HC Deb 08 March 1916 vol 80 cc1637-66

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,100, 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, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir F. CAWLEY

I make no apology for raising this matter on Report, because I think the Government have no sort of justification for going on with a scheme which admittedly cannot be of any possible service to the country during the War, which, in the opinion of many people, is foolish and wasteful, which has no weight of public opinion behind it, which involves an expenditure of nearly £70,000 down and £4,000 per annum afterwards—£4,000 is a very low estimate; I think it will very probably be double or treble that amount—and this at a time when the Government is asking working men with wages of £2 or £3 a week to save money, and give their savings to the Government for the purpose of carrying on the War. I had a postcard the other day from a man who is not a constituent of my own, but who is very sore about the Government's spending money on different things which are of no use in the War. He says: Here am I, a professional man, whose income is rapidly declining, and who can with severe economy barely make both ends meet, taxed almost beyond endurance, any poor little investments being rapidly eaten up by taxation, and here are the Government absolutely throwing money away. That is the cry of a great many people. This purchase of land in Ireland and Wiltshire to carry on a racing establishment appears to many people a very serious matter, and one which the Government ought never to have touched. It is said, of course, that when we are spending £5,000,000 a day, £70,000 is not very much. But the Prime Minister, when meeting a deputation about museums, said it was not so much the actual amount but the aggregate amount that counted. He also said, "We are at war, and that is what you must consider." I wish the Government considered it. I do not wish to make any reflection upon Colonel Hall Walker, who has given these horses to the Government, but there are two sides, and we in the House of Commons have to examine the transaction from a different standpoint.

What is the history of this transaction? So far as I can gather from what I have seen in the papers, Colonel Hall Walker offered the Government the whole of his racing and breeding stud if they would buy the premises and the land in Ireland and in Wiltshire. The Government, so far as I can make out, at first declined it, and, after some months, and Colonel Hall Walker had entered his horses for sale at Tattersall's, the very week when they were going to be sold, the Government came forward and accepted Colonel Hall Walker's offer I want to know why they did not accept that offer at first, for we have had no sort of explanation as to that. Now what is the scheme presented to this House? Colonel Hall Walker has a stud of horses, a very fine stud indeed, and in anything I say I do not wish it to be thought that I am making the slightest reflection on Colonel Hall Walker, who very generously offered the Government his stud. Colonel Hall Walker offered the Government his stud of horses in Ireland and also his horses in Wiltshire. Those horses have been valued by Captain Greer at £74,000. It looks a most generous offer, but he offered the horses on condition that the Government should take over his land and stables and all that he had at his racing and breeding stud, which he considered worth £75,000, but which he was prepared to let the Government have at a valuation. I really do not quite see why these figures were brought before Parliament, because Colonel Hall Walker's offer was that the valuation of his horses and the valuation of the land should be at pre-war prices. What really is the good of the Government talking about pre-war prices in a time of war? Pre-war prices are not the value of the horses now. Pre-war prices are not the value of the premises and the land how, and I think it is almost a slur on the intelligence of the House that the Government should come forward and talk to us about these horses being worth a certain amount at pre-war prices

It is very difficult to know what the horses are really worth. I dare say Captain Greer could put a value on them, because he knows the value of thoroughbred stock perhaps as well as any man in England, and, as there have been sales at Newmarket and other places, he would have some ground for his calculations. The only thing we can do is to look at the results of sales. We have to look at something where you can compare like with like. I have, therefore, looked up the results of sales at Doncaster and Newmarket, before the War and since the War, and I find that at the Doncaster sales in 1913 the average price given for yearlings was 690 guineas. In 1914, a couple of months after the War had commenced, the average price for yearlings was only 249 guineas. In 1915, the sales were not held at Doncaster because there were no races there, and the sales had to be held at Newmarket, where the average price of yearlings was 196 guineas—that is to say, yearlings in 1913 fetched 690 guineas, and yearlings in 1915 fetched only 196 guineas, or less than a third of what they fetched in 1913, a year before the War. What is the use, then, of talking about pre-war prices? The price to take is the present-day price, and, therefore, instead of this gift being of the value of £74,000, it is not worth much more than a third of that amount. Instead of £74,000, it would be £27,000. Therefore, the offer of Colonel Hall Walker is this: he is prepared to give you £27,000 worth of blood stock on condition that his premises are taken over at a valuation, and how is the valuation to be made? It must be remembered that these horses have all been up for sale. If the Government had not stepped in, these premises, I do not say would have been derelict, but would not have been a going concern, and therefore the Government, having taken over the stud, the land is valued as a going concern. But if the Government had not taken over the stud it would not have been so valued, and I have no hesitation in saying the valuation placed upon it as a going concern is at least 25 per cent. more than would have been placed upon it if the Government had not taken over this stud. So much for the offer to the Government.

I can understand very well that the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. J. O'Connor) was all in favour of these horses being accepted, because Tully, one of the studs, is in the constituency of that hon. Member who spoke the other night, and if the Government had not stepped in these horses of the Tully stud would all have been sold, and the Tully stable, instead of being full of horses, would have been practically derelict. Therefore, it is no wonder the hon. Member for Kildare is in favour of the Tully stud in his constituency being kept up at the expense of the Government. I do not know really that had anything to do with the final acceptance of the offer by the Government. We all know that the Irish party have been able at different times to bring great pressure on the Government, and if the hon. Member for Kildare was backed up by his party, and they represented what a terrible thing it would be if the Government did not come forward and take over this stud, I have no doubt it would have due effect. I did not know whether it was so, but it would be difficult to know what induced the Government to take this over unless some strong party pressure was brought to bear. We must ask now why the Government have gone into this scheme. So far as I am concerned, no satisfactory reason has been given by my right hon. Friend, because it is very peculiar that last August there was a Committee appointed by Lord Selborne to look into the question of horse breeding. That was twelve months after the War commenced, so that all the particulars from the War Office as to the effect the mobilisation had upon the Army, which horses were short, and everything we know now, was known when Lord Selborne appointed this Committee. What was the reference to that Committee? It was appointed by Lord Selborne, and he says: I hereby appoint a Committee to consider and advise the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries what steps should be taken to secure the production and maintenance in England and Wales of a supply of horses suitable and sufficient for military purposes, especially on mobilisation. That was the reference which Lord Selborne submitted to a committee of experts, consisting of Lord Midleton (chairman), the Right Hon. Henry Chaplin, the Right Hon. Sir Ailwyn Fellowes, the Hon. Alexander Parker, Major Sir Merrik Burrell, Bt., Sir Gilbert Greenall, Bt., and Captain M. S. Adye. All these gentlemen were appointed for their great knowledge of horse breeding and horseflesh. I am not going to go into their Report, except to say that they never mentioned the buying of this stud, or the Government establishment of a stud, or anything of that kind, but what they did recommend was an extension of the present system. The point I wish to make is that Lord Selborne appointed this Committee. They only reported in October, and this offer of Colonel Hall Walker's was made to the Government in October. The obvious thing which the President of the Board of Agriculture should have done when this offer was submitted to him, more especially when it was an entirely new departure, was to have called this Committee together again and placed this matter before them. They were selected for their special knowledge of this subject, and although the President had the Committee to give an opinion upon this very important question, so far as I know, he never asked them at all. I think that is really a very strange proceeding, and I wonder myself why Lord Selborne did not communicate with that Committee.

Personally I do not think such a Committee would have approved of this scheme; in fact, I do not think any practical committee would have approved of it. If they had approved it my right hon. Friend would have had some authority behind him, but I have not heard that he has any authority whatever behind him with regard to this matter. If he had had the authority of all these experts I should have been the last person to question that authority. I should have said, "I may have my own opinion, but here are these men, and they have approved of this plan; it is not for me to say anything more about it." But the Government did nothing of the sort. They did not ask these men their opinion. Were they suspicious or afraid that they would come to a contrary opinion? It looks very much like it, because it was obviously their duty to ask these men, and I cannot help thinking that the reason they were not asked is that the people who had to do with this scheme thought it better not to ask those who knew most about it. We had an opinion on this matter from the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) the other night, and he has been a well-known breeder of horses for a great number of years. I believe he has given it up now, but I think he knows horse breeding as well as any man in this country, and what did he say? He said: In the first place it is false economy to use a horse for breeding purposes whose service in the market stands at 100 or 150 guineas or more with a half-bred mare that can be served by a stallion with greater likelihood of prodncing good useful stock for 30s. or two guineas. I think the hon. Member for Westminster was quite right, for it is absurd to think that these horses worth thousands of pounds should be travelling round the country to serve mares when a horse can be got whose stock will be perhaps better at a great deal less money. The hon. Member for Westminster went on to say: While fully appreciating this exceptional and remarkable gift, it would be far better to spend this £70,000, and this £4,000 a year, in purchasing thoroughbred stallions which do exist, and which, in the opinion of good judges, are known to be useful sires for half-bred horses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1916, cols. 1125–26.] I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster that it would be much better to spend the money in the way he suggests. The Government, however, thought better and they did not consider it necessary to consult either their own Committee of seven gentlemen who knew all about horses, or even the hon. Member for Westminster, who was also an expert in this business. The height of absurdity was reached, as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch) pointed out, when it was stated that in a few years this very celebrated and high-class racing stud is to be transformed into a stud for breeding half-bred horses. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) said the other day: I understand that the intention is gradually to transform the training stud which is not primarily suited for the purpose of crossing with half-bred mares for the purpose of producing Cavalry horses into a stud which will be primarily suitable for that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1916, col. 1105.] Absurdity could hardly go further than to take over this racing stud for the purpose of transforming it at some future date into a stud for breeding half-bred horses. The more one learns about this transaction the more ridiculous and wasteful it appears. It is almost heartbreaking to think that the Government could be induced to go into such a scheme at a time when the War is having such very serious effects upon us all and when our financial burdens are almost too grievous to be borne.

Mr. HOGGE

I am sure the House has listened with respect to the very able speech made by my hon. Friend with a fulness of knowledge from long experience as to the methods by which horses are bred which probably no other Member listening to the Debate at the moment possesses. I am therefore encouraged to move the reduction of this Vote by £50,000.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)

The Question having been put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," that is the only Resolution which it is open to the House to Debate. It is not in order now to move a reduction.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE

That is a technical point which does not deprive me of the right to put the arguments which I propose to advance, and I can achieve my purpose by encouraging the House not to agree with the Committee in spending this money. The reasons I take this course are many. The first thing which this House must bear in mind is that we are asked to spend this money at a time when we are also being asked to exercise economy. If the House will take the trouble to look at the Supplementary Estimates they will see that but for the sum required to purchase the Tully Estate and Russley Park an additional £19,000 would have been saved. The real sum of money wanted is £67,000, but the Government are only asking for £50,000 because they are going to provide the other £l7,000 out of economies which can be made in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. That seems to me to be quite a point that requires to be met. Here you have the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries practising economy to the extent of being able to present the Treasury with £19,000, and then we have this lamentable proposal that not only the Government but the whole House also should be associated in future with the Turf as part owners of racehorses. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) told us to-day that the Albion, Calais, Candescent, Eagle's Nest, Hale-wood, Lionella, and Royal Favour, all of which belong to us, have been leased to Lord Lonsdale to enter for races which are to be run in the present year, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman) also told us this afternoon that if the arrangements could be made we are this year, in addition to the races which were held at Newmarket last year, to have a limited number of meetings at Newbury, Lingfield, Gatwick, and Windsor. There are to be five different centres of racing in 1916, the year in which we are being pressed every day of the week and every hour of the day to exercise economy.

Unlike my right hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture, I do not consider that horse-racing is a low form of sport. I never have done so. I like to see a horse-race, and I have seen a very great many. I hope those of my colleagues who have not will look forward with anticipation to the pleasure which can be derived from witnessing any very fine horse-race, such as the St. Leger, run at Doncaster If they have not seen that race they ought to see it. They would derive a considerable amount of pleasure from it. My right hon. Friend knows that those who take the view that horse-racing in itself is an excellent sport are disappointed with the associations which attend horse-racing at the various meetings. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman ever reads any of the sporting papers, but if he does he can select eminent authorities who will tell him what is the attitude taken with regard to this matter. Spearmint, who writes probably some of the best informing sporting articles we have in this country, says on March 5th with regard to these proposals: Betting is as necessary to the maintenance of the life on the Turf as racing is to the vitality of breeding. It is also true that there would be no horse-racing in this country to any considerable extent were it not for the money that is associated with betting. My hon. Friend (Sir F. Cawley), who has the knowledge which I attributed to him about horses themselves, will agree with me in the statement I have made that but for betting you would have at once a great diminution in the number of races held in this country. The last time this subject was discussed in Committee I made a statement which was challenged by a great number of Members who are absent on this occasion. I pointed out, and I maintained, that the average race for which horses such as those which have been leased to Lord Lonsdale can be entered in this country are races which in distance are very much less than a mile, and the great bulk of them are five-furlong races. I pointed out then, and I maintain again, that five-furlong races are not the kind of distance races that will develop that stamina in horses which is the quality required for breeding purposes on this farm. Take the year 1914, the year in which you had over 1,800 races over the flat, apart altogether from what you had "over the sticks." [HON MEMBERS: "What are the 'sticks'?"] I do not want to explain every term that one uses, but my hon. and ignorant Friends must know that "over the sticks" mean "steeplechases." In the flat-racing season that year there were only sixty races over two miles. Eleven hundred of them were less than the mile, and the bulk of them were five furlongs and under. Yet in this House the other day I was laughed at by hon. Members who do not understand the Turf when I ventured to say as a critic of the Turf that the bulk of the races were of that distance. I would like to impress hon. Gentlemen who are present with the fact that it is all nonsense to talk about the present type of race meetings in this country as being a means of developing stamina in the horses for the purposes of horse breeding.

9.0 P.M.

There are other points which I think I ought to put with regard to this extraordinary proposal. I presume that when these horses are leased to Lord Lonsdale they will be leased on this arrangement—and I want a very precise answer to this question from my right hon. Friend—they will be leased on the basis that if he wins anything with these horses we Members of the House of Commons will get half the proceeds? Of course, I mean the Treasury which we try to control. What I want to know is, will the Treasury get half the stakes which the horses win, while if the horses lose, is Lord Lonsdale to bear the loss? I think it is a most extraordinary proposition that he is to be responsible for the upkeep of the horses during the racing season. My right hon. Friend, if he knows anything about the matter at all, must be aware that each one of these horses cannot be trained, taken about the country, and ridden, for less than an average of £350 per racing season. Is Lord Lonsdale paying that, or is the Treasury to pay it? There is another side of this question which ought to be borne in mind, and that is the moral aspect of the transaction. I presume that at the present moment the habit most productive of waste in this country is drink. So much so that we are all agreed that there should be drastic measures taken to control it during the War. Next to drink more money is wasted on betting and gambling than on any other vice in this country, and that is so much the case that we have legislation to deal with it, we have passed an Act of Parliament to control betting. We do not allow it on the street. We do not allow it, except on racecourses, or when the transactions are done through the post and no money changes hands. We are going to be put in this position. We are going to be the owners of horses run in races, in connection with which people may be brought within the law for betting. We are, in fact, to be the medium by which they are enabled to contravene the law. I do not think that is right. I do not want to be puritanical. I do not mind horse-racing, and I am willing to witness races. I never bet. I would never be foolish enough to do that. But we must recognise the fact that a great many people do bet, and that large sums of money changed hands during the racing season as a result of betting. This is so much the case that excessive betting is considered to be harmful to the community. I could have seen more sense in the proposal if we had allowed Lord Lonsdale to take the horses altogether for the purposes of racing, and if we agreed that if he lost he should bear the loss, but if he won he should take the winnings. I think we have made a very selfish arrangement. We have said to him, "You take the horses; you conceal for us the fact that we are the owners. You conceal the fact that the horses really belong to the Wesleyans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans in the House of Commons, as they do not want it published." I think it is an unfair position in which to place Lord Lonsdale. I do not think I would have opposed the proposal if we had allowed Lord Lonsdale to take the winnings, but the proposal we should insist on having one-half of them under such circumstances is the kind of thing which we Scotsmen in Aberdeen would only expect from a Jew. Many of us are magistrates; we sit on the bench on the Monday before coming down here on the Tuesday, and it may be that at one of these sittings we may be fining a boy for street betting. We may read him a lecture on the evils of betting, and then come along here to the House of Commons, and go to the tape in order to learn something about the form of the horses which we as Members of the House own, and which are entered for one of the race meetings at Newbury, Lingfield, Gatwick, or Windsor, and will run there provided that they are not required this year for military purposes.

I do not think that such a thing is in the interests of common sense. In self-protection the House of Commons must treat this matter much more seriously than it has done so far. We are asked by the public of this country to address our minds seriously to the persistent conduct of the War, to pursue it with all the vigour we can, and at the same time in every Department to economise as much as we can. That feeling is so strong that it is proposed even to discuss the salaries of Members of this House. I am in favour of impressing the public outside by our acts within this House, but I do not think public opinion will be impressed by our action when people to-morrow read, along with the reports of the speeches made earlier in the afternoon about the Navy, the fact that the Members of the House of Commons have spent £50,000 when they could have saved £19,000 on the same Vote, but refused to do so, preferring to place themselves in the position of part owners of racehorses. I hope the House of Commons will not do this thing. I hope before this Debate is finished to-night the arguments which will be put forward will have the effect of inducing the House not to agree to this proposal, and not to allow the Government to spend any of this money. I want the House to repudiate this bargain entirely, in the interests of economy, and I say also it is degrading to the House of Commons to put itself in the position of owning one-half of the horses—the half that wins, while Lord Lonsdale is only to have the half that loses. For these reasons, I think we should have nothing to do with this matter, and should oppose this proposal root and branch.

Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD

I am afraid that I cannot pose as an expert upon horse racing, but I have in days gone by, on a good many occasions, ridden between the flags over pretty stiff ground, and I can therefore claim to know what is a good horse. Nobody in this House has a greater admiration than myself for a good horse, which is about the noblest animal in creation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture said he thought horse racing was a rather low form of sport. I fancy he was not thinking of horse racing pure and simple. In the old days of horse racing, when we had long races over four miles or three miles, and in the days of Eclipse, Herod and Waxy we had fine races. It has been said that horse racing is an institution which was designed to improve the breed of horses, but has only succeeded in degrading the "breed of man." That is, of course, an exaggerated statement like most general statements, but there is a great deal in it. Like the hon. Member who has just sat down, I have seen with enjoyment many horse races. One may go to Goodwood on a beautiful summer day and admire the horses and the racing, but the whole thing is spoiled to my mind by a lot of hoarse-voiced bandits bawling out the odds. I am not a Puritan, but everybody knows that the hon. Member who has just sat down spoke nothing more than the truth when he said that the two great curses of this country are, first, drink and, second, betting. They act and react upon each other. One drinks and bets, and bets and then drinks because he has lost his bet. That is a truism. In view of the fact that the State has become the owner of a racing stud, and that we are going to run horses, if we are to vote this money it is incumbent upon the Government to take steps to prevent betting upon the course. It will be their duty and our duty if we are the owners of a racing stud.

Sir F. CAWLEY

They will not want the horses then.

Mr. GREENWOOD

All I can say is that if it is impossible to have fine horses, and to improve the breed of horses without betting, that would be all the worse for the breed of horses. If that is so, I should be prepared to associate myself with the hon. Member who has just sat down, and, if necessary, to vote against the grant of this money.

Mr. ROCH

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will be in a position before the Debate closes to throw a little more light upon the details of this stud If at any time, still more in a time of war, anybody were to come to me as a friend and say, "Shall I invest in a racing stud?" I should give him the advice which is now placarded on so many walls, "Don't!" That would be the best advice he could have. The sole reason which can justify the money spent on this stud is not whether it is going to be a good speculation, or a good investment, or a desirable thing in itself, but whether for the purposes for which it was presented by the right hon. Gentleman when the Estimate came up it really fulfils the objects he had in view. I understand that the first object that was suggested as a reason for this investment was that the War Office were looking anxiously towards the future of Cavalry horses. I take it that this stud was bought because of the fear that in the future, or even in the present, there might be a shortage of Cavalry horses. Therefore the object of this stud was to provide a means in the future of securing Cavalry horses. It is on that basis alone that the right hon. Gentleman can justify this Vote, and it is upon that basis that I hope he will throw a little more light upon the transaction. First of all, I should like him to tell us what are the liabilities of this stud. There are heavy forfeits for racing. As they come on, probably these young yearlings and fillies will have to be entered two, three, or four years ahead, and I should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman some kind of estimate of what these are going to cost in the future, for with a business department like the Board of Agriculture, with all the numberless Committees of business men that are advising the Government on business points, it is inconceivable that some accountants or some Committee should not have looked into this estimate very carefully. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what are the estimated liabilities for the next three or four years in the way of forfeits, entrance fees, and the like.

I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how this scheme for the breeding of Cavalry horses is going to work out? Will he give us the number of stallions which will be standing for stud purposes at these establishments, what respective fees these stallions will be standing at, and, in particular, how many of these stallions will be standing at a fee, let us say, of from three to five guineas? Then I should like to ask him whether the War Office—I understand this is one of the activities of the War Office—during the last eighteen months, when this problem presented itself to them, asked the Board of Agriculture whether there was a shortage of thoroughbred stallions in this country suitable for obtaining Cavalry horses, whether during those eighteen months they came to the Board of Agriculture and said that the future of horse breeding and stallions was getting a serious one, and whether there was a shortage of thoroughbred stallions? I am told by dealers and others well up in this matter, and certainly I am speaking from my own experience when I say that there never was a time in the history of this country when the most suitable thoroughbred stallions for crossing with thoroughbred mares could be procured in profusion at any sale in almost any part of the country where blood stock is put up at prices varying from £150 up to £400 as the maximum price. I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the stallions of this stud are going to travel the country? Of course, it must have struck him and the War Office, after giving this matter careful consideration, that to keep stallions standing at a stud farm is almost useless for the ordinary breeder of stock. The person who is going to send his mare to any thoroughbred stallion can send it now. There is no value in keeping a Government stud permanently standing at one particular place. I should like him, therefore, to tell us not only how many of these stallions are standing at a reasonable fee, but how many of them are going to travel the country?

I think that covers all the ground upon which my right hon. Friend can justify this Vote. This may or may not be a good speculation or a good gamble. Time will show. I think when the Government undertake any enterprise it generally is not a financial success. The circumstances are such, and the difficulties of management are such, that Government enterprises very seldom are commercial successes. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some forecast of the future in the management of this stud. In the last Debate I said that if it was formed mainly for the purpose of providing stallions solely for the purpose of crossing with half-bred horses it really was a proposal which could only have come out of Bedlam, for if the Government has gone into these large enterprises and purchased this valuable stock the only way to keep up the value of their investment is to breed the very highest class of high-bred horses, which no one would think of crossing with half-bred mares, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what are they going to do in the future with this stud? As the years go by, in a well-managed blood-stock stud, they have to consider the purchase of fresh stallions. In a stud of this kind, which is going to be kept up as a good investment or speculation for the Government, you will not be buying stallions at £150 or £300 for the purpose of crossing with half-bred mares. You have to get some of the best horses in the country, like Ard Patrick and Galtee More. I do not know whether the Government is going to figure largely at the sales at Newmarket or at Tattersall's—whether they are going to be one of the retinue there that runs horses up to £25,000, £30,000, and £37,000, which was, I think, the price of Flying Fox when it was sold. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how this stud is going to develop in the future. Is the Government not only to continue leasing its horses, but is it going to keep the stud permanently up as a high-class breeding stud, and does he contemplate with equanimity the outlay of large sums of money, for I cannot think that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), that any members of the Government, will use what is often a legitimate form of making a stud pay its way by putting a heavy amount of money on when a strong tip comes from the stable. That avenue of making a blood stock stud pay, I hope, will be permanently closed to the Government. I hope they will not embark on paths in that direction, for while individuals have made blood stock farms pay, I doubt whether the Government will; and while I know many people who have won heavy sums out of racing and betting, I think somehow the Government will not be a winner when it comes to try its luck on that scale. These are the points of criticism which I think it is perfectly fair to level at the Government. There is no need to reiterate, as I did on the last occasion, perhaps in rather heated terms, what an almost ridiculous figure the Government are cutting in their economy campaign. When I was at school there was a very old riddle," Why is a bad parson like a signpost? Because they both direct the way which they take good care not to follow themselves." To my mind, in preaching economy at the Guildhall and then embarking on costly luxuries like a high-class stud, I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentlemen on that bench are not only making themselves rather ridiculous in the eyes of the country, but they are frustrating an object which I think it should be their bounden duty to try to practise as well as to preach. It is only by following that path that they can really make any progress in economy.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I desire to support those Members who have condemned the action of the Government in purchasing this stud. The national effect of an adventure like this at a time of crisis, and when national economy is being preached, will deservedly have a very disastrous influence, for I have not heard any speaker supporting this stud urge that by any possibility it could be of any use during the present War; and if the purchase of this stud can have no bearing upon what is rendered necessary for the Army by the present War, any shadow of justification that existed for this purchase is swept away. It is a matter which should have been left until the end of the War, when the whole question could have been dispassionately considered. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what has become of the Nonconformist conscience? There is, as I speak, a great Nonconformist gathering being held, which is being addressed by Members of this House, and an appeal is being made for greater simplicity of life and for national economy. Whilst these eminent Nonconformist Members of this House are making this appeal at that congress, they are becoming passive partners, I will not say in the business of those bottle-nosed ruffians—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—who bawl the odds on the racecourse, but in a business which, in its urn, enables those undesirable parasites of this sport to follow their calling. I am very much surprised that in this very moderate reference to these gentlemen any voice should be lifted in their defence. There is great moral degradation involved in this matter, and there is much more than the mere financial loss in our national life.

I want to point out another connection that it has with the campaign for economy. This, too, relates to administrative action which has been taken in this connection by the Board of Agriculture and by the Board of Trade, because in connection with the purchase of this stud there has been a great revival of activity in connection with the various parties who are interested in the continuance of racing during the War. Although it was understood that the Government discouraged racing during the War, recently there has been a change of policy, and the two things are to some extent connected. I want the House to note what kind of new arrangements have been made in connection with the continuance of racing. The Government say, and properly say, that the holding of race meetings must not make any new demand upon the railways. What happens? The condition that has been agreed to by the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture is this, and it is the condition under which the recent meetings at Gatwick have been held, that the spectators attending these races shall buy a ticket for 25s. in advance and shall go in a motor car. If they present themselves at the gate for admission in a motor car they have a refund made to them on their ticket which has cost 25s. I am stating correctly the conditions that have been agreed to by the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Trade as the conditions of admission to Gatwick as to other races. What happened at the Gatwick races? I noticed it at the time with extreme amazement. There were some hundreds, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say some thousands, of motor cars making the journey to the Gatwick races, crowded with people who held tickets for which they had paid in advance 25s., and on presenting themselves at the gates, producing their motor cars and their tickets, they had a certain cash rebate made to them. Will the House notice what an amazing thing this is?

We are being asked to economise in all directions. We have Mansion House meetings attended by fashionable audiences. We have appeals made, above all, to the poor to eat less meat. We have a Retrenchment Committee asking for economies in the amounts paid to the old age pensioners, and at the same time we are setting this national example of allowing races and imposing restrictions which mean that thousands of motor cars are used to convey idle people, who pay 25s. each, to witness these races, and to hear these gentlemen I have already referred to, who bawl the odds. I am sorry to disturb the sympathies of my hon. Friend here. I hope he will believe me that I am not wittingly offending his sympathies. We have great waste involved in the use of motor cars for this purpose and in the use of petrol for this purpose, and we have a spectacle which I say in all seriousness is not a very edifying spectacle, and is not a very good example to set to the nation when we are officially asking the people of the nation to live a more simple and austere life. I think that if these methods are to be justified they ought to be justified on more substantial grounds than has yet been hinted at, especially by my right hon Friend (Mr. Acland), who represents the Government in this matter. I hope he will not think me impertinent if I venture to extend to him an expression of sympathy. I listened to the speech that he made when he brought forward the Supplementary Estimate, and I confess that he did not give me the impression—I do not think I do him an injustice—that his heart was in this business. Therefore I feel sympathy with him in so far as he has to explain and defend this proposal before the House. When he replies I hope he will not only deal with the question of the purchase of this stud, but that he will deal also with the continuance of race meetings and the extension of race meetings, which have been sanctioned by Departments of the Government, and that he will particularly deal with these amazing conditions authorised by the Government and assented to by the Government, which lead in this time of strain and crisis to this unparalleled Spectacle of unforgive able waste.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I think the Government is somewhat unfortunate in having a representative sitting on the Treasury Bench (Mr. Acland), who describes this transaction which His Majesty's Government has entered into as a low form of sport. In my earlier days I kept racehorses, and, like everybody else who keeps racehorses, I suppose I lost money by it. I am not at all clear that my hon. Friends sitting on these benches have recognised that during this discussion there has been sitting opposite the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Gulland), who is the man who is going to take charge of the tipster Department under which these horses will be running on behalf of the Government. So far as horse-racing goes, everyone knows that the great mass of people who attend the race meetings go there, not for the purpose of seeing horses gallop, but for the purpose of betting. You might just as well race with donkeys as race with thoroughbreds. The Government are well qualified to pull out of their stables a super-donkey, and I expect to see at an early date a horse called "Boyscout," by "Coalition," out of "Inefficiency." We may see, when the Government are the owners of the horses, a christening of them, because, as everybody knows, the owners of race horses always spend an amusing evening in christening their horses. It is quite a difficult task to find the right name for the particular sire and mare from which a foal has to be christened Perhaps we may see "Prime Minister" brought into the list. How he is bred I will not venture to suggest. For all practical purposes the Government is embarking in this undertaking on a gambling transaction. If the Government are going to undertake, or have undertaken, the obligations of being the owners of racehorses, they ought to go the whole hog and establish a pari mutuel. I am very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Acland) nods his head in approval of that statement, so that I gather from him, that when these horses take part in the lottery of racing the Government will favourably consider the establishment of a pari mutuel.

I have always thought that horse racing breeds a race of blackguards. I say that, after being associated for a number of years with racing and hunting. Be that as it may, I do not think the fact can be controverted, that if you take the ordinary race meeting in this country you have special trains filled with all the blackguards that can congregate in every district or centre where the race meeting is held. The men who go to these race meetings for sport are very limited in number. The great bulk of them are professional bookmakers, who take money out of the pockets of the professional backers or the people who go to these meetings and think they are going to make money, whereas, as a matter of fact, according to the laws of averages, they are bound to lose in the long run. In my district, at Nottingham, which is famous for its lambs—the lambs do not come from the Mansfield Division of Nottingham, but from the city. Be that as it may, when a special train comes into Nottingham station every piece of crockery is taken off the refreshment bars, every spoon, fork, and knife on the whole of the counters of the refreshment department is swept clear, because the fraternity who arrive by these special trains for the race meetings place the property of the railway company carefully in their pockets. This is the class of people for whom the Government are about to cater in a time of national emergency. As my hon. Friend says, the railways at this time belong to the Government. Therefore it does not make any difference whether the knives, spoons, and forks, and the various articles of cutlery of the railway are put into the pockets of these people or not.

Be that as it may, on the broad issue whether these stallions are necessary to improve the breed of horses, all I can say is that for a number of years of my life I hunted six days a week, and I have never known even in Leicestershire, where I hunt, that a thoroughbred horse was the best horse for that purpose. It was certainly not the view of Tom Firr, the most celebrated rider and the best huntsman who ever rode over Leicestershire, or of Mr. Tailby, one of the best riders in that county, a man who rode for sixty years. In his opinion a thoroughbred horse, owing to its very fine skin, was not the most suitable horse for hunting purposes. If you are going to breed thoroughbred horses solely for the purpose of improving the breed of horses, which would be accessible to the community at large, for commercial and Army purposes, I think that the Government would justify this expense. But I do not see how they are going to justify this expense because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch) very ably pointed out, the question arises: Are you going to let those horses travel for the benefit of farmers, or are you going to keep them in one centre? Who ever heard of taking thoroughbred horses worth several thousand pounds to travel about the country for fees of from three or four guineas? The fact is, as hon. Members know very well, that the fee for a very valuable horse runs to anything from £500 to £1,000. The Government will fix a fee in conformity with democratic principles. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Half a crown."] I have no knowledge of what fee the Government will fix, but what I do say is that it is impracticable for the Government to think that they can acquire a high-class stud of stallions, and that these can be acceptable to farmers generally in the country.

Let us see now about Lord Lonsdale. Lord Lonsdale is a gentleman with very great experience of horses, and, they say, a very good man after the hounds. I know that Lord Lonsdale has used thoroughbred horses to a large extent at different times for the purposes of hunting with hounds, but I also know that the best hunters Lord Lonsdale ever had, when he rode across country, were not thoroughbreds, and I want the Government to tell us what these horses have been acquired for? Is it intended after the War to have a large stud for the purposes of breeding Cavalry horses, or are these horses to be used for breeding thoroughbred horses, or for breeding horses for racing purposes, or for what? The Government would have spent their money very much better in providing good Clydsdale or Shire stallions, which would be far more beneficial to farmers and to traders of the country than these thoroughbred stallions could possibly be. For my own part, if any one goes to a Division I will be glad to tell against this Vote. I think that it is pure waste of money, that it is one of these reckless proceedings into which the Government have entered from time to time, and that it is only adding one more to the blunders characterised by the hon. Member who has to support them and who referred to racing as a low-class form of sport.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland)

The thought which is uppermost in my mind is that I would like to have ten minutes of the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) in reply to the speeches which have been made on the other side, and I am sure that those who have spoken, though he would speak in opposition to everything which they have said, will join in my wish that he could be among us to deal with this matter. The only consolation which I have derived from the speeches to which I have listened is that most of those who have spoken, who have more knowledge by far of racing than I have, have said far worse things about it than ever I have said, and it is rather a hard task indeed, after listening to so many critics, to try to reply to them. But I think that I can answer, or try to answer, at any rate, some of the definite questions that were asked me. I think, for instance, that I can answer the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who asked, Who is to be responsible for the expense of the training of the two-year-olds that are going to be leased to Lord Lonsdale during the period when they are leased? The answer is, Lord Lonsdale. I made that, I think, quite clear when we were discussing the matter the other night. The arrangement I do not think is unfair either to him or to the Government. He would bear the expenses of training, and if stakes are won, after recouping those expenses he will return to the national stud half the value of the stake.

Mr. ROCH

Do I understand that the arrangement is not a form of lease in which the stakes are shared, but that the net balance is to be halved after deducting expenses?

Mr. ACLAND

Yes. I made that quite clear in the answer that I gave to a question and in my speech, and in view of the extreme uncertainty of winning stakes at a time like this, I think that on the whole it is a reasonable arrangement for both sides. The hon. Member said that he would not object to this proposal to lease the horses to Lord Lonsdale during part of their racing career at so much, if we were going to hand over the horses altogether to him, and not to resume possession later on.

Mr. HOGGE

I did not say that. What I said was that I would not object so much to the arrangement if the Government gains. I think you might retain the horses if they win, but what I do object to is the Government losing money.

Mr. ACLAND

We do not lose, but we have a chance of winning; and, from the point of view of resuming possession of the horses, it is surely necessary, if we are to try to maintain, promote, and improve the national stud for the purpose of developing the light horse-breeding industry, to lease horses for a racing career, and that they should come back to the national stud for the purpose of breeding. It would not be possible to run any Government stud without heavy loss if the horses were untried by actual racing, or without any chance of taking them back again for the improvement and development of the stud. The hon. Member for Pembrokeshire asked me a lot of questions, which he has also put upon the Paper to be answered tomorrow. It is quite right for him to ask them now, but I think it is also legitimate for me to say that I would rather answer them tomorrow; at any rate, I cannot answer them now, because some of them involve reference to the controller of the stud in Ireland. For instance, the hon. Member asked me a question about the exact fees for those horses of the stud, and that, of course, is information which I can get only from Ireland, and I have written for it. I cannot give the information viva voce at the present time.

Mr. WING

Adjourn the Vote.

Mr. ACLAND

I think I can give a general description, and I trust that the House will dispose of the Vote. For certain horses the figure is 98 or 100 guineas, but I cannot give the exact figure. These horses at Tully are not going to travel the country. There is no idea of horses like White Eagle, Royal Realm, Great Sport, and Night Hawk travelling the country. They are going to stay at Tully and earn as high fees as can possibly be obtained. In answer to hon. Members who asked whether we intend to keep this stud as a high-class stud, the answer is, certainly. The Member for Mid-Lanark and others complained about our connection with racing. I think it is a fact which any Member, even with my knowledge of racing must realise, that if you have a thoroughbred stud and want it to be of the greatest use for maintaining the light horse-breeding industry, you must lease the animals to be trained in racing. I suppose with horses, as with human beings, good looks are not everything, and it is only by racing a horse that you can be sure that the animal has the energy, the courage, the temper, and constitution and perseverance which are necessary if a Government stud is to be the foundation and support of the light horse-breeding industry, and therefore of the Army horse supply, which it is hoped that it will be. If you simply went on the looks of your horses you might find their progeny lacking in those moral qualities. [An HON MEMBER: "Moral!"] Yes, moral; horses can have moral qualities just like human beings, and unless a horse has power of perseverance up to the last ounce of its strength in a long race, whatever may be its breeding or whatever its looks, he is not anything like as good as he might be for helping the light horse-breeding industry. I was asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark what was the policy of the Government with regard to the holding of race meetings. I am very sorry that has not come before me at the Board of Agriculture; I think it is a matter the Board of Trade is going into, and I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

In reply to the criticisms that have been made, I would like, first of all, to recall to the House what we are discussing. We are discussing whether there should be paid to Colonel Hall Walker the sum of £65,000, which is the valuation of the two estates which he has sold to us. The valuation is not a pre-War valuation; it is a present-day valuation. The valuation of the horses was upon a pre-war basis. I think that was necessary, because, with all respect to the hon. Baronet, I think it must be an extraordinarily difficult thing to put any estimate on the value of thoroughbred stock of the type that we have at the stud under war conditions. I am quite clear that the estimate I gave of the value of the stud was on the pre-war basis. I do not think any valuation I could have put on stallions such as I have mentioned would be worth giving to the House. I do not think there have been many sales recently. There have been those sales of yearlings, of course, but it would be very difficult to gather from them the value of horses like White Eagle, Royal Realm, and so on. I think it is only possible to take the valuation made on the pre-war basis, and which we hope may be justified when we return again to normal conditions after the War.

Sir F. CAWLEY

Are the establishments taken as a going concern or are they taken just as ordinary stables?

Mr. ACLAND

So far as my recollection goes, the valuation is as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and in that connection I would remind the hon. Baronet that the valuer satisfied himself that Colonel Hall Walker had spent over £100,000 on these properties, and therefore it seems to me that the valuation of £65,000 which he has accepted cannot be considered at all excessive. The point is this: Colonel Hall Walker has two properties which he values as between a willing seller and buyer at £75,000. He had the extreme generosity to say that if the valuation went beyond £75,000 he would not ask to get more than the figure named. He added that whatever the valuation was he would accept it, and as it came out rather lower he has accepted that lower sum. In addition to the purchase of the property he hands over to us an extremely valuable stud of thoroughbred horses, worth, as I said before, at a pre-War valuation, £74,000, but of which I suggest it would be extremely difficult to give any estimate of value at the present time under war conditions. This, I think, is the only justification for the acceptance of this gift, because, of course, it does not follow, however generous a gift is—and this is extremely generous—that it was right for the Government to accept it. This is the only justification that I can urge, or that I think can be urged, in its favour, and that is that it is thought desirable, in the interests of the Army, to do something to ensure the continuance of light horse breeding in this country at the highest possible standard. It is to our light horses possessing the best blood in pedigree that the country has to look for the foundation of our Cavalry horse supply, and the gift, surely, by Colonel Hall Walker of some of the best thoroughbred animals now living, and animals which very likely might have been exported and lost to the country if they had not been given to the State, must help to maintain the pre-eminence of our light horses, and must, therefore, materially assist the Army to attain a position of security in producing the type of horses they require for the future. That, at any rate, is the very definite view of the War Office, and the personal view of the Secretary of State for War, and it was on that definite view by the Army Council that the acceptance of this gift would materially help them in ensuring stability and excellence in our light horse breeding that the Government decided that the gift ought to be accepted. If this is not sufficient justification, the considered opinion of the War Office, I can make no other. I believe that under the circumstances it is right to look ahead and to secure ourselves against possible depletions of the horse supply by accepting a gift which enables us to maintain a stud with a maximum possible usefulness for maintaining our position as light horse breeders. I hope, in spite of the adverse criticisms that have been expressed to-day, that the House will confirm the decision of the Committee in the matter.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. PRINGLE

I think the hon. Members who are present will agree that the lameness of the defence of the right hon. Gentleman matches the extraordinary character of the transaction. I do not think in my experience in the House of Commons I have ever heard of a transaction so extraordinary in its character, nor have I known of one defended in such a halfhearted way. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the absence of the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), which we all sincerely regret. I think it would have been well if the defence of this transaction had been placed in the hands of that right hon. Gentleman instead of the Parliamentary Secretary. From the speech which he made to-night, and that in Committee, I think it is obvious that he himself has no belief in the transaction. He told us in an apologetic way in the Committee stage that racing was a low form of sport. His main justification, both then and now, is that, after all, this is a munificent gift on the part of Colonel Hall Walker, and, in the second place, that it will be of great value for stimulating light horse breeding in this country. During the Committee Debate, undoubtedly the general tenor of the discussion was largely affected by the view held about the generosity of Colonel Hall Walker. Nearly every speaker on that occasion suggested that if the slightest disparagement or the slightest criticism was made that that was casting a slur upon the generosity of Colonel Hall Walker. No one who has criticised this transaction, either now or in Committee, casts the slightest doubt on Colonel Hall Walker's generosity, which is not in the question in the slightest degree. The gift may be a gift of the utmost generosity, and yet, on the other hand, it may be extremely unwise and uneconomical for the Government to accept it. That is our contention in the present case. The right hon. Gentleman has been chairman of the celebrated Committee appointed to deal with Retrenchment. We have had a succession of chairmen on that Committee, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer down to the right hon. Gentleman. I wonder if that Committee was asked to discuss this question? The Committee was set up to bring about economies in the Civil Service Estimates, and I should say it was within their function to consider new expenditure as well. I am quite sure, had this particular proposal been referred to the Retrenchment Committee, we should never have heard any more of it. It is mainly on the business aspect of this matter that I think the House ought to disagree with the proposal. There is the other aspect of it which should not be absent from our mind. We will have the Chief Whip leading the supporters of the Government into the Lobby on behalf of a proposal which tends to support and stimulate racing. In my young days I remember reading a tract by the right hon. Gentleman. It made a great impression on my memory, and altogether prevented me from indulging in any gambling instincts in which I might otherwise have indulged. The title of that tract was, "Does racing pay?" and the answer was an emphatic "No," and that pamphlet was written by J. W. Gulland.

Mr. HOHLER

I have listened to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle), and although I have heard him so often in the House I have never been able to understand whether he is sincere to the cause he espouses or whether he is not, and I really think his argument to-night about tracts has nothing to do with the question we have under consideration. In my view, this proposal which is presented to us is a reasonable and a proper one to enter upon. We all know, at the outbreak of this War, how lamentably short we were of horses, and I should have liked those who are opposing this Vote to make inquiries, probably in their own markets, as to the amount of the immense sums the Government has spent in the compulsory purchases they have had to make. In every market throughout the country numbers of these horses have been sold for nominal sums after purchase for forty or fifty guineas. What is the proposal? It is that we are to have this exceedingly valuable stud, and the only thing is that it is to be purchased, and it is for that that we are asked to pay this money. Surely, in view of the great increase of motor traction in this country, it is essential for the Government to take some new step in order to provide themselves with the necessary horses for Cavalry, gun teams, and like purposes in case of any emergencies. It is in these circumstances that Colonel Hall Walker has offered his stud to the country.

Sir F. CAWLEY

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government appointed a Committee last year, since the War began, to look into all these matters, and that they did not recommend this purchase?

Mr. HOHLER

Of course, I pay great respect to the Report of the Committee, but whether the members who sat on that Committee really knew what this was I am not informed. What we have to consider is not their Report, but this proposal. As I was saying, these horses are necessary to the country. Suppose this thing proves a failure, we have a valuable asset which the nation can sell and realise when it thinks fit. What is the loss we can possibly sustain? I quite agree that the hon. Member who has damned this proposal is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, who introduced it. I quite agree that his speech was not very apt, and I am not aware whether he has any knowledge of agriculture, or horses, or any- thing else. It is often the case that a Minister at that Table has the least knowledge of the subject he undertakes. With regard to this proposal, I certainly submit that it is most desirable that we should accept the gift. The land we are acquiring is, as I understand and am imformed, most valuable land, and is fully worth the price we are asked to pay. Meanwhile, we have the stud, and surely that in itself is an asset. Therefore, I am strongly in favour of the proposal. I am sure that unless we take this step for the nucleus of a breeding stud to be set up we shall never take it at all. No more favourable conditions could be proposed, and it seems to me that if we reject the Vote we are asked to pass at this time it will be merely because of that party below the Gangway who have on all occasions opposed every measure taken by the Government, but who ultimately, when driven to it, yield. They have always some case—labour, conscription, or something of that kind, and now they seek to take advantage of this measure proposed by the Government and fully considered by them. For my part I support it, and ask the House to support it also.

Sir J. SPEAR

I am opposed to this Vote, not because I am against the Government for a moment—I count myself a loyal supporter of it—but because I believe it is a false step they propose to take in starting a racing career. I recognise the great importance of encouragement in the production of suitable horses by establishing the stud proposed in this step will make any gain in that direction. The Government have, I think wisely, secured and given assistance to the production of suitable sires throughout the country at King's premium, by which farmers can have access to suitable sires for the production of light horses for the Army in a way that will never be possible by establishing the stud proposed by this Vote. I am of opinion that the Government would have no difficulty whatever in securing horses for the Army if they would buy direct from the farmers, and pay prices that afford fair remuneration for the production of the animals. I feel that the farmer can produce horses more cheaply than the Government can. He can use the animals for a year or two to help him to cultivate the land, thereby securing maturity and stability and making them suitable for Army purposes. By the Government's help to the farmer in giving a premium on suitable horses I admit they have given great assistance to agriculture, and have taken a sane, businesslike step for providing animals for the Army. I am convinced, however, that this step will do nothing of the kind. It will promote the breeding of animals too delicate in their constitution, and too small in their bones, to be of any use whatever in producing stock that will be suitable for the Army. I admit the generosity of Colonel Hall Walker. We must all admit that as patriotic; and his motive is, no doubt, to promote the welfare of the country. I believe, however, that it is a perfectly useless step for the object the Government have in view, namely, the provision of horses for the Army. The class of animal that will win races is not the class of animal calculated to provide suitable horses for the Army. I am sorry the Government have taken the step they have. It was a tempting offer, but I believe they would better consider the provision of horses for the Army if they continued their policy of securing sires from King's premium, instead of spending so much money on this particular project. We all recognise the importance of the need of economy, and surely from that

Resolutions reported,

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, 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, 1916, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."

point of view there is no justification for the expenditure of this money on the present occasion. I object also to the scheme, because I do not think the Government ought to use their influence in promoting horse-racing. I know that horses can be raced without any infringement of moral law, but having regard to the fact that with horse-racing so much gambling is encouraged and promoted I think the Government should keep their hands clear from countenancing anything which would promote anything in that direction. I am, therefore, opposed to it on the ground that it is an unnecessary expenditure of money, and I am opposed to it because I do not believe for a moment that it will encourage an increase in the production in our own country, which is a very important matter, of horses suitable for the Army. I believe it will deter that rather than promote it. I think that the Government are ill-advised in the step they have taken, and I am opposed to the project from every point of view.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 20.

Division No.1.] AYES. [10.17. p.m.
Acland Rt. Hon. Francis D. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Kellaway, Frederick George Shortt, Edward
Beck, Arthur Cecil Lee, Arthur Hamilton Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Bowerman, Charles W. Levy, Sir Maurice Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)
Brace, William M'Curdy, Charles Albert Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Bridgeman, William Clive Middlemore, John Throgmorton Toulmin, Sir George
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Millar, James Duncan Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Cory, James H. (Cardiff) Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. Watt, Henry A.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-Furness) Nugent, J. D. (College Green) Williams, Aneurin (Durham)
Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Fisher. Rt. Hon. William Hayes Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hewart, Gordon Radford, George Heynes Yeo, A. W.
Hodge, John Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Rowlands, James
NOES.
Anderson, William C Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterb'gh) Spear, Sir John Ward
Byles, Sir Williams Pollard Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Whitehouse, John Howard
Campbell, Capt. D. F. (Ayr, N.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Winfrey, Sir R.
Cawley, Sir Frederick King, Joseph Wing, Thomas Edward
Coote, William Pringle, William M. R.
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy) Richards, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Davies, Timothy (Louth) Roch, Walter F. Hogge and Sir A. Markham.
Fletcher, John S. Rowntree, Arnold

Resolution agreed to.

Resolutions reported,

Forward to