts. They are setting up in Scotland new prizes for the legal profession. This seems to be the settled policy of this Government. They set up under every Bill a new army of officials, and create new posts and prizes for their followers and for others who may secure their favour. This occasion should not be allowed to pass without calling attention to the fact that this Bill is going to involve further expenditure of public money for the payment of high salaried officials, and to create a new train of Government followers.
Further Amendments made: In Subsection (5), leave out the words "legal member" ["If and when the legal member is temporarily unable to attend"], and insert instead thereof the word "chairman."—[Mr. Ure.]
In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "legal member" ["the office of legal member and"], and insert instead thereof the word "Chairman."—[Mr. Ure.]
In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "legal member" ["as if he were the legal

1379
member"], and insert instead thereof the word "chairman"—[Mr. Ure.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the Lord Advocate—to add, at the end of Subsection (9), the words, "The chairman shall have the same right to a retiring annuity proportionate to his salary, subject to the like conditions and incidents, as if he had been appointed a judge of the Court of Sessions, and every such annuity shall be charged and paid as aforesaid"—cannot be moved at this stage, as it creates a new charge.
Mr. URE: I presume that I should apply at the end of this Report stage to recommit the Bill in regard to this Amendment.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question cannot be raised now.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman bound to raise it now, and to move to have the Bill recommitted.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, it cannot be raised at this stage.
Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, to add at the end of Subjection (9) the words, "Every member of the Land Court shall devote his whole time to the duties of the said Court."
In view of the discussion which has taken place upon the Amendments in regard to the position of the new judge, this Amendment is all the more important. The Lord Advocate is creating a new judge of the Court of Sessions at a cheap rate. What we want to know is, is he going to supplement his payment by some other payment? It seems to us that this new position is a very important one and the remuneration is very substantial, and it is undesirable that the position here created should be held along with another position such, for instance, as that of sheriff. Perhaps the Lord Advocate would say that is not the intention, but if that is so there can be no harm in this Amendment. If it is intended that he should supplement his payment then we had better know the fact.
Mr. WATT: I have pleasure in seconding this Amendment. I think the principle involved is a good one. The probability is that these jobs will fall into that maw that gets the best jobs in Scotland, namely, the sheriffs and the sheriffs' substitutes, and if not to Members of Parliament. I think the only safety would be if these people all got jobs before this Bill passed. Seriously I think it wise that members of this
1380
Court should not have other posts from which they derive payment. That is the principle involved in the last few years in Government appointments such as the Procurator-Fiscal—that a man in a profession should abandon that profession when appointed to any Government position. In this instance, I think, it would be wise to carry out that rule.
Mr. URE: As I intimated on the Committee stage, it is undoubtedly the intention of the Government that all the members of the Land Court should devote themselves exclusively to their duties, and that there should be no duplication of offices in connection with the Land Court. The usual way in which to give effect to an undertaking of that kind is to insert a provision in the Commission to the members of the Land Court. It is never done in the Act itself, and I give an undertaking that in the Commission appointing all these members of the Land Court this provision shall be inserted.
Mr. MORTON: I heartily agree with this Amendment, and I think it would be much better to have it in the Bill than to put it into the Commission of appointment. If I were certain that my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate would remain in office for ever I should have no difficulty whatever. He may be going to a higher station, and we might be left with someone who has made no such promise. I think a mere promise is not enough, and it is much better to put it into the Bill, and thus show to our constituencies that we are not afraid to say what we mean, and then the gentlemen appointed to this office must obey the Act of Parliament. I hope the Lord Advocate will consent to put this in the Bill in a straightforward way.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I think we ought to know who these gentlemen are who are going to be put into these permanent positions. They might be Tories.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I think we ought to know something more about the gentlemen who are going to be members of this Court. We have no information about the Court at all, except that the chairman will rank as if he were a judge of Court of Session. Surely we ought to have some more information on this point.
Mr. URE: I rejoice to think that the right hon. Gentleman takes such a sanguine view about this Bill becoming law

1381
that he insists upon knowing who the members of the Court are going to be. At the same time, the Bill may not become law, and it would be inconvenient to mention the names of gentlemen who do not yet know whether they would ever be appointed.
Sir G. YOUNGER: We are asking for nothing unusual. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman the same thing was demanded in the case of the Licensing Bill, and the names were announced before the Bill went through the Report stage. I do not know whether there is any other case, but I remember that one, and it is no good the Lord Advocate trying to ride off on that horse, because that cock won't fight. We had a discussion about this in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman indicated that we might know something about it. Personally, I believe this will pass into law this Session, and I am sure it will if the right hon. Gentleman is reasonable. I have every reason to hope that the Bill will pass, and I think we are entitled to ask for a little more information.
Mr. MACKINDER: After the undertaking which has been given I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Constitution of Board of Agriculture for Scotland.)
(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, at any time after the commencement of this Act, and from time to time as vacancies occur, to appoint not more than three persons to be designated the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (in this Act referred to as the Board) and to appoint one of such persons to be Chairman of the Board. Any act or thing required or authorised to be done by the Board may be done by any one or more of the members thereof as the Secretary for Scotland may from time to time direct.
(2) The Board shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries in Scotland, and shall also exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred on or transferred to them under the provisions of this Act. In the discharge of their duties they shall comply with such instructions or regulations as may from time to time be issued by the Secretary for Scotland, and they shall submit an annual report of
1382
their proceedings to him, which report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The Board may undertake the collection and preparation of statistics relating to agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries, and may make or aid in making such inquiries, experiments, and research, and collect or aid in collecting such information relating thereto as they think advisable.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Board to promote, aid, and develop instruction in agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries.
(5) The Board shall take such steps as they think proper for the promotion and development of agricultural organisation and co-operation.
(6) Without prejudice to the provisions of the immediately preceding Sub-sections such one of the members of the Board as the Secretary for Scotland shall from time to time appoint shall be designated the Commissioner for Small Holdings and shall be specially charged with the duties hereinafter committed to him.
(7) The Secretary for Scotland shall from time to time appoint a fit person to act as secretary to the Board.
(8) The members of the Board shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. The Board may subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland appoint or employ such officers, clerks, and other persons as the Treasury may sanction.
(9) The members of the Board and other persons appointed or employed under this Section shall respectively receive such salary or remuneration as the Treasury may sanction, and all such salaries or remuneration and the expenses of the Board incurred in the execution of their duties, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(10) The Board shall submit such estimates and keep such accounts of their receipts and expenditure, and their accounts shall be audited in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury may direct.
(11) It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland from time to time by order under his hand—

(a) To direct that from and after the date fixed by the order such powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries exerciseable in or

1383
in relation to Scotland as may with the consent of the Treasury be specified in the order, shall be transferred to the Board, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may with the like consent be prescribed in the order; and

(b) To direct that from and after the date fixed by the order such powers and duties under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, as may, with the consent of the Treasury, be specified in the order, shall (not being powers for the purchase of land) be exercised and performed throughout Scotland as well as in congested parishes or districts thereof, or made applicable, with any necessary adaptations, to the purposes of the Landholders Acts.

(12) Before any such order is made, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than two months, and if either House, before the expiration of such period of two months, presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft order.
(13) An order under this Section may provide for all matters which appear to the Secretary for Scotland necessary or proper for giving full effect to the order, or to a previous order, including, with the consent of the Treasury, matters relating to the adjustment and disposal of any property, debts, and liabilities which may be affected thereby, or to the employment of any officers who may be transferred and the regulation of their duties.
(14) An order duly made under this Section shall take effect as if it were enacted in this Act.
Mr. HARRY HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Secretary for Scotland" ["on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland"], and to insert instead thereof the words "President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
The Lord Advocate told us this afternoon that he had never yet had an answer to the question how England would suffer if Scotland was severed from the English Board of Agriculture. I will answer that question in a few words. There is very large movement of stock across the border both ways. A large number of store cattle come up from England, Cumberland,
1384
and Westmoreland over the border into Scotland, both in the spring and the autumn. A very large number of store sheep go down from Scotland into England, both in the spring and the autumn, but principally in the autumn, and there are a very large number of fat cattle and sheep go down south throughout the whole year. The danger to the Scotch owners is that if Scotland is severed from the British Board, and if the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act takes place in Scotland by the Secretary for Scotland, and in England by the Minister for Agriculture, the great fear of the Scotch stockowners is that by those Acts being administered by different authorities there will not be the confidence that the Scotch stock will get into England as formerly. The stockowners fear that if the local authorities in England administer these Acts under the British Minister for Agriculture they will be cut off from all jurisdiction and connection with Scotland, and the administration in no way will be in harmony with Scottish requirements and Scottish opinion, and in that way there will not be confidence amongst our stockowners at the very important time of the year when the Scotch stock is taken south into England, and we may have a very serious depreciation in the price of Scotch stock, because of this dread of interference. The stockowners in Scotland consider that the Contagious Diseases Act should be administered in both countries by authorities connected with both countries. Our objection to the severance of Scotland from the British Board of Agriculture is not connected merely with this stock question. There are other questions which have not been mentioned this afternoon. For instance, there is the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act, and it is going to be a very awkward matter if that Act is going to be construed in one country differently from the other, and if it is going to be administered in a different way. We might have regulations, for instance, as regards analysis—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Amendment on the Paper. This is merely a matter of who is to recommend to His Majesty the persons who are going to be appointed, and it is not a question of setting up the Board. It is merely a question of nomination or appointment, and I do not see how the

1385
whole question of the constitution of the Board can be raised on this Amendment.
Mr. PRETYMAN: On a point of Order. Might I suggest to my hon. Friend that he would find this clear issue could be better raised on an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wiltshire. Of course, the issue now raised is that of the entire jurisdiction. That is an issue which is quite arguable, but the issue we are most anxious to raise covers rather less ground. It is the question solely of jurisdiction under the Disease of Animals Act. I rise to ask that we should not prejudice our right to divide on and to debate that particular definite issue by discussing the larger issue in the first instance.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Clearly on this Amendment, the hon. Member is only entitled to argue the question who should be the person to recommend the names to His Majesty. He cannot argue the whole question of separate Departments.
Mr. HARRY HOPE: We think this business can be better administered by the British Minister for Agriculture on general grounds. We are launching out on a new policy, and going to spend large sums of money on technical instruction. We quite approve of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland carrying on that good work, and, when we think of all the good work a Department of Agriculture can do, we remember there was a recommendation by the Commission presided over by Lord Reay that all similar work of technical instruction should be carried on in England by the Board of Agriculture, and not by the Board of Education. If the Board of Agriculture is going to administer such work in England, will it not be better to have a Board of Agriculture in Scotland carrying on that work, both connected under the British Minister for Agriculture? From whatever point of view you look at it, this work can be better carried on—and it would be acting in a more progressive manner—if the whole of it be kept under the Presidency of the British Minister for Agriculture, who would be responsible to the Cabinet and to the country.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to second the Amendment. I cannot think of any worse selection to look after the agricultural interests of Scotland than the Secretary for Scotland. I am not talking of the Secretary for Scotland personally.
1386
I cannot see how a man in his position can devote sufficient time to the agricultural interests of the country. There is not a single Scotch Member on the opposite side who has not said the Scotch Office is overworked and is not doing its duty, but here they are trying to put a greater burden on the gentleman responsible for its administration. It is very difficult to know quite what is in order on this Amendment. I do not know whether I should be in order in discussing the whole question of the separation of the Board of Agriculture.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is another Amendment later.
Mr. W. HUNTER: I cannot, of course, accept the Amendment that has been proposed. The House has already determined that Scotland is to have a separate Board of Agriculture. If you are to have Scotch officials apart from the English Department of Agriculture, it seems to me it will be rather absurd to entrust the duty of nominating Scotch officials to an English Minister. Surely the Minister who has to attend to Scotch affairs ought to nominate them.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I think the hon. and learned Member has made a mistake. The House has not yet decided what he says it has decided. We are at it now, and the matter is one for discussion. The point decided this afternoon was another altogether and did not affect this particular question. Are the Government going to move in this matter or not? The Amendment suggests the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries ought to take the place of the Minister for Scotland in this Clause. I quite understand the Government may not agree to that, but there will be another Amendment that there should be a Chairman of this Board responsible to this House. Everybody knows perfectly well that there would be no more inefficient way of having this Board represented in this House than through the headship of the Secretary for Scotland. We have sat there for hours together listening to the plaintive wails of hon. Members opposite about the congested state of the Scotch Office, the hopeless position in which Scotland is placed, and the consequent desire for Home Rule of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro-Ferguson)—and I think it would be disadvantageous to Scotland—but here we are asked to place this important Department with its enormous powers under the

1387
Minister already, according to hon. Members opposite, unable to cope with the work put upon him. It is most inconsistent. If we are not going to get an Agricultural Department for Scotland under the President of the Board of Agriculture, surely we can at least get someone who can be tackled in this House, who will be responsible to this House, and who can, if there is any failure or laxity of administration or any mistakes, be brought to book. The hon. and learned Gentleman should really give us some little more enlightenment on the subject than he has done. I should like to know whether any change whatever is to be made, and whether it is any use discussing this particular Clause.
Captain GILMOUR: I desire to support this Amendment. It is again quite clear the interests of the agriculturists of Scotland are being pushed aside by the action of the Government. It has been made abundantly clear on every occasion on which the agriculturists of Scotland, as a body, have been able to voice their opinion, that in their view the alteration which is suggested in this Amendment should be made, and that the power of supervision should, above all, not be placed in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland and the Scotch Office, and with that I am in hearty agreement.
Mr. J. A. CLYDE: I do not feel sure the important question this Amendment raises is realised. If anyone looks through Clause 4, with its twelve or thirteen Sub-sections, he will find that the question on the present Amendment affects indirectly every one of the succeeding Sub-sections, and the question which this Amendment is directed to raise is whether the real head of the Board of Agriculture ought to be the Secretary for Scotland or not. There are a great many of us who are distinctly of opinion that the head of the Scotch Office ought not to be also the head, and indeed possessed of complete control of the Board of Agriculture. I do not think that the learned Solicitor-General had in his mind any reference at all when he spoke to the remaining twelve Sub-sections of Clause (4) under which the Secretary for Scotland may appoint three members of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and may give to any one or two of them absolute power to act alone. He has absolute power to transfer to these three people any or all of the powers which are at present exercised by the Board of Agriculture,
1388
and he has also general overriding powers which practically make him master of the Board. The real point raised by the present Amendment is, not merely as to recommendations for appointment, which will come from the Secretary for Scotland, but whether the Secretary for Scotland is to be not merely the nominator of the Board, but vested with complete control over the extent of his powers, and to direct it in the exercise of those powers.
I should be surprised if it is only on one side of the House that that proposal is not approved. We do not think that the man who is appointed Secretary for Scotland, whoever he may be, is necessarily a person who either by training or qualification is fit to be trusted with the functions ordinarily exercised by the Board of Agriculture, and which are to be transferred to this Board. We do not know that he will have either the expert knowledge or the experience that will entitle him to say what inquiry and what duties shall be entrusted to the members of the Board on matters affecting agriculture. That is not the way we ought to try and overcome any of the difficulties we must feel in setting up this new Board for Scotland. A great deal has been said to-day about the importance of keeping this Board and its machinery in direct touch with agricultural opinion and practice in Scotland. Although these views may fall on deaf ears, they are earnestly entertained by those who want this Board of Agriculture to be of some use. If you are going to place its powers under the authority of the Scotch Office you are going to put it into the hands of a Department which notoriously in Scotland fails to keep itself in touch with public opinion in Scotland. I am not saying it is its fault, but everybody knows it is the fact, and, therefore, by putting the Board of Agriculture and its operations under the Secretary for Scotland you are certainly not going to facilitate its work. For that reason we think the power of nomination, the right of selection, and the power of defining the duties and generally supervising the Board ought to be in the hands of an expert agricultural authority.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I think if the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to take a Division on the issue raised in the speech he has just delivered he had better do so on my Amendment rather than on the one on which he has spoken, because that Amendment is complicated by the fact that it wishes to substitute the

1389
President of the Board of Agriculture for the Secretary for Scotland. Undoubtedly any such Department in Scotland must be subject to the Secretary for Scotland, and if the hon. Member desires to raise the question of the devolution of the duty to another Minister he had much better do so on my Amendment.
Mr. MORTON: Why introduce the President of the Board of Agriculture into the matter at all? What has he to do with it? That point has already been settled. The hon. Gentleman who moved
the Amendment seems to have forgotten that we have passed Clause 3, where we have given the Secretary for Scotland power to recommend a Land Court, which is much more important than the Board of Agriculture. I really cannot understand the position taken up by hon. Members opposite.
Question put, "That the words 'Secretary for Scotland' stand part of the Clause."
The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 90.

Division No. 369.]

AYES.

[10.3 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hackett, John

Munro, R.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

O'Dowd, John

Barnes, George N.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hayward, Evan

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Brunner, J. F. L.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bryce, John Annan

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Radford, G. H.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Higham, John Sharp

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clough, William

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rowlands, James

Cowan, William Henry

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Rowntree, Arnold

Crumley, Patrick

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Joyce, Michael

Scanlan, Thomas

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dawes, J. A.

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

De Forest, Baron

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Devlin, Joseph

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Donelan, Capt. Anthony Charles

Logan, John William

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Doris, W.

Lundon, T.

Waring, Walter

Duffy, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

McGhee, Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Watt, Henry A.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macpherson, James Ian

Webb, H.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

M'Callum, John M.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

Falconer, J.

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Wiles, Thomas

Ffrench, Peter

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Wilkie, Alexander

Field, William

Meagher, Michael

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Millar, James Duncan

Young, William (Perth, East)

Goldstone, Frank

Molteno, Percy Alport

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Mooney, John J.

Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Barnston, Harry

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Barrie, H. T.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Ashley, W. W.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Baird, John Lawrence

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Balcarres, Lord

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cassel, Felix

Baldwin, Stanley

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Cator, John

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bird, A.

Cave, George

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Boyton, James

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hills, John Waller

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Clyde, J. Avon

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Courthope, George Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

Sanderson, Lancelot

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Kerry, Earl of

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Dairymple, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Stanler, Beville

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm, Edgbaston)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Mackinder, H. J.

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Macmaster, Donald

Talbot, Lord E.

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Malcolm, Ian

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Fleming, Valentine

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Touche, George Alexander

Foster, Philip Staveley

Mount, William Arthur

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Gilmour, Captain John

Newman John R. P.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Grant, James Augustus

Nield, Herbert

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Gretton, John

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Perkins, Walter F.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Peto, Basil Edward

Younger, Sir George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

Pretyman, E. G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Mr. H. Hope and Marquess of Tullibardine.

Mr. HARRY HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Board" ["Board of Agriculture for Scotland"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Department."
Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to second this Amendment and to take this second opportunity of asking Scottish Members to meet us half way in this matter. As the Clause stands now this Department, as we propose to call it, can only be appointed on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, but we do ask that the Department shall not be an independent Department, dealing only with the agricultural affairs of Scotland, but shall be a Department of the British Board of Agriculture, assisted, as we go on to say, by an advisory council of practical Scottish agriculturists. That forms the substance of another Amendment. Taking the Amendments together, they afford a reasonable basis of compromise, and they will avoid an immense amount of injury being done, as we believe, to English agricultural interests. Reference has been made to the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act. I do not propose to say anything further in regard to that, but it is not only in connection with the diseases of animals that uniform administration is eminently desirable, but also with regard to plant diseases. Take a disease like gooseberry mildew, which has been very serious in the south and west of England. It is conveyed by the prevailing wind, whatever that may be, and is carried in the form of spores from one part of the country to another. In the case of a land frontier surely it is desirable that uniform regulations should be possible, in order to deal effectually with such a disease as that. The same applies to a somewhat similar
1392
disease, well known among fruit growers, the American blight. I mention these two diseases as being cases where uniform administration is desirable. We have now the assistance of a valuable Intelligence Department, which would be entirely broken up if this Clause were carried in its present form. I do not suppose there is a single official connected with the Board of Agriculture to-day who would not make it plain to everybody who consulted him that, if we did that, a very serious injury would be done to agriculturists in Scotland as well as in England. By no means the least argument in favour of retaining uniform control over the two countries is the question of dealing with the administration of fertilisers and feeding stuffs. At present a prosecution on the part of a county council is only possible with the consent of the Board of Agriculture. Under Sub-section (2) of this Clause the consent of the Scottish Board would become necessary, and if that is so there are manufacturers of feeding stuffs and fertilisers in Scotland who have a large custom in England, and there are manufacturers of these articles in England who have a large custom in Scotland. It must be apparent on the face of it that there will be very great difficulty in carrying out this function, at any rate of the English Board, if it is transferred to a distinct and separate Scottish Board.
Let me emphasise once again that it is utterly impossible in these respects to compare Scotland with Ireland. Ireland is insulated by the sea and Scotland is not, and it is the very fact that there is not this sea insulation which makes these diseases so very serious, and at present so extremely alarming on the Continent. This particular difficulty is so much easier

1393
to deal with in this country, because it is an island, if we only treat it as one entity, and not seek, for this purpose, to divide it into two. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) in his modesty, did not emphasise the extraordinary success which attended his very firm attitude with regard to rabies. He was by no means popular when he first promulgated his regulation with regard to rabies. There was scarcely an individual throughout the country—at any rate those who owned dogs—who did not for several months sternly denounce the then President of the Board of Agriculture. Rabies existed then in Scotland as well as in England, and was becoming a very serious source of danger both to animals and to men. If it had not been for the firm attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman no one knows what might have been the extent of the disease. At any rate, whereas that particular order was regarded as extremely unpopular to start with there is not a single man in the country who is not prepared to admit that the finest bit of work that the Board of Agriculture ever did was to boldly issue that regulation, which, in spite of its unpopularity, stamped out this very serious disease.
Mr. WATT: Did that regulation extend to Scotland?
Mr. C. BATHURST: Yes. There are two diseases which do not come from abroad, to which reference has not been made. One is sheep-scab, one of the four scheduled diseases which is still serious in Great Britain, owing to the fact that it has been found impossible to control it entirely in Wales and in Scotland. Those are the two sources from which sheep-scab is likely to spread at present, and that surely is a very strong indication, where you have two serious centres of the disease, that uniform administration is necessary in order to prevent it from spreading to other parts of Great Britain. Lastly, there is the question of dealing with swine fever. I do not pretend to approve the present attitude of the Board with regard to swine fever, but I have to admit at any rate that it is intelligible, courageous and uniform, and the whole principle of administration of the regulations promulgated by the Board of Agriculture with regard to swine fever is to gradually include within one scheduled area parts of the country which, so far, have not suffered from infection from this disease, until finally they have got the whole of the country within the scheduled area which is entirely free
1394
from infection. That is an indication, at any rate, of one method which the Board of Agriculture deems advisable for stamping out a serious disease in the whole of Great Britain, which is calculated to cause enormous loss both to stockkeepers and taxpayers throughout the country. I do most earnestly appeal to Scottish Members not to treat this any longer as a party question, but to remember that the matters to which we have ventured to draw attention this afternoon and evening are every bit of as much importance to the small Scottish landholder as to the larger farmer in the Lothians and the south of Scotland generally. If loss does occur to the agricultural community owing to lack of uniformity in the matter of administration, it would be felt far more by those whom this Bill is intended to benefit than by those with a large amount of capital at their back, who will not feel the loss so seriously.
Mr. URE: I do not propose to add anything to what I said at an earlier stage of our discussion on this Bill, for this is practically the same matter which has been considered and decided. Let me offer the assurance to the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) that we Scottish Members do not underrate the services rendered to the country by the English Board of Agriculture, and more especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), who was at the head of the Board of Agriculture for a great many years. We recognise fully the services which he rendered, and which were rendered by the Department over which he so ably presided in connection with sheep-scab and rabies. We hope that the Scottish Board which is to be set up by this Bill will at least rival the great English Board. We see no reason to doubt it. Our fellow countrymen are equally able to cope with those diseases when they unfortunately break out. We, indeed, entertain the belief that our Board will add to the counsels of its neighbour in regard to swine fever. We think we have in Scotland material for setting up a Board of Agriculture which will be second to none. Really, the whole argument on the other side seems to me to depend upon the assumption that the Scottish Board of Agriculture will be something which will violate the notions of intelligent agriculture on this side of the border. It will be nothing of the kind. It will be as anxious to administer these Acts efficiently as any English Board could possibly be, and I cannot for a single moment

1395
entertain the idea that any mischief will come either to this country or to the other country if we set up an efficient Board of Agriculture to manage Scottish Agricultural affairs. Let me offer my personal assurance that we do not approach this question from the party point of view, and that it has no relation whatever to party differences. It has relation simply to efficiency of administration of Acts which none of us desire to repeal or modify to any extent whatever. On these grounds I submit to the House that the proposal in the Bill is sound and ought to be adhered to.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I do not doubt for a moment the statement of the Lord Advocate that the Government do not desire to treat this as a party question. But, if that is the position, they have taken the very worst possible means of giving effect to their desire. This Bill was originally a private Member's Bill. Those familiar with the practice of this House know that upon Private Members' Bills decisions are arrived at unaffected by party Divisions in this House. Frequently advocates of the Bill are to be found on both sides of the House, and the Debates, though, unfortunately, owing to modern conditions in this House, they are frequently curtailed owing to pressure of time, are of a more practical character than are often the Debates on Government measures. The Lord Advocate says he does not treat this as a party question, but he is refusing this Amendment and he is calling upon his party in consequence of his refusal to vote not according to what they hear in this Debate, or their own political views, but according to rules well known in this House, the indications given to them by the Whips when they come into the Lobby. This is a Government Bill. The Government have presented it to us in its amended form, and though the Lord Advocate means what he says, that he does not approach it as a party question, yet the Government have turned it into a party question by adopting a Private Member's Bill and putting it to us as a Government Bill, upon which Members are expected to vote as the Whips tell them, upon party lines, and not according to their own views. He says that this question has been decided already. I disagree with that view altogether. My main grievance against the Government on this particular question is that we are confronted by a difficulty.
I do not think that Scottish Members have done justice to their great intellectual
1396
gifts with the Debate to-night by the way in which they have presented their case. They talked a great deal about Scotland's rights, but they failed to show us how Scotland suffers under the administration of the Central Board of Agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), with whom I have had many debates on this, subject, both in the House and out of it, many private discussions, referred earlier in the evening to my experience of Scottish agriculturists over this question of a Scottish Board of Agriculture, and he taunted me with not having met the wishes of Scotsmen in this matter. I told him then, and repeat it now, that in my opinion my memory with regard to the past is better than his. I did not reject the views of Scotsmen. What my right hon. Friend has forgotten is this, that the case presented by the majority of those Scotsmen was the case which is now presented by the Government for a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and that a very influential minority, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member, advocated a very different programme, namely, the one which would result from the adoption of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. At that time, if we had conceded the grant of a Department of the British Board of Agriculture to Scotland, it would not have met the demand of the majority, and I do not believe that it would have been accepted. I think he forgot that I indicated at the time I took steps to give effect to my promise that we would in Scotland have a Department or office of the British Board of Agriculture which there had not been up to that time. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since that time, and there is a demand for more power for the Scottish branch. If we had not to deal with this under the flat negative of the Lord Advocate and vote upon it presently under the direction of the Whips, we could arrive at a reasonable compromise. This House is asked now to give a final decision that there shall be an independent Board of Agriculture for Scotland. The Lord Advocate answers us by saying, "I have no doubt about my countrymen." Nobody who knows anything about Scotland has any doubt about the intelligence or capacity of Scotchmen. The grievance of poor people here, so far as I can ascertain, is that Scotchmen generally get the best of things either here or

1397
in Scotland. Therefore, it is not a case of doubt about capacity, whether a Scotchman or an Englishman were at the head of the Department that we object to it. The Lord Advocate referred to the instance given by my hon. Friend who quoted the instance of the Board's administration in regard to rabies, and the right hon. Gentleman asked what reason was there to believe that the Scottish Board of Agriculture would not do as well as the English Board. If the right hon. Gentleman puts the proposition in that form there is no reason to doubt that a Scotsman at the head of a united Board would not fail to do the work as well as an Englishman. I am quite certain he would not. That is not the proposal. The proposal is that there shall be a real Board of Agriculture for Scotland. Your proposal is that there shall be a so-called Board of Agriculture in Scotland, and that that Board, subject to certain limitations, shall be under the direction and control of the Secretary for Scotland. My hon. Friend has been good enough to refer to the work I did in connection with rabies, and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Molteno) spoke of the administrative powers by local authorities. The hon. Member forgot, when he referred to those powers which were then possessed and are now possessed by local authorities, that the local authorities made a very determined attempt to exterminate disease, and failed utterly. When I went to the Board of Agriculture I found that the attempt to exterminate, not only rabies but other diseases, had failed, because it had employed the local authorities acting under what form?—Not as one central body able to serve the whole country, and to use their powers as they thought fit,—but spasmodically.
Mr. MOLTENOwas understood to Say: Two local authorities would be sufficient to close Scotland to England.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I know what the hon. Gentleman's argument was, and I am dealing with the question of the extermination of disease. I am taking the hon. Gentleman's argument that the local authorities have power to deal with disease, and therefore would justify further separation between England and Scotland.
Mr. MOLTENOindicated dissent.
Mr. WALTER LONG: If the hon. Member did not mean that I abandon it. I go
1398
back to the experience over rabies, and the same experience applies to other diseases of all kinds. The local authorities exercised their powers within their own jurisdiction. They could not go outside their own jurisdiction. I saw the immediate difference effected by us at the Board of Agriculture when we took the powers into our own hands and dealt with the country as a whole. We were able to apply our ideas according to scientific knowledge possessed by the Department of disease and the habits of diseased animals, and to apply our powers effectively in a particular area. It did not matter whether it was a county, a parish, or a country, we could apply our powers according to where the outbreak occurred. You cannot do that if you do this. If you do this and if an outbreak of cattle disease, or of any of the highly infectious diseases occurs on the borders of England and Scotland, you cannot do what you can do now. The present Minister can take his map, locate the outbreak, and with the best scientific opinion at his disposal, and which tells him that a certain area round that centre must be enclosed and a wall built round it if the disease is not to spread, he is able, one man with the experts, to build his wall absolutely irrespective of divisions either of localities or countries. The moment this law passes you cannot do that. If there is an outbreak on the borders of England and Scotland you will be obliged to go to the Scottish Minister before the English Minister can build his walls; and supposing it is in Scotland, the Scottish Minister will have to go to the English Minister before he can build his wall. The Lord Advocate may pay little attention to these arguments and even treat them with contempt, but all I can say is he is dealing with a subject which we have often debated in this House.
Agriculturists look at this as the gravest question affecting their interests. What ought to be called the agricultural industry has to a large extent disappeared from this country. The cultivation of the land for the purpose of growing corn has to a large extent disappeared. When I first came to this House four-and-thirty years ago corn growing was the staple industry. That is no longer the case, and the land has gone by thousands of acres into grass, and the country to-day is dependent entirely on stock, either your milk stock or your stock grown for feeding. The one security the British farmer has had hitherto has been the vigilance of the Central

1399
Department, and the opportunity given to them to exercise powers conferred by Parliament for the whole of England, Scotland, and Wales. You are, for purposes I believe quite insufficient, because I believe solely for sentimental reasons, going to set up this separate Department. Questions of the disease of the potato, the encouragement of education, the spread of agriculture, knowledge, and training, all that could be met if the Amendment of my hon. Friend were adopted. You have only got to leave the Department with its central powers and centrally controlled, and have a Scottish Department for certain limited purposes defined here in the Act of Parliament, and not left to a Minister to define, and you would meet every grievance which has been urged opposite, every grievance which was urged in the Debate to which I have referred, every grievance of which I have heard yet. The Amendment would in no way impair those powers which have been used with so much benefit to British agriculture throughout the United Kingdom. The Government will not listen to any suggestion; they dismiss the Amendment which is now before us as a mere repetition of what occurred earlier. It is nothing of the kind. The original proposal was to recommit a particular Clause in order, I acknowledge, that we might try to go back altogether from that part of the Bill which proposes to establish a separate Board of Agriculture. This is not a similar proposal. This is a branch of that. We accept the proposal that there shall be a Department for Scotland, but what we ask is that you should make that Department a branch of the Central Department, and that you should do nothing to impair the authority which the Central Department now exercises. I speak, and I am sure nobody who has been at the Board of Agriculture will gainsay what I state, from experience gained there.
I repeat—and I do not apologise for doing so—I am amazed that in a Debate on a Bill which, although it concerns Scotland, largely affects the general agricultural interests of the country and proposes to impair the powers of the central department, from beginning to end, no Minister has been present. I think it is a scandal that the President of the Board of Agriculture has not been present to tell the House how he defends, from the point of view of the English Board of Agriculture, this gross inroad on his power. The House is coming to-night to a final discussion on
1400
this question. Hon. Members opposite treat it as though it affected solely their interests. But they are not agreed upon it. Some of them have said that they would like to see the central board retained, with a branch for Scottish interests. That could be settled by agreement now if we were in Committee and the Government were prepared to adopt our suggestions. Hon. Members who hold that view and yet are supporting the Government in this drastic proposal will have to settle hereafter with their own consciences as to the line they are taking on this great and grave question. Hon. Members may dismiss the matter for the moment with a smile, but nobody except those who have had cause to go into the question knows how great has been the work done in the extermination of disease and the protection given to our flocks and herds, and what it means to the British agriculturists. I, at least, honestly believe that to-night, by the extraordinary line they are taking, the Government are striking a blow at agricultural prosperity, which they themselves will live to regret, and of which they will be ashamed.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The Lord Advocate announced just now that he was not going to give any more reasons for the passing of this Bill as it stands, because he had given so many before and so many others had been given. But not one single reason has been given why we should separate the Board for Scotland. We have heard a great deal about one Scotsman being as good as two Englishmen, or words to that effect; but that is no argument at all for separating the Boards. The Lord Advocate also said that he was representing Scottish opinion, and so on. If that is the fact it is rather curious that the Prime Minister should have refused the other day to see a deputation of Scottish farmers, or to receive experts on a matter vitally affecting their own industry, giving as his reason that he knew all about it from the representatives of the country. The representatives of the country have shown to-night how much they know about it. I agree that it is really a national scandal that, although the British Board of Agriculture is being broken in two and the whole of the administration altered, the only people to, answer for it so far have been two Scottish lawyers, and now one English lawyer. There has not been present one single Minister interested in agriculture.

1401
There is not one single person here representing the English Board, not one to give the views of that Board as against the views of the Secretary for Scotland. Surely the whole agricultural industry of Scotland and of this country is one industry? I cannot see how possibly you are going to divide the two countries in this matter. The only logical reason Members can give for a separate Board for Scotland is that it is giving the rights of Home Rule to that country. But it seems to me perfectly impossible to have one system in one part of Great Britain and another system in another part of the island. For if a separate Board of Agriculture, why not a separate Board of Trade or a separate War Office? There is absolutely no argument, if the one is accepted, why the other should not be. Everyone has been looking forward to seeing the Agricultural Board still further strengthened. Instead of that you are going to weaken the Board in England, because you cannot possibly have the same big Board. In Scotland we shall not be nearly so well off as in the past, because you are not the least likely to be able to find, or to finance, a double staff of experts on the same scale as you finance one staff. And you will have at the head of the Scottish Board, instead of a man whose whole time is devoted to the study of agricultural questions—one of the best Ministers of the Crown that can be obtained—you are going to have the overworked Secretary for Scotland, who is supposed to look after the agricultural as well as all other of the interests of Scotland. This he is perfectly unable to look after at the present time.
We have no one in this House actually representative of the agricultural interests of Scotland. On the eve of the triumph of his Bill I do not suppose for a moment that you are going to move the present Secretary for Scotland. He will have been such a success when this Bill has been passed that you will retain him in his position. In that case you will have a Minister of the Crown responsible for agriculture and the administration of all the other interests of Scotland still in the House of Lords. The result in any case will be that this Minister will be perfectly incapable of giving his undivided attention to the subject which will come more and more under the bureaucratic departments in Scotland, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs observed. Then the Secretary for Scotland will have to be the medium between the Cabinet and the Treasury for all
1402
affairs, and the result will be, seeing that at present the Cabinet treats Scottish affairs in a scanty fashion, that the Secretary will be a bigger bore than ever when he goes on other than agricultural subjects. In future the Minister will have to bargain with the Treasury as between the conflicting interests of agriculture and other subjects. If he gets money for one he will not get it for the other. You certainly will not get it for both, as you would do if you had a separate Minister. There are, I would remind hon. Members, many diseases that it will be perfectly impossible to deal with by two Boards. For example, take bee disease. How are two separate Boards of Agriculture to deal with diseases among bees? The Board of Agriculture took very little notice of that disease, which started in the Isle of Wight in 1907, and which might have been stamped out if taken due notice of at the time. It is all over the whole of Great Britain now, and must be dealt with by concerted action. You cannot prevent a bee travelling across the country between England and Scotland; it is different as between Ireland and Scotland. Hon. Members opposite have been going about the country saying they have got this additional sum of £200,000. How much is to be spent upon the Board of Agriculture, and how much upon the small holdings? We cannot forget, also, the cost of the additional judge, who is to receive a pension. We want to know how much is to be spent upon the administration of the Board, and how much upon the small holdings administration? Many people in Scotland asked me to do what I could to prevent the Liberal party doing injury to agricultural interests in Scotland.
Mr. CHAPLIN: As I was the first President of the Board of Agriculture, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) was my successor, I am sure the House will allow me to say how absolutely I agree with every word which fell from him in the speech he has just made. I ask the indulgence of the House all the more because both of us, speaking with many years' practical experience of this subject, find ourselves without one single member of the Cabinet on the Government Bench who even claims or professes to be able to speak with any practical knowledge of the subject. On the contrary, we are confronted by a Minister who began almost the first statement he made to the House on this subject by saying he had no practical knowledge or experience upon the subject

1403
whatever. Under these circumstances I think I am entitled to ask for some further explanation of the statement he made to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
"We are now speaking of the administration of Acts which none of us desire to repeal or to modify."
Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has the authority of the Cabinet for making that statement? I conclude from his silence that he has not. Under these circumstances what is the value of his statement in the absence of the Minister for Agriculture himself? I am bound to say it is a most extraordinary attitude on the part of the Government when they are dealing with a question affecting the interests of English, Irish and Scotch agriculturists upon which the vast majority of them entertain strong feelings that the Minister for Agriculture should be conspicuous by his absence. It is no reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman, who has been such a short time in office that he has been unable to acquire any more knowledge of the subject than the Lord Advocate himself. These are difficult and complex questions which I will defy anyone to understand who has not had any previous experience of the subject. This is no idle question I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman. I remember not many years ago, on the eve of a General Election, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman distinctly pledged himself to his constituency to the repeal of that part of the Act of 1898 which required slaughter at the port for all animals landed in this country. Why was it required? I ought to know all about it because I was the Minister responsible for the Act which extirpated pleuro-pneumonia from this country. It was a work of many years, entailing a vast amount of money and a vast sacrifice of time and labour on the part of those who had to do it. Why was that Act enforced? Because it is the only possible safeguard against the introduction of pleuro-pneumonia into this country. That is one of this diseases differing entirely—
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman is anticipating a discussion which will come on later.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I am glad you reminded me of it, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has the authority of the Cabinet for the statement I quoted or not. I will explain later why it is of such extreme importance
1404
in our eyes. In the absence of any further explanation and with the assurance that the Lord Advocate speaks with no authority from the Cabinet, when he cannot give us any undertaking that the first act of the new Board of Agriculture may not be to put pressure on the Government to carry out the late Prime Minister's promise to abolish the restrictions on slaughter at the port, he will not be surprised when I tell him that I shall most certainly vote for the Amendment.
11.0 P.M.
Mr. MALCOLM: I am sure we Scotchmen, on whatever side of the House we sit, must congratulate ourselves upon the appearance of the Front Bench opposite with all its legal luminaries and a Government Whip—oh, a Cabinet Minister has appeared at last (referring to the entrance of the Home Secretary, Mr. McKenna). I am afraid his agricultural knowledge with regard to Scotland is not greater than that possessed by any of those beside him. I do feel, with my right hon. and hon. Friends who have already spoken, that, whether we agree or not with this Amendment, we have every reason to complain that the Minister for Agriculture is not with us. I hope it will be made plain all through South Somerset, which feels very acutely—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not yet approached the Amendment.
Mr. MALCOLM: I beg your pardon. Having very little opinion of the Scotch Office at the present time, I do not want to see the Department of Agriculture moved to Edinburgh and administered from there. I cannot understand why the Lord Advocate has declined this Amendment. It might, from several indications from the other side of the House, have been accepted. All that the Lord Advocate is anxious about—the practical administration of agricultural affairs in Scotland—could perfectly well be managed by the substitution of a Department for a self-governing Board, I suppose in Edinburgh. I am quite sure the Lord Advocate did not refuse to accept the Amendment because he wants all the pomp and circumstances of a Board attached to the administration of this Bill. I think it was sheer pedantry which made him refuse. A Department could do all he is anxious for the Board to do, and I do hope every agriculturist in England, as well as in Scotland, will support those who have proposed the

1405
present Amendment. It is essential to all who live by agriculture that there should be central control in this most essential matter. In South Africa the administration of stamping out cattle disease is not in the hands of the Provincial Government, but in the hands of the Union Government. The division between England and Scotland is almost an imaginary one. Contagion is very easy, and every English agriculturist—I do not care on which side of the House he sits—should indeed be tremendously concerned to see that the administration is under the central control. We do not want it to be only a Scottish Board. We want an English and Scottish Board to act in unison. We want them to act at absolutely the same time. When a discovery is made that disease of a contagious kind exists, either on one side of the border or the other, we want it to be dealt with forthwith for the sake of the cattle and herds. Whether we sit as Scotchmen or Englishmen on either side of the House we are equally concerned to keep the herds and flocks in good condition. We believe it to be an essential condition that only by a central control can proper administration and proper power be exercised by a central authority. Speaking as a Scotchman representing an English constituency, I strongly support this Amendment for a Department rather than a Board—for a Department and a central organisation which in the past has worked well both in England and Scotland.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: The Lord Advocate is supposed to be fertile of imagination, but he has failed to produce any argument which has convinced anybody on this side in favour of the Bill. He has only misinterpreted the various arguments put forward from this side. Nobody can deny that Scottish agriculturists are just as good and as expert as their fellow-agriculturists in England, and we do earnestly beg the Government to reconsider the question of uniformity of administration between the two countries.
Mr. SPEAKER: We have had that argument before. Perhaps the hon. Member will bring forward fresh arguments.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I wish to point out that the duties of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland are not confined solely to the administration of the land. They are given other specific duties. They are charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture, forestry, and other rural duties in Scotland, and
1406
they have also to collect statistics and conduct inquiries and experimental research. They are to take such steps as they think proper for the development of agricultural organisation and co-operation. These are most desirable things for the Board of Agriculture to undertake, and these, too, are things which we devoutly hope that the Board of Agriculture here are going to undertake with new zest and new spirit under the development scheme. What real difference is there in the agriculture in Scotland and the agriculture of England? You cannot find one branch of agriculture in Scotland which is not carried on under the same conditions in some part of England, and it would be difficult to find a branch of agriculture in England which does not find its counterpart in Scotland. It is a waste of money to set up two organisations controlling the same undertaking in what is one whole agricultural country. I thought, at one time, that Scotchmen were in favour of economy. That old tradition appears to have rapidly disappeared under the influence of a Welsh Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must be more economical and efficient to have the control of this research and collection of information, not only in forestry, but in all these other matters, in England, Scotland, and Wales, under one Department. By all means have your Scottish Department and your Welsh Department, but in the interests of the taxpayer and of better and deeper experiment and research, it is better to have the control under one authority. I would ask one hon. Member on the other side of the House to give us one valid argument why we should vote for the Bill as it stands at present.
Mr. BAIRD: I cannot share the regret expressed by many hon. Members on this side of the House at the absence of the Minister for Agriculture. I trust he is learning the difference between a mangelwurzel and a turnip. The Government have carried their principle of government by decree instead of government by discussion beyond all reasonable bounds by their procedure to-night. Here are two of the most important Clauses of the Bill, proposing to set up an entirely separate Board in Scotland. The Minister in charge does not take the trouble to advance one single argument, he does not use one expression which can be called an argument, in support of this proposal, and then he retires to slumber and allows other people

1407
to advance arguments. The speech of the Lord Advocate was the kind of speech one might expect if ever we have the misfortune to have a Parliament in Edinburgh. It was redolent of the predatory parochialism with which the party opposite are identified. The right hon. Gentleman disclaimed any idea of party in advocating the change embodied in this Bill. That disclaimer was by no means warmly received on the benches behind him. I believe that the whole of this Bill is designed for finding land for the humbler supporters of the Government in the country and finding jobs for their more important supporters. That is precisely what this Board is going to be. To say that England and Scotland, so infinitesimal in size compared with other parts of the Empire, are not capable of being controlled by one man running the Department of Agriculture is ridiculous. I suppose we shall presently have a Minister of Agriculture for Wales, another for the Highlands, and another for the Lowlands. If we are going to run the Department on business lines there must be one Department for the whole country. To set up a new Department of this kind is merely for the purpose of giving jobs to the supporters of the Government.
It is doing that at the expense of the general taxpayer, and it is not doing it in the interests of the efficiency of agriculture or the prosperity of the farmers, and it certainly is not going to help small holdings—indeed, small holdings have disappeared altogether from the argument. This question of setting up a Board goes to the very root of the whole Bill. Supposing any hon. Gentleman desires to inquire in regard to an agricultural matter in Scotland after the Board has been set up. Whom has he to ask? The Secretary of State for Scotland. The adventures of the Secretary for Scotland in matters of agriculture in connection with the estate of Kirriemuir and the Island of Vatersay are not such as to inspire any confidence in him. Why on earth should not poor Scotland have a Minister for Agriculture to talk about agricultural affairs the same as England or Ireland? Why should we be put off with a gentleman whose knowledge may be varied, but who at any rate has no expert knowledge on any single subject of those with which he would have to deal? What earthly reason is there for instituting that new system in regard to Scotland? If this Amendment is carried, and if the
1408
word "Board" is left out and "Department" is left in we shall have what everyone admits to be desirable, an extension of the administration for the purposes of agriculture in Scotland—better organisation, more complete, a larger organisation, but you will have it co-ordinated, you will have the head of the organisation here in London and not in Scotland where no one can get at him and where he cannot be questioned in this House. The whole proposal is perfectly monstrous. It is the thin end of the wedge of Home Rule and it is tinged with the very ugly colour, which is becoming more and more conspicuous in the measures of the Government of finding jobs for those who support them in the country.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the Lord Advocate must see that this raises a very important question which cannot be discussed on any other Amendment, namely, whether it is wise or unwise in respect of certain issues to set up a new frontier between England and Scotland. His replies have simply amounted to a claim which no one has denied, that the Scottish people are just as able to manage their own affairs as England is able to manage hers, to which I entirely assent. The proof is that they not only manage their own affairs but ours too, and extremely well, no doubt. At any rate they themselves are satisfied, which is, I suppose, all we can expect. But surely, quite apart from whether this or that nation has the greatest capacity for management of affairs, that is not the issue at all. The question is whether it is right or wrong that certain particular matters, particularly those which affect the diseases of animals and plants and the regulations governing the transfer of stock on these questions should be under one head or two. I really think the Government is bound to answer that point. The Lord Advocate cannot pretend that he has attempted to answer it. Does he tell the House and the country that it is desirable to create a frontier between England and Scotland in regard to matters affecting the diseases of animals and plants and the regulations which have to be framed to meet those diseases? Does he say it is for the benefit of the country to create that new frontier? If he says so he must use some argument to enforce his opinion. Arguments have been used from this side of the House, and if there has been repetition it is because no answer has been given. The argument

1409
we use, which is entirely ad rem, is that we should have, in order to protect our flocks and herds and our growing crops in this country, one jurisdiction, and not create a frontier between the two countries.
If the whole history of legislation of that character throughout the world is followed, it is quite obvious that that particular class of legislation cannot be decentralised. I am always for decentralisation in matters which can be separately dealt with, and I have nothing to say against the setting up of separate jurisdiction in Scotland for the encouragement of agriculture, or the distribution of money in Scotland for the general purposes of this Bill, but I do protest most earnestly against this Bill, which has a main purpose that, I think, both sides of the House are generally agreed upon, being used to the injury of British agriculture as a whole lay the insertion of provisions which will decentralise a particular class of legislation which can only be decentralised to the injury of agriculture in both countries. The Scottish Chambers of Agriculture, by a large majority, have passed a resolution asking that this Amendment shall be given effect to in the Bill. That is entirely ignored. Not a single Member representing Scotland has dealt with that point. Surely the opinion of the Scottish Chambers of Agriculture is worthy of some respect and some answer. No answer has been given, and when we divide it will go forth that the warnings which have been put forward in most weighty words by my right hon. Friends, who have themselves occupied positions of responsibility in this matter, are unattended to, and that the expressed opinion of agriculturists as a whole are equally disregarded. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we can only suppose that this is done from a purely party and political motive, and that the great interests of agriculture in both countries are being sacrificed to the interests of party. We can do no more than protest, and say that the responsibility rests on those who are going into the Lobby in support of their party and against the interests of agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, so far as argument has gone in this Debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will hon. Members who say "No" get up and give some reason? It is not very difficult to sit and say "No," but apparently it is beyond their power to say how this is not going to be injurious to agriculture. I say they are striking a most serious blow at the
1410
stock and flocks and agriculture of both countries. They are doing it with their eyes open, and the consequences will be upon their own heads.
Mr. COURTHOPE: In his speech just now the Lord Advocate destroyed the only plausible argument which I have heard in defence of the setting up of an independent Board for Scotland. That argument was advanced by a supporter of the Government, and was to the effect that, although there was to be an independent Board, there would be complete consultation and collaboration between the English Board and the Scottish Board, and also complete uniformity of administration. The right hon. Gentleman just now admitted that that was not contemplated at all. The Scottish Office do not propose to seek after uniformity of administration. He stated to my hon. Friend the Member for the Walton Division that the administration of swine fever regulations would be made to suit their ideas much better than the administration by the English Board with which they disagreed. I only draw attention to that because I wish to bring it under the notice of the few sincere friends of agriculture among the Scottish Liberal members. No one doubts the capacity and efficiency of Scotchmen for administrative work, but be individuals ever so capable and efficient it is quite impossible without the lapse of years to have an efficient administration to take the place of one which is based on years of experience and investigation. We have at present got an administration with long years of experience behind it and consequently with every advantage for proper working, and you cannot replace that, starting ab initio, without great loss of efficiency for some years to come. The only possible explanation of the Government's resistance to my hon. Friend's Amendment, though they have not yet been willing to admit it, is the hope that by the independence of the Scottish Board they would be able to secure the admission of Canadian stores into Scotland, which they have not been able to secure from the British Board. I repeat the hope expressed so often on this side that some attempt would be made to answer the arguments advanced from this side before the House goes to a Division.
Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I wish to utter a few words of protest against the attitude of the Government, and I speak

1411
as one who has the honour of farming a considerable acreage of land in this country. It is to me absolutely incomprehensible that the Government can refuse to accept the Amendment moved from these benches and refuse it without giving the slightest reason. They tell us that it is their desire, just as much as ours, to prevent the spread of disease both in Scotland and England. I listened to these speeches from the Front Opposition Bench, two delivered by right hon. Gentlemen who have been Presidents of the Board of Agriculture. Those are right hon. Gentlemen who are able to speak with authority in this House. They have proved conclusively to my mind that the only way to ensure the safety of this country is by retaining the control in the hands of one single authority. Not a word has been said by any Member on the Government Bench in answer to the speeches from the Opposition Bench. I have been here for an hour or so, and of the ten Members who have sat on that Government Bench not one of them was
in any way qualified to speak in behalf of British agriculture. It is time that British agriculturists should protest, and if hon. Members opposite had the interests of agriculture at heart they would protest as we do on these benches. Hon. Members opposite who vote in support of the Government and against this Amendment will be voting against the true interests of agriculture both in England and Scotland.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will ask the Lord Advocate only one question. It is agreed that the effect of this Bill unamended will be administratively to create a division between Scotland and England. Does the Lord Advocate consider, and does the Government consider, that the making of that artificial division is for the benefit of agriculture in general? Will the Lord Advocate tell us why?
Mr. STANLEY WILSON: He cannot. He has no answer.
Question put, "That the word 'Board' stand part of the Clause."
The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 74.

Division No. 370.]

AYES.

[11.35p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Mooney, John J.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Munro, R.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Goldstone, Frank

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Nelan, Joseph

Armitage, Robert

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Balfour, Rir Robert (Lanark)

Hackett, J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Dowd, John

Barnes, G. N.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hayward, Evan

Radford, G. H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Chancellor, H. G.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Higham, John Sharp

Roche, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Rowntree, Arnold

Clough, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. S.

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Cowan, William Henry

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Crumley, Patrick

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Tennant, Harold John

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

Verney, Sir Harry

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lansbury, George

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Dawes, J. A.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

De Forest, Baron

Lewis, John Herbert

Waring, Walter

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lundon, Thomas

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Doris, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Wason, John (Cathcart, Orkney)

Duffy, William J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Watt, Henry A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

McGhee, Richard

Webb, H.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Macpherson, James Ian

Whitehouse, John Howard

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

MacVeagh, Jeremlah

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

M'Callum, John M.

Wilkie, Alexander

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Falconer, J.

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Ffrench, Peter

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Young, William (Perth, East)

Field, William

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Millar, James Duncan

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

France, C. A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gardner, Ernest

Pollock, E. M.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Gilmour, Captain J.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Ashley, W. W.

Grant, J. A.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baird, J. L.

Gretton, John

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Balcarres, Lord

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamersley, A. St. George

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Barnston, Harry

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Stanler, Beville

Barrie, H. T.

Hill, Sir Clement

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hohler, G. F.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hunt, Rowland

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Boyton, J.

Kerry, Earl of

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Burn, Col. C. R.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Mackinder, Halford J.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Cator, John

Malcolm, Ian

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Cave, George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

White, Sir Luke (Yorks. E. R.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Newdegate, F. A.

Wolmer, Viscount

Clyde, James Avon

Newman, John R. P.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Courthope, George Loyd

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Younger, Sir George

Craig, Norman (Kent)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Perkins, Walter F.

Mr. Harry Hope and Mr. C. Bathurst.

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Peto, Basil Edward

Mr. WALTER LONG: I rise for the purpose of asking the Government what they propose to do with regard to the remainder of the Bill, and in order to put myself in order I will formally move the adjournment of the Debate. When the Prime Minister was moving the Motion under which all the business of the House is now conducted, suggestions were made as to the use the Government intended to make of the powers for which they were asking, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) foretold what was likely to happen with a degree of accuracy which rarely falls to the lot of a prophet. He suggested that the Government might use these powers to deal with "starred" Bills. The Prime Minister repudiated the suggestion. I presume he did not regard this as a "starred" Bill because it had already been starred. My hon. Friend also expressed the fear that these new powers would be used to prolong Debate after eleven o'clock, and the following passage occurred:
"The PRIME MINISTER: Then what is the suggestion?
"Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: My suggestion is that we should go to bed at eleven o'clock.
"The PRIME MINIKTER: I am quite with the hon. Baronet on that, but what is the danger against which he wishes us to guard?"
Then, after referring to "starred" Bills, the Prime Minister said:
"I am speaking now on behalf of the Government and as Leader of the House, and I say that that is not the purpose to which this Motion is intended to be applied. We intend to guard a discussion which is approaching its conclusion, which may very often reach its conclusion in a quarter of an hour or half an hour—I am not binding myself, otherwise there may be charges of breaches of faith."
1414
Subsequently, in reply to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) the Prime Minister again made his statement in perfectly clear terms:
"My statement was this, that the intention of this provision is to enable discussion in progress on a Bill to continue after eleven o'clock with what I call reasonable elasticity, or a reasonable probability of its being brought to an end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October 1911, cols. 27–30].
We are now on Clause 4. There are several more Clauses some of them of material import, and there are several pages of Amendments. I do not know what the purpose of the Government is, but I think we ought to know now whether the Government intend to make some reasonable proposal in conformity with the Prime Minister's undoubted declaration, or whether there is to be a departure from that clear understanding. We have so far been discussing the creation of a Board of Agriculture and the powers of the new Scottish Department; we are now coming to the further parts which follow from Clause 3. Nobody will deny that the Bill makes very large changes in administration, and it must be remembered that the measure has only been previously discussed for one day in the House itself. My hon. Friend, the Member for the City, asked the Prime Minister in respect of Bills that have not been referred to Committee. Well, the Government have set up Grand Committee. One part of the plea of my hon. Friend was that in this Autumn Session the Government were asking the House to do a very heavy amount of work without Grand Committee. With the Grand Committee it is doubly true that you are asking the House

1415
to do, under exceptional circumstances, a very heavy amount of work. What are the proposals of the Government? Are we to go on with this Bill dealing with questions of great and grave import to the agriculture of the United Kingdom at this hour of the morning, within a comparatively few hours of the meeting of the Committee dealing with Part II. of the Insurance Bill, or are the Government prepared to make some reasonable proposition that we on our part will be prepared to listen to.
Mr. URE: We certainly did anticipate that we would have been able at one sitting to go to the Third Reading of the Bill. Let me remind the House that this Bill was not challenged on its Second Reading, and that as a result of the conference that took place between myself, my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, my hon. Friend opposite, and the hon. Baronet, we came to an agreement upon the main points of the Bill, upon the principle of the measure. There are, I admit, details of the Bill of great importance, but these were very fully discussed in Committee. There are several pages of Amendments before us. There are only one or two that need detain us at any length; some, I have intimated, I am prepared to accept. So far, then, as I can see there need be no copious discussion upon any of these Amendments except the one in Clause 7 relating to appeals standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson). The right hon. Gentleman has asked what are the Government's intentions. We have got on very well with the Bill. We might continue our work for a little while longer and see how we get on. The right hon. Gentleman can hardly ask us to fix a definite hour; it depends within reasonable limits upon the progress made.
Sir F. BANBURY: As I took some part in the discussion on the first day of this portion of the Session I should like to say a few words upon the adjournment Motion now before us. I hope what I have to say will smooth matters and enable us to come to a reasonable conclusion. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of hon. Members who remember what took place upon that occasion, that it was the distinct understanding that the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule should only be applied in case there was
1416
a Clause under discussion which might be brought to a termination in half or three-quarters of an hour, or if there was a discussion upon a Third Reading which might be brought to a conclusion within a reasonable time after eleven o'clock. The actual Debate took place upon the statement of the Prime Minister that he did not intend to apply the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to the Insurance Bill, as the Closure Resolutions in regard to it would specify 10.30. At that time these Closure resolutions were not before us. I pointed out it would do no harm to the Government, as they did not intend to take the Insurance Bill after eleven o'clock, and as they did not intend to proceed at length after eleven o'clock upon other Bills, to accept my Amendment, which would prevent the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule.
The Prime Minister replied that he wanted to leave a certain amount of elasticity, and I replied there would be this danger—that if the Prime Minister was in his place on these occasions, I would feel sure effect would be given to the undertaking he had given, but that occasions might arise when the Prime Minister would not be in his place, and that subordinate Members of the Government, impelled perhaps by importunate Members below the Gangway, would not have the courage to abide by the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, and that in these circumstances it would be better to have a clear and distinct understanding. Then my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire put some categorial questions to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister said he did not like being cross-examined in that fashion. But the undertaking was perfectly clear, and that was that the suspension was merely to be used in order to conclude certain business tinder discussion at that time. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate says he cannot say exactly how far he is going to go to-night. If he indicates a part of the Bill down to which he thinks he ought to get to-night, as this is an agreed Bill, the Opposition, I think, would give an undertaking not to use the concession in any unfair manner, that would be much better than to keep us here to five or six o'clock in the morning when we have to meet again at eleven o'clock on the unemployed part of the Insurance Bill. It would be much more in the interest of the right hon. Gentleman himself that we should discuss this Bill in an amicable spirit than that we should be sent to bed

1417
late in the morning in a disturbed and unfriendly spirit. I have been twenty years in the House, and I know what is the result of all-night sittings. No business is really forwarded by this course. The discussions are futile, and it will be far better, as this is an important Bill, if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the olive branch held out, and he will lose nothing by so doing.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I agree with what the hon. Baronet has said. No good purpose will be served if a strong feeling is aroused which may interfere with the smooth passage of this measure. This is a great Bill, and the main principles of it have been accepted by all parties in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I think all the main principles of it have been accepted. Many negotiations have taken place to bring about the desired result, and I do not want to raise any controversy now. I regard the proposals we are now discussing as the machinery to carry out the Bill, and I should regret it if, after the great progress which has been made towards a settlement amongst all parties, the last stage should be one of acute controversy and probably misunderstanding. There is another reason why I take that view. I think the general understanding when the Motion was passed was that we should not have very late and controversial sittings, and that was the spirit which prevailed when the Prime Minister made the concession in regard to a discussion on the Motion for adjournment. It was generally agreed that that was to be the procedure throughout the sitting. After all, this Bill affects a very large portion of the population of Scotland, and I do not know that it is in the best interests of this House or of Scotland itself that our discussions on an important measure should take place at a late hour when obviously our proceedings cannot be reported and brought to the knowledge of the people of Scotland.
I am a warm supporter of this Bill, and I am anxious that it should be passed through this House and the other Chamber, and I think its prospects will be greatly improved if it can pass with the general approval of the House. Under these circumstances I ask the Government whether the best interests of all would not be best served if some general understanding was come to as to the amount of time we should give to the measure on some future occasion. If not,
1418
we shall probably go on until three or four o'clock in the morning, and then we shall probably come to some understanding. I have been through many all-night sittings, and I find that generally an agreement is arrived at about three or four o'clock in the morning which might have been arrived at earlier in the evening. I ask the Government to consider the suggestion that if the Opposition were to give an undertaking that three or four hours, at a date to be fixed, would be considered sufficient to conclude the proceedings on this Bill we might adjourn at the present stage. Under those circumstances we might be able to conclude our discussions at a time when our proceedings would be reported, and the public in Scotland would have a knowledge of what was going on.
12.0 M.
I do not think the Third Reading need take very long. There is scarcely an Amendment moved on which you cannot make a Third Reading speech in the ordinary Parliamentary sense. I would suggest, therefore the Government should give us about four hours on a date to be agreed with the Opposition, and that we should now adjourn.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I altogether deny that this can be called an agreed Bill. It is quite true several Members of the Opposition were as anxious to get the Bill passed as possible, and we had meetings with the Lord Advocate and others with a view to settling some important questions, but as the House knows already, there are still very important questions which are in no sense agreed upon and never were agreed upon. I say that to prevent misunderstanding and not in the least to create any feeling other than that which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) desires to see preserved. If I am not going too far, might I suggest we could do all the other stages of the Bill easily enough if we could get a Friday. I do not know that is much more than has been suggested. I thing it is practically the same. Probably it might take the whole Friday, but I do not know. I feel satisfied, however, if we could get a Friday we could put the Bill through its remaining stages without trouble.
Mr. URE: I wish, in the first place, to disclaim altogether the idea of having advocated sitting till three or four o'clock in the morning. After what the Prime Minister said, such an idea never entered my mind. I am very willing to grasp the

1419
olive branch the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has held out. It has occurred to me we might get to the end of Clause 6 to-night. So far as I can see, there are no controversial topics raised till we come to Clause 7, but there may be some controversy on that Clause. If the House will agree to that proposal—
Mr. WALTER LONG: That will do. I accept what the Lord Advocate has said as fairly meeting our suggestions, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. MORTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words, "one of the said Agricultural Commissioners shall be a person who can speak the Gaelic language."
The House has already agreed that there shall be someone in the Land Court who can speak the Gaelic language, but I think there is even more reason why one of the Agricultural Commissioners should be able to speak Gaelic. Most of the business will be settled by the Board of Agriculture without the Land Court being troubled at all. I am quite aware that in most parts of the crofting counties the people can speak English, but there are a good many of them who can express themselves far more effectively in Gaelic than in English. I hope, therefore, the Government will agree to this little Amendment, as I am sure it will be in the interests of the proper carrying out of this Small Landowners' Bill. I want this Bill to go through, and, what is more, the people of Scotland want to see it passed into law. I am not going to do anything to prevent that, but I move this Amendment in fulfilment of a promise I gave to my constituents and the people generally in the crofting counties.
Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. URE: I am afraid I cannot accede to this proposal. There are only three Agricultural Commissioners. It has already been decided that one of the Commissioners for the Land Commission shall possess this qualification, and in that case it is most desirable in the interests of witnesses for the Highlands who only speak Gaelic. The necessity is not so marked so far as the Agricultural Commission is concerned.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sincerely of opinion that a Gaelic speaking man would
1420
be most useful as an Agricultural Commissioner. This little addition to the Bill would be a marked improvement, and I shall be glad if the Lord Advocate can see his way to accept this little Amendment.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: As a Gaelic speaking Member of this House, I think it would be a little absurd that we should force so circumscribed a choice for the Board of Agriculture. We have already a Gaelic speaking member provided for the Land Committee.
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
Mr. HARRY HOPE: I beg to move, to add at the end of Section (1), the words "The Chairman of the Department shall not, by reason of his office, be incapable of being elected to or voting in the Commons House of Parliament."
We consider it would be an advantage for the working of the Bill if this addition were made. We recognise that the Board is going to have an immense amount of work to do, not merely with the small holdings, but in connection with technical instruction, and there will also be a good deal of responsible work in other ways. Therefore, we feel that, unless the Chairman is eligible to be a member of this House we in Scotland are not going to have the first-rate Department we are entitled to. The Chairman of the Irish Agricultural Department is a Member of this House, and considering the congested state of business at the Scottish Office, we think that this matter will not be properly looked after and safeguarded unless we have a Chairman who can sit in this House.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: While I prefer my own Amendment I am prepared, in order that the discussion on this point may not be prolonged, to second my hon. Friend's proposal. After all, it puts the point in a most conciliatory form, and I hope, therefore, it will receive the support of the Government. No doubt a very large, if not the largest, section of Scottish agriculturists are in favour of the policy which has been advocated from the other side to-night. It is purely a matter of expediency that we should have a separate Scottish Board under the Scotch Office to deal with agricultural matters, but the Debate has shown that there are strong reasons from an English point of view which raise the question to a higher level. What is essential, however, from whichever

1421
point of view it is looked at, is that the Board should be an efficient Board, and if you are going to cut the painter with the British Board you must have your Scottish Board properly equipped. We know what a fuss was made when the representative of the Irish Board of Agriculture was without a seat in this House, and we hold that Scotland, equally with Ireland, should have at the head of its Board a gentleman with a seat in this House, who can be responsible to it for the working of his Department. That I believe to be absolutely necessary. We do not want another of those inaccessible heads of Departments; we want to have at the head of the Department a man who is familiar with the industry and who can deal with Scottish agricultural matters in this House. It does not matter whether the Board sits in Edinburgh or London, so long as its head is in this House.
While we may admit all honour is due to the Scottish Education Department for being ready to take over everything from Scottish Universities to poultry farms, yet nothing in that or any Department of the Scottish Office warrants giving such enormous powers as this Bill provides outside the statutory legislation to enable Dover House to rig up whatever kind of Board of Agriculture for Scotland it may think sufficient. Judged by the standard of Scottish Boards in the past, we have no reason to look forward with hope to the establishment of such another Board. The Secretary for Scotland is master of many Boards. He cannot supervise and control them all, and he will be quite unable to supervise and control this new Board. The Lord Advocate cannot speak with responsibility for any one of these Departments. The Minister who is nominally responsible for these Departments is not in the House, and we cannot criticise or impose the policy of the Scottish representatives upon the policy of the Department. The Government is assuming vast and novel responsibilities, and is making no adequate provision to meet them. This is the only way in which adequate provision can be made, and I trust that now we have money, and a properly constituted Department under a responsible head being within our reach, the Government will allocate money and give us the head. It is the view of some people that the Scottish Office has a kind of divine mission to cope with the organisation dealt with under this Bill, but those who think so have yet to justify their faith, and unless this organisation
1422
is set up with competent agricultural authority, and unless it is represented in this House, we remain at the mercy of the most skilled and brilliant debater in this House, who is totally unencumbered by responsibility for anything that is being done by this or any other Department. I warn the House that this Clause as it stands is unsafe, whether from the point of view of Scottish interests or British interests as a whole. I do not think that the long debates we have had on the maintenance of the British Board as at present constituted to safeguard Scottish interests were altogether necessary. I think this question of having an effective Scotch Board which will be secured by the Amendment is one which the House ought not to pass unnoticed, and I look forward with some apprehension to the working of the Bill unless the Amendment is accepted.
Mr. URE: My answer shall be short, but, I hope, perfectly clear and definite. My right hon. Friend opposite says this Board will be full of work. I agree. Therefore I desire that its working head should be in Edinburgh, and that he should not have a seat in this House, in order that he may be able to devote his undivided and exclusive attention to the work of the Board. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) says he desires that the Board should be efficient. So do I, and I cannot see how the Board can be efficient if its Chairman is sitting in this House while the other members are sitting and doing the work in Edinburgh. It appears to me that in the case of a small Board like this, entrusted with the duty of guiding and managing the agricultural affairs of Scotland, it is absolutely essential, if you are to secure efficiency, all the members of the Board should work together in their office in Edinburgh, and that none of them should be required to sit here, especially when we look to the experience of recent years and see what is meant by a member sitting here for the greater part of the year attending to his duties in the House of Commons. Let the House remember that this is a totally different question from the question whether or not Scottish agriculture should have in this House a Minister representing it. That is a very debatable proposition. It is not now before the House.
The question before the House is whether the working head of a busy Department should have a seat in this House, or whether he should not be rather sitting

1423
with his colleagues in Edinburgh. My right hon. Friend says he looks forward with apprehension to the work of this Board if one of its members, the Chairman to wit, is not a Member of this House. I think his apprehensions are premature. Let us wait and see. This Board is to report every year to the House of Commons. The salaries of its members will be on the Votes. The Minister, whoever he may be, representing the Scottish Office must, of course, make himself thoroughly conversant with the Report, and he must be ready when the Debate comes on—and I hope the opportunities will be oftener than they have been in the past—to defend the action of the Board. But it does not appear to me—and in this respect I differ from my right hon. Friend—that a minute technical knowledge of agriculture is essential to enable the Minister to defend the Department here. He will have ample material before him, and if he is an intelligent man capable of comprehending what he reads, and also of taking information and instruction from his fellow Members in this House, he may be able to defend the Department without, that technical knowledge which my right hon. Friend possesses in so full a measure. If the Chairman of the Board were a Member of this House, he would be absolutely severed from the active work of the Board, and he would only be able to answer questions on information received from his colleagues in Edinburgh, and he would be to that extent, however skilful he might be, placed at some disadvantage. Therefore it appears to me that a Member to be an efficient head of the new Board of Agriculture ought not to be encumbered with the duty of acting as a Member of Parliament.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I think it a very unfortunate conclusion at which the Government have arrived. The result is that the interests of the agriculturists of Scotland will be left to be managed by a branch of the Scottish Office. The responsible head of it will be the Secretary for Scotland, who does not sit in this House at all. You will just have a permanent official and nothing more. I say nothing against permanent officials, but I say that that is not a proper Board for the management of such an important branch of government as agriculture. I have had the experience not so long ago of representing Scotch Boards in this House, and it is not satisfactory to those
1424
who are expounding policy because they are only getting it second hand. Of course we only have to do the best we can but it is not a satisfactory method of carrying on business. When one remembers how strenuously the Irish Members insisted on the Vice-President of the Irish Board being in this House it is odd to find the same Government, which abolished the Irish lawyers in order to give him a seat, taking up the attitude which they now assume. The defence which they have attempted is not anything like adequate to meet the criticism that has been advanced.
Mr. MALCOLM: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman that if the Chairman of the Board is to do his work effectively in Edinburgh he cannot be a Member of this House is one that applies equally to the legal profession of which he is so distinguished an ornament. The right hon. Gentleman has not only work to do here, but he is Lord Advocate in Scotland, and has work to do there. I trust, therefore, that in regard to the great profession of agriculture he will not subordinate the position of the Chairman of the Board. We do think that the Bill would be infinitely better if the Chairman could be a Member of the House, who would be responsible to this House not only for his actions, but also for the application of funds which would be at his disposal. I am not sure that it is not a large constitutional point that a man who is in charge of funds devoted by the State to certain purposes should not be a Member of this House. I quite agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the Irish Members were not caught by this kind of chaff at all because they insisted on the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, who would correspond to the Chairman of this Board, being in the House of Commons. They turned out a Unionist and put in a Nationalist in order to enable him to be here. That is the position of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland. I think it would be a very much better plan if it could be managed at the present moment that my hon. Friend should withdraw this Amendment in favour of the much more definite Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs. I do not at all like the idea that it should be a kind of negative proposal that "the Chairman of the Department shall not, by reason of his office, be incapable of being elected to, or voting in,

1425
the Commons House of Parliament." I much prefer the more positive proposal that the Chairman of the Board shall be a Minister with a seat in this House. In that way only shall we get proper representation of agriculture in Scotland. In that way only shall we be able to saddle the proper Minister with the appropriation—or the misappropriation as we may consider it—of the funds at his disposal. I
Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (2), to insert the words, "save in respect of diseases of animals and plants, and adulteration of food stuffs and fertilisers."
This Amendment merely crystallised the point on which we English agriculturists feel most particularly that this Bill requires some amendment. As a great deal has already been said in support of the
do not know whether it will meet with the approval of my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and to take a division on the positive proposal.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 89.

Division No. 371.]

AYES.

[12.35 a.m.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Balcarres, Lord

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Stanier, Beville

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gilmour, Captain J.

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Barnston, H.

Grant, J. A.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Barrie, H. T.

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Thynne, Lord A.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hunt, Rowland

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Bennet-Goldney, Francis

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Waring, Walter

Bryce, J. Annan

Mackinder, Halford J.

Watt, Henry A.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Malcolm, Ian

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Whitehouse, John Howard

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Mount, William Arthur

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Clyde, J. Avon

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Younger, Sir George

Courthope, George Loyd

Perkins, Walter F.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Dairymple, Viscount

Pretyman, Ernest George

Mr. Harry Hope and Mr. Munro-Ferguson.

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Dowd, John

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Power, Patrick Joseph

Booth, Frederick Handel

Henry, Sir Charles

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Rowntree, Arnold

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Clough, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Cowan, W. H.

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molten)

Tennant, Harold John

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dawes, J. A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Doris, William

Lundon, Thomas

Verney, Sir Harry

Duffy, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

McGhee, Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Webb, H.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macpherson, James Ian

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Falconer, James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wilkie, Alexander

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Callum, John M.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

France, Gerald Ashburner

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Young, William (Perth, East)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Millar, James Duncan

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Munro, Robert

Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Hackett, John

Nolan, Joseph

arguments which can be adduced in favour of the exclusion of the matters to which the Amendment relates, I do not propose to add anything at this stage, except to remind the House that it was the differential treatment of these matters on the part of the authorities, and the unhappy consequences which occurred in respect of our farm stock, that resulted in the constitution of the present Board

1427
of Agriculture and Fisheries, whose beneficent action in regard to such matters for many years past has resulted in increased prosperity to our agricultural community.
Mr. COURTHOPE: I beg to second the Amendment, and, like my hon. Friend, I shall refrain from referring to any arguments which have already been dealt with to-night. I do not say adequately, but at all events to some extent. Much more might be said in support of those arguments, but the few words I propose to utter will be on a subject which you, Mr. Speaker, quite rightly during to-night's discussion ruled must wait for this Amendment. The only possible motive the Government can have for resisting this Amendment must arise from a hope that they may be able to pass a departmental measure in connection with the Scottish Board of Agriculture repealing the Act which prohibits the importation of Canadian cattle. I should like to say a few words to those Members who advocate so strongly the importation of Canadian stores into Scotland. Let me point out to them that the time is past when Canadian stores could be imported into Scotland cheaply, even supposing the prohibition were removed. Even importation for slaughter at Deptford and Birkenhead last year could not be carried on by any of the important firms for profit. I happen to have had personal experience of that, and I know what I am saying will not be contradicted. The demand in Canada to satisfy the home trade has, owing to the increasing population, grown tremendously, and added to this there are the requirements of the buyers from the United States, which are larger than ever. The result has been to cause so large an increase in the price that it is quite unthinkable that really cheap Canadian stores could be brought into Scotland now. There would be no advantage to the graziers of Scotland to secure that importation even, as I say, if the prohibition were removed. Therefore I do hope that those gentlemen who set great store by this matter will reconsider it in the light of what I have said. So long as it was possible for Canadian store cattle to be introduced into Scotland very cheaply, there was something to be said in favour of the argument, but now there is nothing whatever to support it. I hope, therefore, that for the sake of an idea which is no longer possible Members will not seek
1428
to impose great risks upon the valuable flocks and herds of this country.
Mr. URE: In resisting this proposal I shall not repeat anything I have previously said in speaking of the importation of Canadian cattle. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has asked me this question: Do you propose to separate the jurisdiction of the Scottish Board of Agriculture from the jurisdiction of the English Board of Agriculture? I answer unhesitatingly in the affirmative, because that is the inevitable meaning of the proposal that the Scottish Board of Agriculture should exercise full powers in the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not the question I asked. I assumed naturally that a frontier would be created between England and Scotland, and I asked how, with that frontier existing, and a dual control being exercised in regard to questions affecting security against diseases of animals, that situation could obtain without injuring the agriculture of the United Kingdom. That was my point. I assumed that a new frontier would be created, and I did not ask whether it would be so or not. What I said was the right hon. Gentleman had not given any reasons to show that the setting up of that new frontier would not create greater difficulties and disabilities in protecting agriculture in both countries from the invasion of much-dreaded diseases.
Mr. URE: I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not put that question. What he asked me was the question I have stated, namely, whether the Bill inevitably means that the sphere of jurisduction of the two Boards will be fixed by the border line between the two countries. I have answered that in the affirmative. He now asks how we are to protect flocks and herds from invasion and injury in consequence of dual administration. I do not call it dual administration. I call it separate and distinct administration for the two countries. I will take the argument based upon the assumption, which hon. Members opposite have always used in this House, that the Scottish Board of Agriculture is as vigilant, as prompt, as skilful, and as cautious as the English Board of Agriculture. On that assumption I will ask, where is the harm? On that assumption I would like to know what

1429
possible injury could be suffered by any farmer in England. Now I take the opposite view. I shall assume that the Scottish Board of Agriculture is lax, is lacking in skill, and is deficient in vigilance. I assume that an outbreak of disease takes place, and that the Scottish Board of Agriculture is lacking in vigilance and promptitude. How can that possibly injure England, where you have a Board which is ex hypothesi firm, vigilant, and skilful, and which could protect itself instantly from any sort of injury in respect of the transport of cattle across the border? In case of disease they will, of course, exclude all cattle from Scotland.
Mr. WALTER LONG: The Lord Advocate has a very interesting way of answering questions. I am almost afraid to say it in a House the majority of whose Members are supposed to be in favour of woman suffrage, but I am afraid it is generally attributed to the other sex that if they have a difficult question to answer they answer it by asking another question. The Lord Advocate answers questions by asking another. I do not blame him for not answering the simple questions put to him, for there is no answer to them, but what I do complain of is that he, who is on the defensive—we are not on the defensive; we are attacking—instead of answering our questions, proceeds to ask us a series of questions. I think he was a little unduly aggressive to my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Pretyman), and considering that he is extremely anxious to save time, he will forgive me saying he has not shown himself so great an adept at saving time as in other Parliamentary arts. If the Government will carry on their legislation until one or two o'clock in the morning, and make the House sit on, we need not be surprised if even the Lord Advocate's acute mind wanders a little. What my hon. Friend asked was a simple question. My hon. Friend did not ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was creating a border. Everybody knows you are going to set up a separate Department. The Lord Advocate began our Debates by boasting that that was what the Government were going to do, and that he would adhere to this separate jurisdiction as the most important part of the whole Bill. From that moment onward there was no doubt about the intention of the Government to set up a separate jurisdiction. What he was asked was how, with an artificial borderland, they could carry out
1430
those restrictions which he says they would enforce with such promptitude and skill. Everybody knows Canada has suffered from this one particular thing. She has not suffered from disease bred within her own borders. She has suffered from the fact that she has a great land border dividing her from the United States; the United States in turn are exposed to infection from other countries; and the consequence is that Canada has not been able to declare that clean bill of health which we, being an island, have been able to do. In more than one country in Europe, for the same reason, they are horrified by the magnitude of this danger, and every scientist on the subject has said to us: "You have an enormous advantage in being an island," The Lord Advocate is going to destroy that advantage for Scotland and England. He says there is going to be no dual control. There is going to be separate control. I would not at this hour of the morning, or at any hour, enter into competition with the Lord Advocate as to the meaning of the English language, but if he is going to set up separate Departments in England and Scotland to do the same work I say I do not know what the meaning of language is if that is not dual administration. He told us the two Departments would act together. When the English Department believes there should be general protection and the Scottish Department will not share that view the mischief he intended to do will be worse than I had previously believed it to be. The Lord Advocate went on to say there was no intention of repealing existing legislation. He has not answered the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. When the late Prime Minister first came into office he declared in the most definite terms that he thought the Act should be repealed. If the Scottish Board of Agriculture, acting on the recommendation of the majority of the Scottish Members, recommend the repeal of the Act so far as it applies to Scotland, will the Government take that as a recommendation on which they should act, or will they consult the English Board before they do so?
Mr. URE: Consult the House of Commons.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Yes, but they do not consult the House of Commons. They come down with a Bill prepared and they pass that Bill by the aid of their majority.

1431
That is what the Lord Advocate calls consulting the House of Commons. We are open to this danger. For my part I do not want to discuss this question any further. The responsibility for what the Government are doing rests with them. They are taking a very grave step, and are doing, I believe, a grave injury to our greatest industry. The responsibility
Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move to leave out the words "Commissioner for Small Holdings" ["such one of the members of the Board as the Secretary for Scotland shall from time to time appoint shall be designated the Commissioner for Small Holdings"], and insert, "Scottish Small Holdings Commissioner."
I think this is merely a drafting Amendment. My point of course is that there may be confusion as between the Small
must rest with them, and so far as we are concerned we will be content not to continue the Debate but to record our votes in the lobby against this proposal.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 89.

Division No. 372.]

AYES.

[1.0 a.m.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gilmour, Captain J.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Balcarres, Lord

Grant, J. A.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Barnston, Harry

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Barrie, H. T.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Stanier, Beville

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hunt, Rowland

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Thynne, Lord A.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Mackinder, Halford J.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Malcolm, Ian

White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, Sir George

Clyde, J. Avon

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Mount, William Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Dalrymple, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Mr. C. Bathurst and Mr. Courthope.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Perkins, Walter Frank

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Dowd, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Helme, Norval Watson

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Henry, Sir Charles

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Rowntree, Arnold

Bowerman, C. W.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Bryce, J. Annan

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

King, J. (Somerset, North)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Tennant, Harold John

Clancy, John Joseph

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rlnd, Cockerm'th)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Clough, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Lundon, Thomas

Verney, Sir Harry

Cowan, W. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Dawes, J. A.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Waring, Walter

Doris, William

McGhee, Richard

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duffy, William J.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Watt, Henry A.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Macpherson, James Ian

Webb, H.

Esslemont, George Birnie

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Falconer, James

M'Callum, John M.

Whtehouse, John Howard

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Millar, James Duncan

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Munro, R.

Hackett, John

Nolan, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Holdings Commissioners in England and those in Scotland. The expression I propose will indicate in this House who is intended when reference is made to this Commissioner.
Sir EDWARD CARLILE: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. URE: I prefer very much the expression in the Bill. There is no risk of the confusion to which the hon. Member

1433
refers, as the Bill applies exclusively to Scotland, and whenever the Commissioner is referred to it will be understood that it is the Commissioner for Small Holdings in Scotland.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 6.—(Application of Moneys.)
The Agriculture (Scotland) Fund shall be applied for the following purposes, that is to say, for the purpose of facilitating the constitution of new landholders' holdings and the improvement and rebuilding of dwelling-houses or other buildings on landholders' holdings in terms of the Landholders Acts or the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, and for the purpose of exercising the other powers and duties conferred on or transferred to the Board by this Act, in accordance with schemes to be approved by the Secretary for Scotland.
Amendments made: After the word "holdings" ["new landholders' holdings"] insert the words "the enlargement of landholders' holdings."—[Mr. Ure.]
Leave out the words "on landholders' holdings" ["the improvement and rebuilding of dwelling-houses or other buildings on landholders' holdings"] and insert instead thereof the words "of landholders and cottars," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Ure.]
Leave out the word "by" ["transferred to the Board by this Act"] and insert the words "under the provisions of," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Ure.]
Mr. AINSWORTH: I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause the words, "and also for the purpose of assisting necessitous local authorities in congested districts to carry out the requirements of the Public Health Acts on such terms and in accordance with such schemes as may be approved by the Secretary for Scotland."
I will detain the House for only a moment, but it is well within the knowledge of Members who either represent or are acquainted with the Highlands and islands of Scotland that there is an extreme difficulty in many of the congested parishes in carrying out their requirements. In some it is practically impossible to carry them out owing to the lowness of the rateable value. At the
1434
present moment it is impossible under the present state of things for the inhabitants to find the necessary money to enable them to carry them out. If these extra powers could be given to the Board of Agriculture which has now, according to the Act, taken over the finance of the Congested District Board, they will be able to deal with a case of this kind. Under these circumstances I think it is only fair that we should add that the Agriculture Funds, which are founded in the first instance on the money handed from Imperial sources for the special benefit of the necessitous districts, should be still made use of for the relief of those for whom it was intended. I hope the Lord Advocate may be able to accept my proposal, but if he cannot I would suggest that he might, before we meet again to proceed with the Bill, see if Clause 7, Sub-section (7) could not be so enlarged and strengthened as to enable us to get the assistance we want under that Clause, if not under this Amendment.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. W. HUNTER: The point raised by my hon. Friend is really dealt with, so far as the question of small holdings is concerned under the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 7, which we propose to deal with when we take up the further consideration of this Bill, and I do not think the words proposed could properly come in on Clause 6. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied that the provision of water in connection with the equipment of small holdings is sufficiently attended to by the words of Subsection (7) of Clause 7.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
Ordered, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[The Lord Advocate.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered to-morrow (Tuesday).
Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly, at Fifteen minutes after One a.m., Tuesday, 7th November, 1911.