§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYBefore we enter upon a discussion of these items, I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether it is in order for us on this Vote to discuss the policy of the Development Fund. It may be held that it is the policy of the Development Fund and not that of the Board of Agriculture, because the Grant comes from them. I think it is desirable that we should have this point made quite clear.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAm I not right in thinking that this is a new Vote, and therefore the whole policy can be discussed?
§ The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman will recollect that this Vote came up in exactly the same form in the month of February last year. The rule is that the policy of the Development Commissioners, in allocating these Grants, cannot be discussed on the various Votes to which payment is made, and that discussion must be reserved for the Vote dealing with the Development Commission. The question whether it is a new Vote appearing for the first time does not affect that rule?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI understand that you ruled, Mr. Chairman, that the general policy of the Development Commissioners cannot be discussed. Am I not right in thinking that this particular item of agricultural research can be discussed—that is to say, the question can be discussed as to whether it is advisable to apply £11,000 or any other sum of money to that particular purpose?
§ The CHAIRMANWhat is open for discussion is the method by which the Department proposes to spend this sum within the terms of the allocation.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTI desire to refer to one or two of the items which appear under the Supplementary Vote for the Board of Agriculture. I find it exceedingly difficult to do so, however, in the absence of the President of the Board of Agriculture, whom we hope to see here.
§ Mr. MASTERMANHe will be here in a moment, and I will make a note of what the hon. Member says.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI am sure everyone will give the right hon. Gentleman a a hearty welcome, for he has left an important Department in order to apply his great abilities to another Department in which there is immense scope for enterprise if he proceeds on sound lines in the interest of all branches of the agricultural community. The first item to which I desire to refer is the improvement of light horse breeding. I think the very small sum put against this particular item is only intended to afford an opportunity for discussion.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKEROn a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. May I ask if we shall be allowed to go back to the previous portion of this Vote if a Motion for reduction is made?
§ The CHAIRMANI do not understand that the hon. Member for the Wilton Division is moving a reduction. If he does, of course it would cut out the other items.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI do not intend to move a reduction, but I shall refer to the earlier items in the vote. I assume that the small sum set down has been put down for the purpose of welcoming a discussion on the policy adopted by the Board, and I wish to make a few remarks on that subject. It is to my mind very difficult to defend this item of £40,000 a year which the Development Commissioners have 1016 placed at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture unless there is some really national benefit to be derived from it. It is common knowledge that the War Office are acting in co-operation with the Board of Agriculture in this matter, and it is also common knowledge that we are certainly deficient in the right type of horse best suited for modern military requirements. I think one is justified in asking whether this money is being expended to the national advantage. I am only acquainted in this respect with what is going on in the county in which I live, where I find that, all told, thirteen mares have been purchased with the money provided for the purpose last year, and these have been placed with suitable farmers. It was too late when the scheme was matured by the Board to enable the mares to be served last season unless they were going to drop their foals at a very late period of the year. In any case, thirteen mares only are being provided for the somewhat large county of Gloucestershire. If that average prevails all over the country, the number of foals which will be available for this national purpose will be extremely small. There is another objection to this scheme as it exists at present. The Grants are being made to the various counties irrespective of the suitability of those counties for the purpose of horse breeding. We all know that certain parts of England are much better suited in the way of both soil and climate for the raising of strong and sound horses than other parts of the country. In my own county, for instance, the farmers in the vale of the Severn have not received any of these mares, because it is considered that the land is unsuitable, whereas the farmers living on the hills have received the mares in preference. That is strong evidence that if we want to get full value for the money it would be much wiser policy on the part of the Board to choose certain districts eminently suited, and to select five or six farms for this express purpose, instead of dealing out mares through every county. They could then buy their two and three-year-olds, suitable young horses, break them, and provide them, when the time comes, to the War Office as suitable for remount purposes. They would be able to raise a very much larger number of suitable horses than under the existing scheme, they would be able to give a greater benefit to the farmers, who would be glad to receive £20 or £25 for sound two-year- 1017 olds, and they would be able to choose to a greater extent than at present suitable localities for carrying on this nationally important work.
As regards the King's Premium stallions, there is one very useful although somewhat unpleasantly significant result which has come from the Board's policy in this matter. I believe the right hon. Gentleman makes it a condition precedent to nomination for any of these King's Premium stallions that the mare shall be absolutely sound. It is a sad fact, and rather an indication of the drain of good horses from this country to other countries, that in the county I know best the majority of owners of mares who asked for nomination possessed stock which, on examination by the veterinary officer, was found to be subject more or less to hereditary unsoundness. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will maintain that condition and insist upon every county committee making it a condition of such service, because it may do something to prevent stock which is subject to hereditary unsoundness being bred at the national expense. I want to turn to two other groups of items in this Supplementary Estimate. I group them for a purpose which I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate when I mention it. There is an Estimate for salaries, wages, and allowances for the staff required under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, and in connection with the Diseases of Animals, and a much larger item in connection with the same work described as "travelling and removal expenses." Those two items together come to £4,000. Lower down we find an item, "assistance in the organisation of co-operation in agriculture," £3,000.
§ The CHAIRMANThe real question of policy, as I said a few moments ago in connection with another Vote, must come on the main Vote. I say this for the guidance of other hon. Members of the Committee. It appears to me the only matter arising on Sub-Head I. is whether the sum should be paid through county committees instead of direct from the Treasury. Therefore, the question of policy does not arise further on the Supplementary Vote.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI will endeavour to keep within your ruling, although I may find it very difficult. I want to point out in connection with the work of the Board with regard to the provision of small 1018 holdings that there is an ever-increasing national bill, and on the other side we find it has become necessary, and I fully welcome it, to provide a large sum in order to encourage co-operation. I have from the outset been a sympathiser with the principle of small holdings, but extremely apprehensive as to the methods adopted by the Board, because it seems to me the Board, as evidenced by the recent appointments of new Commissioners, realise they have to face economic conditions and economic tendencies with something in the nature of pressure in order to carry out the alleged objects of the Small Holdings Acts. I have always held that in this matter of small holdings they have put the cart before the horse. If they had prepared the ground by a proper scheme of practical agricultural education on the one side and co-operation on the other, a large amount of money which has now to be allocated to putting pressure upon the county councils to resist what I call a natural economic tendency would not be necessary. In other words, the Board has, to some extent, to modify economic conditions if they want to bring into existence a large number of artificially created small holdings which are going to be an economic success. The first way in which they can modify those conditions—and it has been done with enormous success on the Continent—is to provide a network of co-operative societies throughout the country, or to encourage their formation, and also to provide some system of meeting the financial difficulties of small holders by co-operative credit associations, which will enable the small holder to have money upon easy terms. Although somewhat late in the day, I welcome most heartily this sum of £3,000 which is being devoted to agricultural co-operation; and I only hope it is the first instalment of a very much larger sum which will be devoted to the same purpose. There was an inclination a year ago on the part of the Board and its advisers to pay this money through the county councils. I think the Board are prepared now to recognise that the county councils for many reasons, but mainly because there are conflicting interests to be found upon such councils, would not have been proper bodies to carry on this work with enthusiasm and energy. The fact that the Agricultural Organisation Society has been chosen for this purpose has been welcomed by everyone acquainted with the excellent work carried on by that association for many years past, and in 1019 desiring now the reorganisation of that organisation and in endeavouring to speed up the work which it is doing. I for one, as a member of the committee of that organisation, am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman all possible support.
I want to turn to another group. I prefer to group these subjects, because I am suggesting that expenditure which is found under one bead would not be necessary if a larger expenditure had been made under another. I desire in the same way to group the headings of Agricultural Research and Diseases of Animals, the additional expenses in connection with which are to be found partly under sub-head (a) and partly under sub-head (g). I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must welcome the fact that farmers and agriculturists generally have shown themselves sufficiently alive to their own interests and to the future development of agriculture in the country to put research at the head of their demands for Grants under the Development Fund. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has not in the past shown itself always favourable to the development of science in connection with agricultural practice. Since the appointment of Mr. Middleton a different atmosphere has prevailed at the Board in this respect, but the Board has complained in days gone by that that enthusiasm for expenditure on science has not been reflected in the counsels of agricultural societies. I do not think you can say that now, and when we find agricultural organisations generally leave the question of Grants out of the Development Fund with every confidence to the Board, asking them to apply them to purposes which they are prepared to recommend, I think it is only fair they should be acquainted with the objects towards which the Board desire to apply the money, and that they should be acquainted with the particular institutions or societies amongst which the money is to be distributed. There appears to be a certain reticence on the part of the Board in disclosing to the various organisations their exact intentions. A question was asked the other day as to what purposes and institutions the right hon. Gentleman proposed to allocate the sum of £30,000 which he has obtained from the Commissioners for the purposes of research. Many of us are very much interested to know what is to be done with this money, and, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give us the information this afternoon, it will afford 1020 some satisfaction to the farmers and others who have so loyally and trustfully left this matter in the hands of the Board.
It is only fair to point out that we in this country are even now far behind other countries in the expenditure of public money upon matters connected with agricultural research in all its departments, and, when we have serious out-breaks of highly contagious diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, anthrax, swine fever, and other similar diseases—particularly those which also affect human beings, as anthrax and tuberculosis do—we are entitled to ask whether, if a larger amount were spent upon research into the nature and source of these diseases, the large sums which the public are paying at present through taxes and through rates by way of compensation where animals have to be slaughtered wholesale, might not be to a large extent saved. A Departmental Committee recently reported upon swine fever, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it transpired in the course of the evidence taken by that Committee that the experts themselves had very little precise scientific knowledge of this disease. In fact, just to give an illustration, the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are insisting upon twenty-eight days as the period for isolation in connection with this disease, but his own expert advisers—
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid this is going a good deal too wide. This is a Supplementary Estimate, and this amount of money has been granted to the Board of Agriculture for a specific purpose. The only matter that can be discussed is how this money is proposed to be spent within the limit of the terms of the Grant made by the Development Commissioners.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTMy difficulty in dealing with that is that the Board, up to date, has been extremely secretive on the subject, and I am unable to criticise what might be the distribution of the fund, because up till now the President has not vouchsafed to us the exact purposes to which it is to be applied.
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps the hon. Gentleman can elucidate that by putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him to define how the money is to be spent.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTWhile I am prepared to adopt the Chairman's suggested method of dealing with the matter I must 1021 say it makes it difficult to discuss the various possible objects to which the right hon. Gentleman may devote the money from the point of view which some of us would like to do. But putting it in the form of an interrogatory, may I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to allocate any part of the fund, or whether he proposes to obtain further funds, for the purpose of conducting researches into the nature and means of conveyance of such diseases as swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, anthrax, and tuberculosis. That is my first question. In that connection I will only remind the right hon. Gentleman that the evidence taken before Departmental Committees of the Board of Agriculture shows that the bulk of work in this connection is being done by Continental countries and not by ourselves. I should also like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to apply any part of this money to research into what is known as the Isle of Wight bee disease, a disease which ravaged many parts of the country last winter and last spring, and the effects of which were only partially saved us by the exceptionally fine summer season.
I also desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is devoting any part of this Grant, and, if so, how much, to the experimental station at Rothamstead where work, unparelleled in the civilised world, has been carried on since Sir John Bennett Lawes started it many years ago, with regard to manures as applied to various crops. I ask the same question with regard to the department of agriculture of Cambridge University, where, as many hon. Gentlemen are aware, most magnificent work has been done, largely through the efforts of Professor Biffen, during the last ten years, in connection with new types of wheat which would have a higher value to the baker and the country, and, therefore, command higher prices if raised by our farmers. I should also like to ask the same with regard to the work of Professor Priestley, of Bristol University, in connection with the electrification of crops, a subject regarded with some little amusement and, indeed, ridicule, when first mentioned a few years ago, but now admitted to be a most useful work, and likely to be applied with economic value in the early future.
There is one general question I should like to put the right hon. Gentleman in regard to these grants, and it is: Is it the 1022 policy of his Department to make large block Grants to various well-equipped institutions, in order to carry out work of a specific kind, rather than to make small sporadic Grants to county councils and other institutions not so well equipped to carry on the same work with, as I venture to think, nothing like the same valuable result. It seems to me there is likely to be a very great waste of public money unless the Board is prepared to concentrate on those institutions, which are properly equipped for the purpose, a sufficient Grant to enable them to conduct their work satisfactorily. On the other hand, if various small bodies and institutions have small Grants which cannot enable them to employ persons of sufficient knowledge and experience, those Grants will be very largely wasted, as the work they carry on will be of very little public benefit. I am bound to say it is extremely difficult under the ruling of the Chair to criticise the work of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, as I should like to do, but in any case I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with these Grants from the Development Fund, whether he is prepared, as time goes on, to take the agricultural community into his full confidence in the matter, and, when he receives a large block Grant from the Development Commissioners, he will acquaint the House and the farmers throughout the country with the express purposes to Which he proposes to apply it.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERI want to ask about the additional £2,500 required under Sub-head A for the administration and work of the Small Holdings Allotment Act. I should like to inquire how much of this money is being used for the six additional Small Holdings Commissioners appointed last year? I want to ascertain whether the country is getting sufficient value for this money. I will take it that this sum is being used for the payment of these additional Commissioners. I want to know how much is actually being paid and whether this covers the whole of their expenses for the past year. When they were appointed the then Secretary of the Board of Agriculture was asked what would be the total additional cost of the Board in consequence of the appointment of these Commissioners, including the outside assistants and clerical staff. They were appointed about the 15th May last. The answer was that the total additional cost for salaries would be £3,600. Six months 1023 after the appointment we have a Supplementary Estimate for £2,500. Can we have a definite pledge that the £3,600 will not be exceeded? Then I come to the question of what these Commissioners have done? The six additional Commissioners were appointed in order to speed up the work of the Small Holdings Act. We were told that land was not being provided sufficiently rapidly by the county councils, and that two Commissioners could not do the work. Six additional ones were stated to be necessary, and I think here I shall be in order in remarking that if hon. Members opposite want an excellent case of "jobbery" the appointment of these Commissioners affords an excellent example. Two no doubt excellent Gentlemen—I know nothing against them—were appointed. But I see no reason why they were appointed without any examination at all except it be that one of them sat on the benches opposite as a supporter of the Government, and the other was a Radical candidate at the time he was appointed. That, I suggest, is an admirable illustration of the jobbery which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so fond of suggesting occurs among their political opponents and of denying as applicable to their own side.
I had the curiosity to put to the right hon. Gentleman to-day a question as to what additional amount of land had been provided as a result of the efforts of these six additional Commissioners. You must remember two Commissioners had to do the work up till the middle of May. The information is given me in regard to six months periods, and the answer shows that up to the 30th June, 1909, the county councils had provided 19,791 acres, and in the six months ending December in the same year 18,102 acres. It must be remembered that most land is obtainable in the December six months, because leases expire generally at Michaelmas, and it is easier for landlords to let or sell land for small holdings. In the six months ending June, 1910, the number of acres secured was 10,730, while up to the 31st December, 1910, the total was 16,093. Two Commissioners in the six months ending December, 1909, provided 18,100 acres, and in the six months ending December, 1910, 16,093 acres, while eight Commissioners, in the corresponding six months in 1911, provided 19,615. The six additional Commissioners, who each received £800 a year, with permanent jobs, 1024 as a result of their labours, succeeded in finding only 3,600 acres more than in the year 1910, and 1,500 more than in the year 1909. I want to ask whether we are getting sufficient value for this increased expenditure. Is it not a clear case of appointing absolutely unnecessary officials—a policy almost always most strenuously objected to by this House? Then I asked further about the compulsory order made by county councils, my idea being that if the Commissioners had not been able to buy a large number of additional acres they might have been able to induce the county councils to provide an additional number by way of compulsory order. What do I find? That up to the end of December, 1909, 9,750 acres were provided for by means of compulsory orders, and up to the end of December, 1910, the number was 2,033. That was the work of two Commissioners only, but in 1911, with six additional Commissioners, only 1,032 acres were thus provided, so that, with the additional Commissioners, no extra acres appear to have been provided in this way. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman how it is that these men, if they sufficiently employed their time, only succeeded in providing 3,600 more acres for small holdings, while by means of compulsory order they got a far less quantity of land than was secured by two Commissioners? Seeing that something like three-quarters of the original demand for land has been satisfied, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this money which we are voting to-day will be efficiently and adequately spent for the good of the community? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give a satisfactory answer on this point, I shall ask leave later on to move the reduction of the Vote in order to call attention to this question.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYThe ruling which has been given from the Chair has rendered it rather difficult for us to discuss some of the subjects which come under the Supplementary Vote, and it emphasises the argument brought forward by one of my hon. Friends when the Development Fund was first introduced, that it would be very difficult to discuss in detail the separate matters which we desire to bring forward. I should like to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman some facts with one or two of the sub-heads which appear on the Paper. I should like to ascertain what is being done in connection with this Grant 1025 for the bee disease. That is one of those cases where we have a very clear proof that early action of a decided character would have been very efficacious. I remember that the case of the American gooseberry mildew, with which my name was associated, met with a good deal of derision in this House when I first brought it forward, but if anybody reads the Intelligence Report of the Board this year they will see how serious the matter has become in the country, and how it could have been dealt with by earlier action. I should like to know whether, in connection with the block Grants of this character the Government are devoting definite money to definite research upon the various questions that have arisen, so that they may be dealt with thoroughly and effectually. It should not be dealt with in the shape of giving £1,000 to this college, or £1,000 to that college to be spent in general research. We really want these matters dealt with by themselves, and now that this large sum of money has come into the possession of the Department, it should exercise its right in allocating it for definite purposes. At the same time I hope that the Government will follow the practice of strengthening very much their own Research Department, so that they may be effectual judges of what is being done in the country in connection with research. The matter arose when a deputation went the other day to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with fruit. He promised a Grant to a certain institution I am interested in—the South-Eastern Agricultural College. That I gather was giving a block Grant for general research to that institution, which I am very glad of, because they cannot have too much money to spend, and it is a very good institution. Those of us who went there on that occasion did so with a special desire to obtain from the Government a promise that they would give money for the encouragement of the fruit industry itself and to deal with the pests which are visiting that, industry with great severity. We want a little more information as to the manner in which the Government are going to make use of these large sums of money which have been granted to them.
I should like to ask, in connection with the sum for Research Scholarships, including expenses of selection, what policy exactly the Government intends to pursue? They will be very valuable if properly given, but I confess I am not aware of the 1026 exact policy the Government are pursuing in that matter. In reference to Sub-head G, this is practically the whole Vote for the money expended in connection with the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. We are justified in asking for information on this subject. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that he has only lately come into the position of President of the Board of Agriculture, he cannot take this opportunity of stating his policy in reference to the question of foot-and-mouth disease? The country would welcome a few words from him saying that he is very determined in his official character that he will do nothing which will endanger in any way our flocks and herds. We see what an enormous sum of money has been spent in stamping out detached outbreaks, and we see what enormous expense would be incurred if further outbreaks occurred. It would be a good opportunity for him to give a decided statement that he, at all events, is not going to slacken in any way any restriction which helps to keep this fell disease from our Islands. I know very great pressure is being brought to bear on him, and that is why I should like a definite statement from him at the earliest opportunity. I observe that a certain amount of the money under the heads "A" and "B" has been spent in connection with the diseases of animals, and I desire to ask whether in connection with these Grants for research it is not time that the Government at once put in hand definite research in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. When we are spending these large sums of money we ought not to be content with what has already been put before the Departmental Committee, namely, that the Government are not yet at all assured of their ground in connection with this disease. The sooner they remedy this the better, and I ask that, having got this considerable sum of money to be spent in connection with research, some of it should be spent for this special purpose.
§ Mr. MORRELLI had certainly not intended to take any part in this Debate, but I feel that the remarks made by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Randolf Baker) ought not to go without some notice. As I understood him, the hon. Baronet was making random charges of jobbery against the Government for having appointed these six additional Commissioners in connection with small holdings.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThey were specific charges.
§ Mr. MORRELLIn my opinion the charges were of a remarkably random character. I understood the hon. Baronet objected to the fact that some of these Commissioners had sat in this House and had supported the Government; and, secondly, that the amount of land that had been got through them did not justify their appointment. I should like to remind the hon. Baronet of the position last year, when these six additional Commissioners were appointed. At that time there were no less than 8,000 approved applicants, many of whom had been waiting for two or three years without having had even an offer of land. They had sent in their applications to the county councils immediately after the Act was passed, and they had since then heard nothing. In a few counties excellent work had been done; in other counties a certain amount of work had been done, but in at least half of the counties of England it is true to say that the Act was fast becoming a dead letter, and that the county councils had altogether failed at that time to carry out the work. I am making no complaint against the county councils in the matter. I do not complain, because it is not the business of this House to complain. We put upon them duties which no doubt they did their best to fulfil, but which they failed to fulfil. It seems to me there never was a clearer case for assisting the administration of an Act of Parliament than the President of the Board of Agriculture had at the beginning of last year. What were the duties which these new Commissioners had to perform? They had not merely to inquire into the cases of 8,000 men, who were approved by the county council, but who at that time had not been satisfied; they had also to overlook all the schemes that were being brought before the Commissioners, they had to look into the prices that were given for the land, and the terms on which it was proposed to put the men on the land. I say that considering the vast extent of work that was being done, or that ought to have been done, and that was waiting to be done under the Small Holdings Act, it was physically impossible for the two Commissioners at the Board of Agriculture, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Baines, to do the work satisfactorily or completely. The fact that all these men had been waiting, some of them for two or three years, showed that it was necessary that the Board of Agriculture should take action and should make inquiries, and the only way to do that was to appoint Commissioners 1028 who resided in the district and who would be able to make personal inquiries amongst the applicants themselves and from the county councils as to the reason why the applications had not been satisfied.
§ Sir R. BAKERMy point was that the two Commissioners had actually done as much in certain periods as the eight Commissioners had done in corresponding periods. In the six months ending 30th June, 1909, two Commissioners actually saw to the acquiring of 19,791 acres of land, and during the last six months, during which there were eight Commissioners instead of two, the actual number of acres acquired was 19,615, or 176 acres less than was actually acquired by the two Commissioners.
§ Mr. MORRELLI will deal with that point, which is a perfectly simple point to answer.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat eight had done less than two?
§ Mr. MORRELLAnd the point is, that of the work that has been done, if the hon. Baronet will inquire, I think he will find that the greater part of the land that has been actually acquired has been acquired by one or two counties. If you eliminate the county councils of Cambridge, Norfolk, Gloucester, and Somerset you will find that little other work has been done at all. We have never denied that certain county councils have done extraordinary good work under this Act, but we have to deal with the counties where little or no work has been done. The hon. Baronet is putting to the credit of the two Commissioners all the acres that have been acquired in the last six months. He is really attributing to them all the work done by the county councils who had carried out their work satisfactorily. The difficulty was to deal with cases where the work had not been done satisfactorily, and it was necessary that extra assistance should be given.
§ Mr. MORRELLI have not the figures with me, but if anyone will inquire they will find counties like Sussex, Surrey, Kent, the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire where little or no work had been done, although there were hundreds of approved applicants waiting for the land.
§ Mr. MORRELLYes, hundreds were waiting for suitable land all over the country. The hon. Baronet says that because the Commissioners have not already got more acres therefore their appointment is not justified. They were appointed last July.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKER14th May.
§ Mr. MORRELLThey actually began work last July. They have had about six months. During that time they have had to make inquiries amongst 8,000 men, that was 1,000 each, and that alone had to take some time. Then they had to survey the ground and interview the county councils.
§ Mr. STANIERHave you not got a map of the country?
§ Mr. MORRELLThey had to interview the county councils concerned. Very often one Commissioner would have to interview the committees of these different county councils, and some of these county councils only meet once a month. That alone would take an immense amount of time. I protest altogether against the assumption, which apparently is being made opposite, that the only test of the success of this Act is the actual amount of acres which may be got upon any terms whatever. I think it much more important that the applicants should be put upon the land upon fair and satisfactory terms. The important thing is that the Commissioners and the county council between them should select good men and put them upon good land. That is what these Commissioners now are endeavouring to do, to get personal contact between the Commissioners and the applicant, which was quite impossible when Mr. Cheney and Mr. Baines had the whole administration of the Act between them.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERIt is not the duty of these Commissioners, and it never has been, to select the applicants. The hon. Member does not understand his own Act. That is the duty of the county council. It has nothing to do with the Commissioners. They have only to see whether the scheme complies with certain regulations which are issued by the Board of Agriculture. It is not their business for a moment to select or to see the applicants.
§ Mr. MORRELLThe hon. Baronet should really take the trouble to read the Act of Parliament. It is the duty of the 1030 Commissioners to ascertain what is the demand for land, and what would be the demand for land if suitable land were available. For that purpose it is obviously the duty of the Commissioners to see whether the demand for land is a satisfactory demand or not—that is, to interview the men. Not only have they to ascertain the demand, but to advise the Board to take action where the county council is in default. How can the Commissioners possibly be in a position to advise the Board of Agriculture to take action if they do not know whether it is a satisfactory demand or not? The hon. Baronet should take the trouble to inform himself. Then he said he objected to the personnel of these Commissioners, because one of them had been a Member of the House and one a candidate. I should like to ask to whom he was referring. I should like him to make more specific charges against the Commissioners.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERI make no charge against the Commissioners. They are most excellent and admirable gentlemen, but would they have been appointed, rather than the dozens of other applicants, if it had not been for the fact that they had both spent a large portion of their time and money in supporting the Radical party?
§ Mr. MORRELLWhat the hon. Member has to show, and what he cannot show, is that these men are not the most suitable men who could be found for the posts in question. Let me take one who supported the Radical party—Mr. Fordham. He is one who is objected to by the hon. Baronet.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERNo, not at all.
§ Mr. MORRELLVery well, the hon. Baronet does not object. We cannot go through them all, but I give that as an instance. Everyone who has studied the administration of the Small Holdings Act knows that there is no county council which has done better work than the Cambridgeshire County Council. They have tenants who are well satisfied, they have an immense amount of land and they are administering it in the best possible way, under the most economic circumstances, and the credit of that is due to Mr. Fordham, who is one of the Commissioners whom, we are told, it was jobbery to appoint.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERI did not mention his name at all.
§ Mr. MORRELLThe hon. Baronet made a general, rambling charge of jobbery.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERIndeed, I did not. I said two of these Commissioners happened to be members of the Radical party. They might have other excellent qualifications, but I suggest that there is no reason why they should have been appointed more than hundreds of other equally well-qualified men—a large number of land agents applied—if it had not been for the fact that they have been candidates and supported the Radical party.
§ Mr. MORRELLIt is very easy to say there are other suitable men who might be appointed, but what the hon. Baronet has to show before he can prove jobbery in this way is that these were unsuitable men for the job. You may take these six men, one by one, and you will not find any one of them who is not perfectly competent to administer the Act. If you want a good instance, you could not find two better men than Mr. Fordham and Mr. F. M. Rogers, against both of whom the charge could be brought that they were originally interested in politics on the Liberal side. They are men who are highly respected in their districts and have done an immense lot of work and have a great knowledge of agriculture, and it is rather a poor thing on the part of the party opposite to make these charges in this general way without being able to substantiate them. I have inquired very carefully into the work that is being done by these men, and it is very unfair that these charges should be made against men who are working extremely hard to see that the Act is being administered in a way which will be satisfactory to the applicants who have been shut out of the land and have been waiting to get the land which they require.
§ Mr. COURTHOPEThe hon. Gentleman has devoted a good deal of time to trying to refute the arguments of the hon. Baronet, and he tried to show that the six extra Commissioners have justified their appointment by the additional work they have done under the Small Holdings Act. I cannot see that the hon. Member has been able to show the House any additional work which has been done owing to their appointment. He has not said a single word to show that the applicants for small holdings are any better off or that the operation of the Small Holdings Act has been any further advanced. Therefore I think the hon. Baronet was perfectly justified, so far as the refutation 1032 of the hon. Member is concerned, in asserting that those appointments have not been justified by the result. The hon. Member went out of his way to make certain assertions as to the work of different counties in connection with the Small Holdings Act. One county he mentioned I should like to give a little information about in the matter of geography. I do not know what he is talking about when he refers to the North-East Riding of Yorkshire. If he could tell us where that is it might be easier for us to deal with his argument.
§ Mr. MORRELLThe East Riding, I said.
§ Mr. COURTHOPEThe hon. Member's statement was certainly not true of the county council of the East Riding, and there is no North-East Riding that I am aware of, and certainly no North-East Riding County Council. But there is another county of which he spoke. The first instance he gave of a county which has failed to do its work was that of Sussex. Excellent work on the lines pointed out by the Small Holdings Act has been done by the county council of Sussex and many other counties which he mentioned by securing that applicants for small holdings should be met by landowners; and although it is true that the small holdings set up in that way do not come separately in the list of those under the Act, still they achieve the same purpose. Some county councils and many impartial people think they achieve the purpose with a better chance of success for the small holders than the methods which have been adopted, I believe, in Cambridgeshire and in other counties. What I am speaking of now is within my personal knowledge, because I have myself been approached by the county council of East Sussex on this matter, and was able to meet their suggestion by creating a number of small holdings for their applicants on my own estate; but they got no credit for that, because they are not small holdings under the Small Holdings Act. The small holders are now my direct tenants, but still the work has been done, and I think probably the small holders will have quite as good a chance of success as they would have if they were tenants under the county council itself.
I am anxious to ask three or four questions with reference to other matters arising under this Vote, particularly matters 1033 touching the diseases of animals. In the first place, under the note at the bottom of page 4 a rather curious arrangement is referred to, under which the payments for swine fever and other diseases of animals are made through what is well known as the pleuro-pneumonia account, although fortunately there is no pneumonia. In accordance with this method which is now in practice, it is quite impossible to discover what is the real cost of administration for any particular disease, even the diseases which give the country most trouble and are most important, such as swine fever. The Departmental Committee on Swine Fever, of which I am Chairman, tried in vain, although the Board placed every possible information at our disposal, to discover what the real cost of swine fever administration was, and efforts on the same lines were made by the Public Accounts Committee with a like result. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it might not be possible to so arrange these accounts that instead of everything being lumped together in an account which, after all, is paradoxically named, which appears to deal with pleuro-pneumonia while no pleuro-pneumonia exists, it might be clearly shown what the cost of administration in respect of the different diseases is. I do not wish to suggest that it is a matter of grave urgency, but it would be a matter of great convenience, particularly to the committees which are so frequently set up now considering questions affecting specific diseases of animals which come under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the temporary staff for swine fever business is the ordinary staff of the Board of Agriculture temporarily on swine fever business, or whether it refers to the ad hoc research work which is being carried out at the request of the Committee of which I am chairman? Further, I should like to ask whether any of this additional expenditure in connection with diseases of animals has any reference to investigation and inquiry into this disease which has suddenly come to the front, described as "Johnes disease"? I am not going to worry the right hon. Gentleman on this question, but I may say it would be a great relief to many of those who are interested in agriculture, and many of the owners of flocks and herds, if they realised that the Board of Agriculture are really taking up the matter, as personally I believe they are. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ashford 1034 Division (Mr. L. Hardy) called attention to the item under Sub-head G. Practically the whole cost of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is dealt with under that item, and therefore a rather wider scope for discussion is possible as to the policy affecting that disease. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now in a position to give an answer to a question put to him from time to time bearing on this matter, namely, whether the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington have changed their policy in this matter, or whether they still take up the position that they will not remove the embargo on pedigree stock until a satisfactory solution has been found as to the cause of the outbreak in this country? I have in my hand a letter from the Bureau of Animal Industry addressed to a stock owner in this country in which they definitely make that statement in regard to the policy of the Government at Washington. It is very important that our stock holders should know whether that policy still prevails under which animals were admitted into the United States after freedom from outbreak, or whether they are going to keep on the embargo until we discover the cause of outbreaks in this country and see our way to deal with them satisfactorily.
On the same subject I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state definitely that he does not propose in any way to relax the present Regulations as to the importation of hay, straw, and fodder into this country from other countries in which foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent? He will remember that a short time ago he received a communication from the Association of Horse Owners on the subject, and that great alarm was caused to the farmers and stock owners of this country owing to an incorrect report appearing in the Press. On the occasion of the last meeting of the Central Association of Chambers of Agriculture I took a message to his Department from the association on this subject. We received a reply from Sir Thomas Elliott that we could rest assured that nothing would be done which would in any way prejudice the interests of our flocks and herds. But we should like to know definitely, if anything is to be done at all in this matter, that no relaxation will be allowed, because opinions might possibly differ as to what would prejudice and affect the safety of our flocks and herds. My right hon. Friend the Member for the 1035 Ashford Division asked for a statement as to the original research work which was to be conducted—part of which is allowed for under the Vote we are discussing—into foot-and-mouth disease. I understand that the present proposal is that a Commission of inquiry should be appointed, possibly in conjunction with the French Government, and that their investigations should be conducted in India. I do not know whether I am justified in making that statement, but that is the report which has got abroad. I should like to take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that the great difference of climate between this portion of Europe and of India would render ineffective, or might render practically valueless, investigations conducted in India as bearing on this subject? It is manifest that anything of this kind must be conducted in a position where the animals could be localised. It would be impossible for a Commission of that kind to carry on investigations in any one of the English counties. What you really want is an island for this purpose. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he might not achieve the purpose, and at the same time assist the policy which his own Government has so frequently referred to of helping the inhabitants of the island of St. Helena, by carrying out experiments there? The climate is sufficiently akin to that of this country for making the experiments. His own veterinary staff are better able to carry them out on a small-sized island, and the position would render it practically impossible for any contagion or infection to be carried elsewhere through the experiments. I am not prejudiced in favour of this island more than any other, but, wherever the research is carried out, I hope it will be on an island. Then, and then alone, will the experiments have value.
These are matters of great importance, and I think it is in the interests of his Department, as well as of the agricultural community at large, that the farmers and stock owners of the country should know what is being done. The last point I wish to refer to deals not only with foot-and-mouth disease, but with all the diseases of animals, and, in fact, all the operations carried on by the Board of Agriculture. The value of their work would be infinitely greater to the agricultural community if they could possibly see their way to furnish their reports with less delay. Even if it is not possible to publish the whole 1036 reports, it would be an advantage if they could publish the official figures on which their reports are based as a preliminary report. In a great many cases those of us who are in close touch with agricultural activity know these figures. We are able to obtain them many months before they are officially published. We have them for our own use, but they are not available for the general use of the agricultural community. We cannot publish these figures as official, although we know they exist, and yet the agricultural population are not able to obtain them. Therefore the value of the reports when they do come out are to a certain extent discounted.
§ Mr. STANIERThere are one or two small questions I should like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture. Under the Sub-head A there is a note which says that "£2,500 is required under this sub-head, but savings amounting to £2,000 are anticipated on other subheads." Are these sub-heads to range all over the total Grants to the Board, or do they absolutely come under the one paragraph A? The right hon. Gentleman, at a meeting in the country, once stated how it was that so much money had been returned. Is this money going again to be returned? Can the money be saved under one sub-head and put on to another, or does it go back into the Treasury? I think that here the right hon. Gentleman is trying to manipulate the money so as to take it from one sub-head to another sub-head. I should like some information on that. I know it is very difficult this afternoon noon to gather information from the Board of Agriculture, but I think foot-and-mouth disease is one of the topics we can discuss. I want to ask the President of the Board if this Grant for foot-and-mouth disease includes the cost of inquiries, because I am sure there ought to be a great deal of inquiry going on through the Board so that they may be able to give information to the Committee that is sitting at the present moment. I should very much hope that they are making inquiries as to whether legislation is required to make it compulsory for ships to carry hides in a part of the hold isolated from the rest of the general cargo. That is a question first of all for the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Committee, but it is also very important in the case of anthrax. Is any inquiry being made as to the number of calves imported into this country from countries where disease is now known to 1037 exist? They come in their skins, but without their heads, hoofs, and entrails, and therefore it is undoubtedly the fact that these animals may be brought into the country with those parts of the carcase removed that would show whether the animal had any kind of disease or not.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)I rise to a point of Order. For the guidance of the Committee may I ask whether, if the hon. Gentleman is allowed to proceed with the discussion as to inquiries undertaken by the general staff of the Board and not coming under the charge in any of the Votes in this Supplementary Estimate, it will be open for other Members of the Committee to proceed with the discussion on these lines? The suggestion which the hon. Member is now making is that inquiries are conducted by the ordinary staff of the Board which do not fall as sub-heads on this Vote.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)The hon. Member is going rather outside the limits of the ruling of the Chairman in the earlier part of the proceedings.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThis Estimate is in respect of salaries, wages, and expenses of the temporary staff for swine fever business. I gather that my hon. Friend was referring to that.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen comes the subhead: it is proposed to transfer a certain amount of money from the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account to the swine fever business; and, therefore, I submit that my hon. Friend is in order in objecting to the Grant.
§ Mr. STANIERThis must come under one of two heads. First of all there is G, "Diseases of Animals." I maintain that it conies under that. If not, then it undoubtedly comes under the question of staff, and I submit that I am in order.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIs it open to the Committee to discuss the entire administration of the Board simply because a Supplementary Vote is taken under the heading A in respect of one or two officials?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is not open to the Committee to go into a general discussion. No doubt it was part of the entire original Estimate before the House.
§ Mr. G. D. FABERMay we not go into the Estimate?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANCertain parts are taken away. There is the sum voted for the foot-and-mouth disease.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThis amount does not include the investigations which are conducted by the ordinary staff of the Board. Therefore, I submit that it would not be proper to discuss this matter on the Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYWhat staff is connected with Vote A and B? We are told that some of the Vote is for additional salaries for the staff in connection with the disease of animals, and that B is for the expenses of the above staff. Unless we know what that staff is, we cannot tell exactly which direction our remarks should take.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has already given the information to the Committee. So far as diseases of animals are concerned, it is extra amount in connection with swine fever, and not with foot-and-mouth disease.
§ Mr. STANIERI take it from the remarks of the President that I may refer to swine fever. Since I have been in this House I have had put into my hands a letter from the owner of a farm dealing with a case that requires a little more inquiry from the Board of Agriculture. It shows how very severely these swine fever Orders press on some owners of stock. The gentleman who owns this farm has a very valuable herd of pigs. They are all of the very best pedigree that can be got in this country. For forty years they have been breeding this herd, and getting them up to the perfection which they have attained to-day. Unluckily swine fever has broken out. If this herd is wiped out in the way in which the officers of the Board are now proposing it should be wiped out, the strains or pedigrees of these pigs will be entirely lost, as they cannot be replaced; and in consequence of that the owner of these pigs, who is usually able to sell his pigs for between seven and eight guineas, will only receive between 40s. and 50s. compensation if they are slaughtered. I think that it is, to a certain extent, of national importance that some of these very best flocks and herds should not be totally exterminated by these Orders under swine fever regulations; and I would ask, before the Order is 1039 given to destroy the whole of the herd, that the question of the isolation of the herd should be gone into by the inspectors of the Board of Agriculture.
§ Sir F. CAWLEYIt would be a very great pity if the remarks made by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Baker) with reference to the Small Holdings Commissioners were endorsed in any way in any part of this House. The Commissioners are not to be judged by the number of small holdings they have created or the number of occupiers that they have converted into small holders. It would be an absurd contention to say that the Commissioners, who have been only appointed for six or eight months, should have done a great deal more and got a great many more acres turned into small holdings. I should think that if they had increased the number of small holdings very largely they would have been doing their work in a slipshod manner, and not carrying out the duties of the positions which they have been called on to fill. What we want the Commissioners to do is not to try to turn the greatest number of acres into small holdings, but to see that they are doing their best for the tenants who undertake these acres, and that they are doing justice to those people who own the land. That cannot be done by turning a great number of thousands of acres into small holdings, and I hope that the Commissioners will not think that this House appraises the value of their work by the number of acres which have gone into small holdings. With regard to the remarks made by the hon. Baronet about these positions, I think it is putting an additional burden on Members of this House if it is always to be supposed that because a man happens to be a Member of this House, or a candidate for membership, it should be supposed that at the end of his life the Government are never to give him any appointment, however fitted he has been. The hon. Baronet admitted that the Gentlemen chosen for these appointments are in every way fit for the positions which they hold. Is the Government to say, "Because you are Radicals you shall not have the appointment and we will appoint two other men who are more worthy than you?" Such a contention is absurd and cannot be maintained for a moment.
§ Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEThe hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) in his endeavour to refute the statement of my 1040 hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Sir R. Baker), made some very wild and rash statements. One of these was that in the county of Sussex there were several hundred approved applicants waiting for small holdings who had not yet got them. As a member of the East Sussex County Council I can assure the hon. Member for Burnley that he is perfectly inaccurate in making such a statement. The Small Holdings Committee in that county happens to be presided over by a gentleman who is a prominent member of the Radical party. He has stated publicly that so anxious have the Sussex landowners been to meet the desires of the small holders that there is very little left for the county council to do. If the hon. Member will take the trouble to inform himself of the state of affairs in Sussex, he will find that if the county council do not acquire much land for small holdings, it is because there has been no need for it, and no demand for it, because that demand has been met by the Sussex landlords. Therefore if for the future he wishes to hold up any county to blame, he had better find some other county than Sussex, and not give us some county which does not exist at all except in his own imagination, namely the North-East Riding of Yorkshire. The only point in which the hon. Member did show that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Dorset was wrong in was this, that the hon. Baronet understated that the number of Commissioners who have been put in by the Radical party were supporters of their own. My hon. Friend stated that there were two, but the hon. Member has told us that there were three.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in regard to Sub-head F (1) Agricultural Research. That is in regard to the proposed Grant of £11,000. I understand that as the result of a deputation which waited on the right hon. Gentleman not long ago with regard to research for fruit farming, a promise was made by him of a Grant of £1,000 to Wye College for research work. Is that Grant an annual Grant, or is it only to last for the year? Wye College is, I understand, directly connected with the county of Kent. The county of Sussex contributes to it, I believe. Are farmers in the county of Sussex to have an opportunity of getting the advantage of the experiments and the research work which are being carried on in connection with this £1,000 Grant to Wye College? I hope that 1041 that may be the case, because otherwise Sussex would be justified in putting in a claim for a contribution towards research work in their own agricultural college at Uckfield. I fully realise that the money would be better expended if it all goes to Wye College as a whole, but I should like it to be clearly understood that Sussex so far as this grant is concerned, should actually derive benefit from the experimental and other work carried on at Wye College.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Captain WEIGALLIf I am in order, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is necessary to have these Supplementary Estimates, seeing that for the last five years there has been a large surplus over expenditure under the Board of Agriculture. In the years 1906–7 the sum of £129,335, and there was expended £127,260, leaving a surplus of £2,075. In 1907–8 the amount was £237,000, the amount expended £235,000, and the surplus £2,000. In 1908–9 the sum was £156,000, the total expenditure £152,000, leaving a surplus of £4,000. In 1909 the amount was £172,000, the total expended £161,000, leaving a surplus of £11,000. In 1911 the sum was £185,000, the total amount expended £178,000, leaving a surplus of £7,000. I am not a financier, and I do not pretend to be a financier, but I should like to know why it is that with these fairly substantial surpluses at the end of each financial year, it is necessary for the Board of Agriculture to ask for these large Supplementary Estimates. As to light horse breeding, I believe I am in order in discussing the methods in which this sum is to be applied. I know, Mr. Chairman, that, according to your ruling, one is not allowed to discuss the whole question of light horse breeding, but I urge that we are entitled to discuss whether the sum that is being asked for is going to be applied in the manner which will do the greatest good to the horse-breeding community as a whole. I urge that instead of advancing a considerable sum to these tenant farmers in order that they may have brood farms, it would be far better to keep this in Government hands entirely, and that we should have a stud farm where the land and climate are suitable for horse breeding.
As the sum is so small, however, I think it would be far better that you should ensure having nothing but sound stallions in the country. The enormous amount of 1042 harm done now to light horse breeding in this country through unsound stallions is incalculable. In other countries the mares always go the horse; in this country the horse goes to the mares, except in the case of thoroughbreds. It would be far better for the horse breeding community as a whole if the Government said, "We are not going to allow any horse on the road until he has got a sufficient certificate of soundness from the Government." I do not know whether that requires an Act of Parliament or not, or whether it can be done by Departmental Order. Agriculturists are only too delighted to receive anything in the shape of an improvement in their finances for the purpose either of horse breeding or stock breeding, but what they also really desire is that agriculturists should receive 20s. worth of value for every sovereign expended. I feel perfectly sure, so far as light horse breeding is concerned, it would do far more good if the Government had a stud farm where the land and climate were suitable.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a question of general policy which must be kept for the main Vote. The only matter in order is the payment of £10,000 to the county committees. I am informed by the President that it does not involve any change of policy since the main Estimate was passed by the House last year.
§ Captain WEIGALLI hope I am in order if I urge that the £10,000 voted to the county committees will be expended in a manner to ensure that there will be nothing but sound stallions throughout the country. If you are going to get unsound stallions off the road, it is naturally going to cost you something, but it will do far more good to the light horse breeding of the country—whatever be the sum you give to these county councils—to ensure that it will be first applied to ensuring that sound stallions are procured. When you have done that you make a start in helping towards providing sound animals. I hope I may be in order if I refer to the extremely small sum on the whole that is given to this country as compared with Ireland. I find that the net amount of the total Estimate is £206,318. In Ireland it is £456,000, almost half as much again. In Denmark I see that the sum is £214,500. Although we appreciate what the Government are doing, these figures surely show that they are not doing enough when compared with what is being done for Ireland, or what is being done in Denmark. In the interests of the agricultural community 1043 I urge we are entitled to a very much larger sum, when we bear in mind this comparison. Agriculturists feel that they are entitled to more considerations from the Government, or, at any rate, as much consideration as Ireland is receiving.
So far as agricultural research is concerned, here again I feel that the sum allocated is possibly not being expended in a way that will produce the greatest good to the greatest number of the agricultural community. When we see the enormous sum that foot-and-mouth disease last year cost the country it surely shows that the Government of to-day is almost putting the cart before the horse. If agricultural research and agricultural co-operation had been, or were even now started, I maintain that the sum that the country has to spend in suppressing those diseases would not be so large. In regard to the amount which has been allocated to agricultural research, I would only emphasise the point that a large portion of it should be devoted to impressing upon the tenant farmers of this country the enormous risks they run unless they are prepared to make themselves acquainted with everything connected with these diseases, and they should not cry out against regulations which every single agriculturist in the country, who values the high state of efficiency to which our flocks and herds have been brought, recognise as necessary. If a large portion of this sum to be devoted to agricultural research were used in the way I suggest, it would be productive of an immense amount of good, and agriculturists would be able to say that it was being applied in a way likely to do the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of the agricultural community.
§ Mr. PERKINSI feel some apprehension in regard to a note at the foot of the Estimate as to salaries, because I see it is proposed to reduce them by £2,000, or, at any rate, a saving of £2,000 is to be effected under that head. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not already somewhat under-staffed in his Department. New brooms proverbially sweep clean, but I wonder whether the broom with which the right hon. Gentleman threatens his Department is to sweep away some posts without replacing them, and if in that way the economy of £2,000 is to be effected? My reason for asking the question is that the report of some branches of the Department, 1044 as already mentioned in the House, are delayed, and I think unnecessarily and unreasonably delayed. I would like to give the Department credit for issuing up to time the report on crops, which came out on Saturday last, but I refer to another Department of the Board, namely, the Sea Fisheries Department, in regard to which the last available report was in 1909, and we are awaiting the reports for 1910 and 1911. Under the peculiar constitution of the Board of Agriculture there are included matters which are not agricultural, such as the Sea Fisheries. The Board of Agriculture is charged with the duty of looking after our national fisheries. I wish to urge upon the President of the Board of Agriculture very respectfully that he should give more attention than has hitherto been given by his Department to the enormously important national industry of sea-fishing. I represent a constituency which is considerably interested in the question of sea-fishing. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the District Commision which looks after the sea fisheries of southern districts has applied to his Department for a Grant-in-Aid. I will not go into the question of the Development Commissioners with regard to Grants-in-Aid, but I submit, subject to your ruling, Sir, that it is quite within the corners of this discussion to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what his Department is going to do with regard to these applications from southern distracts. Grants-in-Aid are asked by the Southern Sea Fisheries Commission, and I believe by other Commissions, for scientific investigations in fish culture. I understand, according to this belated Report of the Department, that the only Grant-in-Aid hitherto given by the Department for scientific research is a Grant of £100 made in 1908 to the Armstrong College. New-castle-on-Tyne, for fishery research work being carried on—
§ The CHAIRMANI must remind the hon. Member that that is a question for the main Vote.
§ Mr. PERKINSWith every deference to your ruling, I thought in this discussion we could refer to Grants-in-Aid by the Department for scientific research.
§ The CHAIRMANNo, that will come under the main Estimates.
§ Mr. PERKINSAm I in order in referring specifically to the Grant under F, I, 1045 the amount mentioned being £11,000. I ask the President most respectfully to consider carefully the enormous importance to this country of the fishing industry. I ask him particularly to consider whether anything can be done as to the scientific part of that industry, and particularly as to the breeding of certain lobsters and fish which are getting scarcer and scarcer.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that lobsters come under this Vote.
§ Mr. PERKINSThey are under the control of the Fishery Department, and are mentioned in the Report of the Department. Oysters are also mentioned, and I thought I should be in order in calling attention to oyster culture and lobster culture.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must keep those questions from the main Vote.
§ Mr. PERKINSThen shortly I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the applications that have reached him from the Southern Sea Fisheries Department, and to give sympathetic consideration to those applications, and to be good enough to let the Southern Sea Fisheries Department know, and know quickly, the result of the application which they made as long ago as 1910, and to which they got no answer.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI think it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should deal with some of the points which have been raised. I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that the matter of fish is having my attention. I am not enabled under the Rules of the House to make any announcement in this discussion with regard to the work which is now in contemplation and some of which is now proceeding. An hon. Member referred to the large surplus which had appeared each year on the Agricultural Vote, and I gather that the same point was taken by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The view held by those hon. Members apparently is that if at the end of the year the Department ends with a surplus that that is a measure of the neglect of its duty by the Department. That is altogether a misconception of the method of our financial operations. It is an absurdity to imagine that because a Department ends up with a surplus that therefore it has failed to that extent in the fulfilment of its duties. Every Department, of course, asks for rather more 1046 money than it expects to spend. We do not always get all we ask for, but the fact of a surplus being shown at the end of the year shows, at all events, that the Department has suceeded in getting out of the Treasury rather more than was actually required. The fact of a surplus being left over is a matter of book-keeping and nothing more or less, and has nothing whatever to do with the way in which the Department's officials and the Department itself have carried out the duties.
One of the suggestions made was that when there was a surplus it was an odd thing to come down to the House and ask for money on a Supplementary Vote. That, again, is governed by the Rules of this House, which are well understood, and it merely amounts to this, that it is impossible to take money which is voted under one head for the purpose of another head. Of course it is possible within certain limits, but it has constantly been criticised here. It is necessary when any new expenditure is embarked on that the Minister should come down to defend the Vote which is taken in order that the policy initiated by that Vote should receive the sanction of the House, and until it has received that sanction he is not authorised to complete the whole of the transaction under that heading for the financial year. The hon. Member for South Sussex (Mr. R. S. Gwynne) asked me as to one point, which I can clear up, and that is with regard to Wye College, to which a Grant has been promised for advisory work. There are limits as to the area to which the work applies, but I cannot imagine that the Grant would be withdrawn to work conducted satisfactorily in the future. The work will apply not only to the county of Kent but Sussex as well. That would cover the advisory area, so that although Wye College is more closely connected with Kent, Sussex will get the benefit of the work undertaken by Wye College.
The hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst) asked me what was being done with regard to co-operation and small holdings. He embarked on a general discussion as to the advantage of organising co-operation before small holdings were started at all. Something is being done as regards co-operation now, but it must be done along business lines. I have no personal sympathy with co-operative movements which are purely philanthropic, and if co-operation cannot live on the spirit of co-operation I do not believe 1047 it is ever likely to succeed either in rural or urban areas. The organisation of co-operation in rural areas is a matter of great difficulty. There are peculiar disabilities, such as the wide area over which the population is spread, and the slowness with which information passes from one community to another, and, I am sorry to say, the natural reluctance of many of those who are engaged in the agricultural industry to combine for the purpose of co-operation, and that is peculiarly to be found in co-operative sales. It has been thought well by benevolent gentlemen in the past who are supporters of the Agricultural Organisation Society to organise societies in rural England. Any work which is undertaken over so enormous an area and touching an immense number of villages and people, could not be done by a society dependent entirely on voluntary subscriptions. We therefore applied to the Development Commission to assist the Agricultural Organisation Society to proceed with the work of educating the agricultural communities in the principles of co-operation, and to help them to form societies. That is a matter of very great difficulty indeed, and when you are covering such an enormous area you must have a large number of agents. The final scheme for the extension of this organisation work has not yet met with the sanction of the Development Commission, or, rather, they are withholding their judgment on the larger scheme until the preliminary steps have been passed, but something like £3,000 per year has been set free by them for the purposes of that society, under conditions which are very carefully safeguarded. The council is to be reorganised. It must be made a representative council, it must cover the whole of the country, and none of the money to be given is to be used for the present services, or, rather, for the addition to the present salaries of the society, except a small additional sum of £250. On those lines we are proceeding in the organisation of co-operation, and part of the Vote to-day covers expenditure under that heading.
The hon. Member asked me what was being done with regard to the research moneys which had been put into the hands of the Board. He was good enough to say that the agricultural community were quite satisfied that the Board had the allocation of those large sums of money, while, of course, they withheld their judgment on the final allocation. I quite agree that is a perfectly fair statement of the case, and 1048 it leaves us free subject to ultimate criticism. On this Vote, as it is moved to-day, there are, I think, three or four subjects which he mentioned, and under your ruling I presume I am not entitled to range over the whole field. I may make a reference to the request which the hon. Gentleman made as to the research on the subject of swine fever, merely to say that a sum of about £1,000 is being spent in the current year on research on the subject of this disease. That is being provided for out of the original Vote, and therefore I do not think we can discuss it further this afternoon. The same thing applies to anthrax experiments which are now being conducted at the Board's laboratory, and for which money was provided in the-original Vote. With regard to foot-and-mouth disease research, I shall have to come to the House to ask for a Grant of a sum which I cannot name now, but which, I fear, may run into thousands of pounds, on the subject of research as to this disease. In discussing another portion of this Vote, I hope to say something with regard to that work. As to Rothampstead, I can certainly satisfy the hon. Gentleman that we are not leaving that institution out of account. We are proposing to place a sum of about £2,000 at its disposal. I do not want to give those figures absolutely, because they are subject to final adjustment. I give them now for the guidance of the Committee, and I hope that that sum will be available.
§ Sir H. CARLILEDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean £2,000 per year?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANYes.
§ Sir H. CARLILEIt is rather a paltry sum.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIt means a sum of £1,150 for new work, which will enable them to extend their staff. There is no suggestion that this amount will anything like pay for the whole upkeep.
§ Sir H. CARLILEI should say not.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIt is only intended to-touch the extension of new work on special lines of research which have been carefully selected. The subjects of research at Rothampstead for many years past are concerned almost entirely with soil problems and plant nutrition. I have particulars which I can give.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTMay I ask whether, in view of the very interesting discoveries 1049 that have lately been made there with regard to the antisepticising of soil, there is a special Grant for that purpose?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI do not believe it is necessary to make a special Grant. I think that the moneys which are placed at the disposal of Rothampstead would cover experiments of that nature. I was also asked with reference to Cambridge University, which does undertake work of a special character at the request of the Board. Their work will be devoted almost entirely to animal nutrition problems and animal and plant breeding. I do not know that there is any institution in the country better equipped for dealing with problems of that nature. One does not leave out of account that the John Innes Horticultural Institution is already doing work of this nature with Mr. William Biggs at the head of it. He is a Cambridge man, in close touch with the work already undertaken at Cambridge. The experiments at Bristol, to which the hon. Gentleman made allusion, did not receive anything out of these experiments. Something is to be paid to Bristol University in respect of those experiments in the future, but we cannot deal with that until we come to the discussion on the original Votes for the coming year. I think I have now covered the points raised. If there are any others I shall be glad to give any further information on the original Votes, when we can have a much fuller and more satisfactory survey of the research work to be undertaken during the next twelve months. On the general question of the amount of the Grants to be made, the hon. Member asked me whether block Grants were likely to be made or small sums to little institutions. As far as possible, the Board of Agriculture are in favour of large block Grants to first-class institutions, who will take on hand one large problem, rather than Grants to a large number of small institutions, who would deal with only small problems. We think it is a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter to distribute the work and the money over a small number of first-class institutions, and we expect in that way to get the best results.
From that I come to a matter of much more alarming importance—namely, the experience we have had during the last twelve months in regard to foot-and-mouth disease in this country. I do not for a single moment underestimate the great losses to which the agricultural community have been put by the outbreaks of 1050 foot-and-mouth disease, but I think we may congratulate ourselves on two facts. The first is our comparative immunity from the disease. When I say comparative, I mean in comparison with our experience of not many years ago, and in comparison with other countries on the Continent of Europe. Nothing is more remarkable than the contrast between our six outbreaks and the enormous number of outbreaks in Continental countries. I have been constantly pressed since I came to the Board of Agriculture to relax the restrictions under which animals and fodder are brought into this country from abroad. I should be only too glad to see the flow of animals and fodder into this country largely increased. I believe in no artificial restrictions of that supply. But there is another matter of the greatest importance which must be taken into account, and that is that we might, by allowing foreign animals and foreign fodder to come into this country, allow them to bring in with them diseases which would not only desolate, but probably reduce our flocks to vanishing point. I do not believe that those who are constantly pressing me to remove all restrictions on the importation of foreign animals and foreign fodder realise what an awful scourge foot-and-mouth disease can be even in a country like ours. I said that the contrast between our six outbreaks here and the outbreaks on the Continent was very striking. Let me give the House some figures. We have had six outbreaks. We regard that as a serious matter, and we are voting now £11,000 for compensation to owners who have suffered through those outbreaks. There has been not only the loss of money, but great inconvenience to the people in the districts affected. I must publicly give the agriculturists in those districts credit for bearing the inconvenience with great public spirit. I know how the restrictions prevent the passage of their flocks and herds to the market, and even across their own properties; but I think they have shown a very wise prudence in carrying out the restrictions rather than run any risk of spreading the disease. With the six outbreaks here I have to compare something like 23,000 outbreaks in France. I do not mean 23,000 cattle, but 23,000 farms. In Germany at one time last year there were no less than 33,000 establishments—I do not know the exact English equivalent to that term—impregnated with foot-and-mouth disease. That number had been reduced to 20,000 1051 before the year closed. Even in countries like Denmark, Holland, and Belgium the outbreaks ran into hundreds. I believe there were from 800 to 1,000 farms affected in Denmark, something like 1,000 in Belgium, and nearly 1,000 in Holland. That is the best information we can obtain.
In the face of these figures I say that it would be madness on our part to allow the unrestricted importation into this country from the Continent of animals and fodder which might carry with them the risk of the spread of this dreadful disease. The right hon. Member for South Kent (Mr. Hardy) wrote me during the recess with regard to the importation of fodder. We have received at the Board of Agriculture a deputation of the horse owners, mainly of London, asking us to allow foreign hay to come in from abroad. They were suffering from the very high prices which have been prevalent during the past autumn, and which may continue for some little time. I know that they were put to very great financial loss, and it was possible that the movement—
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is developing the whole question of policy. If I allowed him to do that, I should be bound to allow other Members to follow on the same lines. As I understand the Estimate, it deals with the increased number of outbreaks over the number estimated for in the original Vote, and I must ask the Committee not to travel over too wide a field.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGMay I venture to make an appeal of this nature? I think I can answer for it, that if the right hon. Gentleman were permitted by you to do so, and were good enough to take the Committee into his confidence a little more fully on this most important question, no improper advantage would be taken of it by my hon. Friends or by me, in the form either of criticism or even of prolonged comment. But the matter is so serious that it would be a great relief to the Committee and to people outside to hear a little more detail on the subject, and if you would allow it to be given I would take care not to abuse your permission.
§ The CHAIRMANThe statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman will prevent that of which I saw the possibility, and in these circumstances I think the right hon. Gentleman might proceed.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am much obliged to you and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite for extending to me a freedom which is withheld from the rest of the Committee. I had no intention of straying from the Estimate; but I think the whole question of foot-and-mouth disease is raised when we have to pay such a very large amount for compensation out of this Vote. With the permission which you have given me, I would like to say a word or two more about the restrictions which we have found it necessary to impose and to preserve. I was remarking that the horse owners stated their case to us at the-Board of Agriculture, asking us to allow foreign hay to be imported into this country. I quite realised the losses from which they were suffering, but I had also to keep in mind that in satisfying them, in giving them relief possibly to the extent of 30s. a ton, on I do not know how many tons, I might have been subjecting the agricultural community to very great risks. When they were first seen, I think they were under a misapprehension as to-the extent to which our restrictions went. I repeat here publicly exactly what I said in a letter to the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that I cannot see my way at present to open our ports to hay to come in from abroad so long as there is such a great prevalence of this disease, which might come in with it. I know that blindly to shut our ports would be a very restrictive and very impolitic policy on our part. But we know very little about this disease or about how it is carried. In Denmark I have heard the theory that it is carried by roots; some people think that it can be carried only by animal produce of various kinds; others think that it comes only by fodder. But when we consider the mysterious way in which the disease has appeared in various parts of the country, we are driven to the conclusion that not one of these theories really fits the case. Because of the loss which has occurred in England, by those who require foreign fodder and by those who are subject to the restrictions in this country, it is our bounden duty to do everything we can as rapidly as possible to ascertain something more about this mysterious disease.
The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Courthope) suggested that we might take an island. I do not like his suggestion of St. Helena. I think it very hard on St. Helena. St. Helena receives a few visits from mail steamers which pass there on 1053 the way from the Cape to England. If St. Helena were a great station for experimenting in foot-and-mouth disease it would be impossible to allow the free discharge of the steamers when they arrived at Southampton, and I am quite sure that the Cape would prohibit them from landing animals at Cape Town. The difficulties that arise in regard to St. Helena arise in regard to nearly all our islands. We might take an island off the West of Scotland, but I am sure that Scottish agriculturists would view any suggestion of the kind with alarm. We might take an island off the West Coast of Ireland, but I do not know a single Irishman who would not be up in arms against such a proposal. The idea of having an island anywhere near England or Wales or near any of the British Isles has occurred to us, and has been well considered, but the conclusion we came to was that the risk was really Hot worth while. The reason why we held India to be a most suitable place for the conduct of these experiments was that in India there is an enormous amount of foot-and-mouth disease, and the restrictions which are possible in the United Kingdom are not possible there; therefore the scientist has a large field over which he can work. I also found that the Indian Government were ready to co-operate with us in investigations of this nature. I am informed by my scientific advisers that foot-and-mouth disease in India is exactly the same disease as foot-and-mouth disease in England. Therefore, the investigations into the nature of the disease and the capture of the microbe himself is just the same problem in India as in England. The restrictions which it may be necessary to impose in one country or in the other is quite another matter, but until we have caught the microbe and know something about his habits, his appetite, and the surroundings in which he prospers, we can do very little along scientific lines. The arrangements I have made will enable us to get the best scientists in India, with two or three of the best men we can procure in the United Kingdom, to prosecute an inquiry in India. I hope When I bring forward the original Estimates for 1912–13 to have a Vote which will provide for the whole expenses of this Commission. There are bound to be expenses, but I think it will be a profitable undertaking.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTCan the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to put this work in hand? We regard it as very urgent.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am now proceeding with the selection of the scientists Who will go to India. I hope they will very soon be free to go, but I would rather wait a month to get a first-class man than take anybody who is being offered at the present moment. I think we shall have a, Commission which will thoroughly satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. An inquiry was also made with regard to another disease about which nothing appears on this Vote, therefore I can say nothing with regard to it, except that we are providing for the work to be done by our present staff, and investigations are already going on at the Board's laboratory under the control of the chief veterinary officer of the Board.
The hon. Baronet below the Gangway (Sir Randolf Baker) asked me whether the Small Holdings Commissioners were doing work at all commensurate with their salaries, and whether their appointments were not political jobs. Let me take, first, his idea of a political job. There were six Commissioners appointed. Of these the hon. Baronet selected Mr. Fred Horne and Mr. Frank Rogers for his especial condemnation.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERI do not condemn the men in any way. I condemn the Government for making the appointments. The two are very excellent and admirable gentlemen, but I said that, in my opinion, they were no better than many others, and their attainments were not more than equal to many others.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am very glad to-know that the hon. Baronet thinks so well of the ability of those who have been named. I think a third name was added. Supposing there were three Liberals out of six; would the hon. Baronet say that that is not a fair proportion? Does he definitely assert, either that these men are incompetent, or that they are chosen partly because they were Liberals; or does he wish that the whole of them should have been Conservatives?
§ Sir R. BAKERNot at all. What I said was there was no system of examination of any sort. You might have thrown these posts open to examination, or given them to actual officials of the Board. So far as I can see, they have no special qualifications; none other than the qualifications of hundreds of other men in this country, except the fact that in the case of two of them they had been Radical candidates.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANYes, Sir; then the case which the hon. Baronet wishes to make is that if we appoint two Liberals who have been Radical candidates it is a job, but if, in the course of appointing lecturers under the National Insurance scheme, we appoint two men who have been Unionist candidates it is not a job! That is the narrowest party view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two jobs."] I see: if you appoint a Liberal it is a job, and if you appoint a Unionist it is a job. Are you then going to rule out both political parties? The suggestion made by hon. Members was there are hundreds of men more competent. I have seen the work of the Commissioners. They are popular in their districts. They get on well on the county councils and the Small Holdings Committees, and they are trusted by the agricultural community and the small holders. I have no reason to believe that they do not do their work as well as any other men who could have been selected for these appointments. The hon. Baronet says they were not selected by examination. Does he seriously suggest that a body of Commissioners desired for posts of great responsibility, should all be selected by examination? There is not another country in the world (outside China) that would have put at the head of a Department, or at any branch of a Department, men on those conditions. Entrance by examination is a very good thing for the Civil Service, but to suggest that these men, men of mature age, should sit down to papers like undergraduates and try to get a first or a second class is preposterous.
§ Sir R. BAKERThere is another system beside sitting down and writing papers. You can examine applicants, and in the case of the small holdings' agent you could ask questions to see whether the men were at all suited for the purpose. You could select a number of persons and examine them, and discover whether their knowledge of the work was sufficient or not.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThen there is nothing between us. That has been done. They are doing a large amount of work. They are doing it admirably. To say that there is no necessity for it is ridiculous. There are still unsatisfied applications in this country for over 130,000 acres. I believe that there is something like nearly 9,000 unsatisfied applications at the present time. These Commissioners have given assistance to the county councils, 1056 and there is scarcely a county council in the country who would not admit freely that the Small Holdings Commissioners have been of great assistance to them. The work they have done in the last six months is not to be measured by the test of the hon. Member. In that six months of their work, I venture to say, they have reduced the friction rather than increased the friction of the administration of the Act. Take one set of figures. The hon. Member said that in the last six months of 1911 the number of purchasers under compulsory orders have gone down from 1,100 to 400 in comparison with the corresponding six months of the year before. That is a measure of the absence of friction. It means friendly negotiation. It means doing in a very large number of cases what in the six months of the previous year had to be done under compulsory orders. I believe the Small Holdings Commissioners are making smoother the course of the administration of this Act.
§ Mr. SANDERSWhat negotiations have the Commissioners had with the landowners or with the occupiers?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI do not say that they have gone down and driven bargains with the owners who sell the land, but they have had a great deal to do in reducing the friction under which the Act is worked. They have had communications with those who are selling land all over the country, as I know from my personal knowledge. They may not write official letters, but that does not prevent them carrying on friendly discussions in the most suitable way with those concerned all over the country. In a large number of cases they have, I know, facilitated the extension of small holdings, and they have been able to assure those dealing with the land that many of their fears were illusory. The Small Holdings Commissioners have very large powers. They shall, says the Act, ascertain the extent to which there is a demand for small holdings, or would be a demand, if suitable land was available, and the extent to which it is reasonably practicable, having regard to the provisions of the Act, to satisfy that demand. Under these powers alone they are able to carry on an amount of discussion and negotiation which is of the greatest service to everybody concerned. I feel that the Small Holdings Commissioners are doing their work well, and that this House will be certainly well advised in making their work easier, rather than in discounting it by abusing their reputation.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGThe right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his remarks dealt with a suggestion made, I think, when I was not in the House. I have had considerable experience of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman so well presides, and I entirely agree with what he said. It is no indication of lack of energy, no indication of want of good work on the part of the Department, that it does not show in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred either that the sum originally asked for has been a sum in excess of what was wanted or that there has not been a time or opportunity since the money was granted to spend it all. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that under a well-known rule of Parliament it is impossible for a Department to apply moneys which have been granted from one purpose to another purpose; to transfer them from one Vote to another. The right hon. Gentleman is in the fortunate position of having been at the Treasury. Therefore now he comes to be at the head of a Department, he will be able the better to appreciate how Ministers are occasionally, as heads of Departments, lead into the use of somewhat strong language about the principles, policy, and methods of the Treasury. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has entirely thrown off the old Treasury coat and has donned the agricultural smock, and that he is going to take Liberal views of these rules.
I would venture to suggest to him that he would do very admirable work for any Department, and for the Government generally, if he can see his way to secure for the heads of Departments some wider discretion for the transfer of moneys that has been clearly voted by Parliament, and that when the expenditure under these heads has been sanctioned, if he can without breaking the Rule—to which I entirely subscribe as to the approval of Parliament in regard to certain public works—arrange for wider discretionary powers. He will help the Department, and also hon. Members, because these Supplementary Estimates are a great nuisance to Ministers. I do not object to them now. They serve the Opposition admirably, and enable us to show how much we know of the various subjects that occupies the Government. I am speaking now of a livelier recollection of days gone by than of recent experience.
I heard with the greatest satisfaction what the right hon. Gentleman said about the research work which he told us that the Department is engaged in. There are two diseases that do not attract much notice. 1058 It would be an unqualified blessing if we could know something about them, and approach them in a more scientific manner than hitherto has been possible to deal with them in. In regard to that terrible disease, the foot-and-mouth disease, I listened to all that was said with unqualified satisfaction. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has already given the clearest proof of his courage and strength in dealing with great questions of this kind, and we—we speak not exclusively, of course, for the agricultural interests—are grateful to him for the work that is already done, and for the strong steps he took when he came into office. We are grateful to him for what he has said today. The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison of the outbreaks of this disease in France. I say that we should be foolish indeed if we were by any slackness in administration to part with the incalculable benefit which we derive from our geographical situation. The fact that we are an island, and that we have not great, immense artificial boundaries as they have in other countries, means to us all the difference in the world between the spread of this disease, and its being rapidly checked when it occurs.
7.0 P.M.
Let me say that it is not only to our geographical position that we owe our superiority over other countries. It is a fact that Minister after Minister, when he goes to the Board of Agriculture has realised that nothing but the strongest administration will save the country, and that nothing else will be tolerated but the maintenance unbroken of the traditions of the office. A Minister finds there a system inaugurated by the Board of Agriculture which has not got an equal, certainly not a superior, in any part of the world. A system by which it is possible to immediately deal with any outbreak when it occurs. While entirely agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that our position with regard to other countries is infinitely better, whilst realising that it is due to our geographical position, it is also in no small measure due to the system which the Board of Agriculture have carefully and wisely developed, and the administration to be found in the Department. I hope that what we have heard from the President of the Board means there will be no relaxation of the regulations which are now in force. I am dealing with the work he has done and is doing in regard to the risk we run from imported fodder, etc. I know very well that to check imported fodder is a serious thing to breeders 1059 and raisers of cattle, but this difficulty is not to be compared with the difficulties which we are immediately confronted with by outbreaks of the disease when it once gets out of hand. That is what occurs more easily by this method of communication than by any other. The President told us that we know very little how this disease is conveyed. We know it is conveyed in many different ways, but there is no way so fertile in its reproduction as when the disease conveys by the importation of fodder or any other products to which the President referred. Therefore I hope that what he has said to-day means that he is going to hold a very strong check on anything of the kind in order that the public may be kept clear at all events until such time that we know something more about the scientific side than we do at present. With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman stated when dealing with the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what my right hon. Friend desired to say, and what has been urged both in and out of this House again and again by hon. Members. The responsibility for the fitness of a man for a particular office must rest with the Government. If these men are unsuitable it will be soon discovered, and the Government must be responsible. What we are entitled to ask in regard to those appointed where the work is of a technical kind, is that men should be selected not because they are politicians first and experts or something eke afterwards. In regard to these Small Holdings Commissioners, I listened to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would say as to the justification of their powers. Their powers are very wide, but I would ask him to be good enough to ascertain whether these Commissioners think it to be their duty not only to inquire as to available land, but to go about urging men who hitherto have not thought it necessary to do so, to apply for small holdings. It is no part of their duty; no such power is conferred upon them by Statute, nor in any part of the section to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I venture to say it is most undesirable that these gentlemen holding these important positions should consider themselves entitled to go about advocating small holdings in their areas and urging people to apply for them. Their business is to find land and to adjudicate 1060 upon the matter, and for that they possess the fullest power, but there is nothing that justifies them to canvas as it were for the extension of small holdings. We are very grateful to the President of the Board of Agriculture for the statement he has made and for the information he has given us. With regard to the question of disease, we look to him with very great confidence to maintain the high traditions of his Department and the general interest of agriculture by taking effective measures against what would be the greatest disaster that could overtake this country.
§ Mr. SANDERSONI wish to ask a question with regard to the veterinary surgeon staff of the Board of Agriculture. It is very difficult to judge from the paragraph in the White Paper how the additional salaries are made up. They are there put down as £500, but having regard to the note which is below, it turns out they are not less than £2,500, and I suspect that a very large part of that is for those six additional Commissioners. I ask whether in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the veterinary surgeon staff attached to the Board of Agriculture is sufficient? Of course, I am quite aware that if there was only one outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease it might be, but I am credibly informed that if it happened that there were four or five outbreaks in different places there is not a sufficient veterinary staff to deal with them.
§ The CHAIRMANThat can only be raised upon the main Estimate, and not upon the Supplementary.
§ Mr. SANDERSONIf I am not in order in dealing with that matter perhaps I may communicate with the right hon. Gentleman privately. There is another matter to which I wish to call his attention, and that is whether he could not reduce the additional salaries of some of the staff by relaxing the vexatious provisions as I think, existing in some parts of the country with regard to the removal of swine. I understand that in certain special swine fever areas, when pigs are taken to market and unsold, it is impossible for them to be moved again for a period of twenty-eight days.
§ The CHAIRMANThat, again, is a matter for discussion on the main Estimate.
§ Mr. FELLThere is one point which impresses us in the East Anglian country and that is the question of agricultural 1061 research and experiment. I wish to enter my protest against what I consider to be the unsympathetic tone taken by the Government in regard to research. In the sugar beet growing trade of this country—
§ Mr. RUNCIMANOn a point of Order. May I ask whether it will be in order to discuss the question of reseach in connection with sugar beet when the main Estimate has nothing to do with sugar beet?
§ The CHAIRMANThe Supplementary Estimate does not deal with the matter in the Vote, but with the reasons for the increase.
§ Mr. FELLThe Supplementary Estimate is for Grants to colleges and institutions, and if I am assured that none of these are conducting experiments in regard to sugar—
§ Mr. RUNCIMANOn the point of Order I can give that information. The amount asked for to-day in these Estimates does not cover sugar. In the large areas covered by the greater scheme of research it would be necessary to deal with sugar, but so far as this is concerned there is no Grant for sugar.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £400."
In response to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am not in any kind of way taking advantage of his great kindness in giving us information in reference to the steps taken in regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and if he will allow me I wish to congratulate him upon the first stand he has taken—I am only going to say a few words upon the question raised by the hon. Member for North Dorset. I think the right hon. Gentleman rather misunderstood the attack, if I may so call it, which was made upon the appointment of those six additional Commissioners. My hon. Friend did not say there was anything against the character of three of these six gentleman, but he said there was nothing about these three gentlemen which was different from any ordinary three men of similar position, and it was rather extraordinary that these particular gentlemen should be selected when, as far as the ordinary world knows, their only qualification was that not only have they been Radicals, but certainly two of them have been Radical agitators. I do not wish to mention any names. One 1062 of them was only known to fame from having been a tenant of the late Colonel Kenyon-Slaney and having expressed very strong views upon the tenure of land in England. I venture to say that is not a proper person to appoint to a judicial position because he is already a partisan upon the question of land tenure. If you are to appoint someone who is to hold a judicial position you should appoint someone who has not committed himself to any particular set of opinions, therefore I think my hon. Friend had a considerable amount of justice on his side in making the complaint he did make. Of course no one for a moment would say that because a man happens to be a Radical in politics, he should not be appointed either by this or that party, but his first qualification should be some qualification known to the world, for the post to which he has been appointed. So far as my experience goes, at least one of these Commissioners does not answer that description. My hon. Friend said that the result of the appointment of these three gentlemen did not tend to expedite matters. As far as I understood the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, it merely amounts to this, that there were a large number of people who desired small holdings; but the real question is, Do the people who desire them get them any quicker because we spent something like £3,000 in six months upon salaries of additional Commissioners?
I am inclined to think my hon. Friend is right in thinking we have not got value for the money. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the report of the London County Council upon the question of small holdings, which points out that it is impossible to obtain a small holding and erect buildings except at a rent at which people cannot live. I do not often agree with the London County Council, but on this particular question I do agree with them. I think they were right. With regard to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long), I rather hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not take advantage of it, and will not endeavour to obtain the power of moving money from one Vote to another. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are extravagant enough and quite anxious enough to take the spending of money from the control of Parliament, and to exercise their own judgment upon matters which, in my opinion, ought to be left entirely in the control of Parliament. I have, for the sake of better argument provided myself with the actual Estimates of 1063 the year ended 31st March. I turn to the Board of Agriculture in order to see whether there was an increase on the original Vote of the previous year, and I find there is an enormous increase already, and that this is an increase upon an increase. We are now asked to vote another £500 on an original Estimate, which in itself was a very considerable increase. I find the original Vote was for £93,041, whereas the year before it was £82,763, therefore we have already voted an increase of £10,278. Why on earth should we now be asked to vote a further increase on an item which is in itself an increase of £10,000 as compared with the year before? I shall have something to say upon that particular item. The items I wish to refer to are agricultural research and agricultural co-operation. I hope that the money under these two heads will be judiciously spent, although I am rather afraid it will be thrown away. Though I sit for an urban constituency, I happen to be one of those wicked people who own a little land,
§ and I hope something will be done in the direction indicated by these two sums, though I am not at all sure that the granting of it in this way is likely to conduce to the desired result. I moved this reduction because I wish to strike a warning note in the ears of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the effect that this country will not stand this continual increase in salaries and wages in every Government Department. We are told that the expenses are increasing, and that the cost of living is higher, and at the same time we have to put our hands in our pockets as taxpayers to find increased salaries and wages and new posts for different gentlemen whose appointments, in my opinion, are unnecessary. Therefore, in the interests of economy, efficiency and the taxpayers, I beg to move this reduction.
§ Question put, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages and Allowances) be reduced by £400."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 83; Noes, 186.
1065| Division No. 7.] | AYES. | [7.20 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Duke, Henry Edward | Newman, John R. P. |
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Faber, George D. (Clapham) | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Foster, Philip Staveley | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J. | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gibbs, G. A. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goldman, C. S. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Bigland, Alfred | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Bird, A. | Hills, John Waller | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Boyton, J. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Bridgeman, Clive | Houston, Robert Paterson | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. | Ingleby, Holcombe | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Butcher, John George | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bottle) | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Cave, George | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Worthington-Evans, Laming |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Malcolm, Ian | |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. A. Fell. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Neville, Reginald J. N. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Beck, Arthur Cecil | Byles, Sir William Pollard |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Bethell, Sir John Henry | Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Chancellor, Henry George |
| Alden, Percy | Black, Arthur W. | Chapple, Dr. W. A. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Boland, John Pius | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Booth, Frederick Handel | Clough, William |
| Barnes, George N. | Bowerman, C. W. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Barnston, H. | Brady, Patrick Joseph | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Bryce, J. Annan | Cotton, William Francis |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Cowan, W. H. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Crumley, Patrick |
| Beale, William Phipson | Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) |
| Delany, William | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leach, Charles | Radford, G. H. |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Lewis, John Herbert | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Devlin, Joseph | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Lundon, T. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Dillon, John | Lyell, Charles Henry | Reddy, Michael |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Doris, W. | McGhee, Richard | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Duffy, William J. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Robinson, Sidney |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Macpherson, James Ian | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rowlands, James |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | M'Callum, John M. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Masterman, C. F. G. | Sheehy, David |
| Gill, A. H. | Meagher, Michael | Shortt, Edward |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Glanville, H. J. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Snowden, Philip |
| Goldstone, Frank | Molloy, M. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Tennant, Harold John (Derby) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Mooney, John J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Worrell, Phillip | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Hackett, John | Munro, R. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Neilson, Francis | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nolan, Joseph | Wardle, George J. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Nuttall, Harry | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Hayward, Evan | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Hinds, John | O'Domell, Thomas | Webb, H. |
| Hodge, John | O'Dowd, John | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hogge, James Myles | O Malley, William | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Holmes, Daniel Thomas | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P. |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilkle, Alexander |
| Hughes, S. L. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Jowett, F. W. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Joyce, Michael | Pointer, Joseph | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Keating, M. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Kilbride, Denis | Power, Patrick Joseph | |
| King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
Original Question put, and agreed to.