Sitting of 27 May 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz. :—
  Bristol Water Bill [Lords].
  Medway and Thames Canal Bill [Lords].
  Newcastle - upon - Tyne Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Renfrew Harbour Bill [Lords].
  Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords.]
  South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways Bill [Lords].
  Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords],
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz. :—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) Bill.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time tomorrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz. :—
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Pilotage Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time tomorrow.

  TYNE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION BILL [LORDS] (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  LEAMINGTON CORPORATION BILL, LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL, NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Battersea and Brighouse; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; From Hanwell; Westhoughton; Horwich; and Glyn Ceiriog; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Greenwich; Battersea; Clapham; Blackburn; and Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Dewsbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petition from Twickenham, against (praying to be heard by Counsel); to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petition from Twickenham, in favour of the direct representation of the Metropolitan Bo oughs upon the proposed Water Board; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: From Brighton; Gainsborough; Hemswell; and Beccles; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Brighouse and Bridgend; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Brighouse, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF LAND VALUES.
  Petition from Peebles, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Fraserburgh, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VARATHANWNTHAJEE, RY VIJAYO SAHIB.
  Petition of Ry Vijayo Varathanwn thajee Sahib, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MODEL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 26th May] to be printed. [No. 190.]
  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS, ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year ended 29th September, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be" printed. [No. 191.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURAL RETURNS).
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, with Statistics for the United Kingdom, British possessions, and foreign countries for 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MILITARY EDUCATION (COMMITTEE) (REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed to consider the Education and Training of Officers of the Army, together with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MILITARY EDUCATION (COMMITTEE) (EVIDENCE).
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee appointed to consider the Education and Training of Officers of the Army [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council for further transfer of powers to the Board of Education from the Charity Commissioners under the Board of Education Act, 1899, Section 2 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MONEY ORDERS.
  Copy presented, of Agreement for the exchange of Money Orders between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Republic of Liberia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th March; Mr. Austen Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 192.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 20th May. 1902, declaring that Robert Wright, Royal Laboratory, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 12th May, 1902, granting to Mr. Donald M'Lean, Postmaster at Helensburgh, a retiring allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Statistics of the Refugee Camp; in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED HATH THE VOTES.

  Island of Lewis—Tong Light.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the people of Tong, Island of Lewis, have notified the Congested Districts Board that the light sanctioned for Tong need not be erected at the cost of the Board, inasmuch as a local gentleman has arranged to erect the light at his own cost, and having regard to the Board's statement that in consequence of this presentation they propose to erect a light in some other part of the island, will he state at what particular point in the island the proposed light will be erected.
  (Answer.) The question of the best site for another light is engaging the Congested District Board's attention, but no definite choice has vet been made.—(Scottish Office.)

Island of Lewis—Road Construction.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether, in the contract for the construction of roads between Cromore and Gravir, Island of Lewis, any date has been fixed for their completion; and will he say what progress has been made in the construction of these roads.
(Answer.) The Congested Districts Board have not yet been informed that the County Road Board have entered into any contract, nor that any progress has been made in the construction of these roads, for which the Congested Districts Board offered a grant of £2,700 on the 10th June, 1901.—(Scottish Office.)

India—Agra-Gwalior Telegraphic Communication.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will cause inquiry to be made into the frequent delay in the transmission of telegrams between Agra and Gwalior.
(Answer.) This matter is one as to which any complaints should be addressed to the local authorities. I do not propose to make any inquiry on the subject.—(India Office).

Himalaya Narrow Gauge Railway.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that none of the carriages of passenger trains on the Himalaya Narrow Gauge Railway are provided with any artificial light, and that passengers from Darjeeling have to travel for miles through the jungle in darkness, whether he will suggest to the Railway Department of the Government the advisability of requiring the railway company to light the carriages of their passenger trains.
(Answer). This matter is one as to which any complaints should be ad dressed to the local authorities.—(India Office).

Aberdeen Post Office.
MR. BRYCE: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can do anything to accelerate the erection of the new post office at Aberdeen, having regard to the inconvenience caused by the present inadequacy of the accommodation for post office work in that city; and whether he will, if necessary, provide by a Supplementary Estimate for any further sum which may be needed within the present financial year in order to enable more speedy progress to be made with the work.
(Answer.) The foundation work is progressing satisfactorily, although delay was caused by the Corporation, first by a widening of the street, which involved re-drawing the plans, secondly by the formation of a sewer in Crown Street, which closed the street to cart traffic for three months, thus seriously interfering with the contractors. Granite work is necessarily slower than work in other

671
material; but the contractors are one of the best firms in Aberdeen, and I am quite satisfied that no unnecessary delay will occur on their part. The building shall be pushed on to completion; and I am advised that it is not likely to be hindered by want of funds this year. A Supplementary Estimate would in any case, I fear, be out of the question.—(Office of Works.)

Punishment of "First Offenders."
MR PARTINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of two youths, A. B Ford, aged fifteen, and W. H. Mycock, aged seventeen, who were on 15th May last sentenced to twenty one days hard labour without the option of a fine, at Chapel-en-le-Frith, on the charge of theft; and, whether, in view of the fact that it is a first offence, he can see his way to authorise a reduction of the sentence in question.
(Answer.) My attention had not previously been called to this case. The fact of the offence charged being a first offence would not of itself justify a reduction of the, sentence which the Court thought right to impose; but if any further information reaches me which would appear to render investigation desirable I will at once make inquiry into the case.—(Home Office.)

Japan and Siam Diplomatic Establishments.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state how much of the sum of £4,000, referred to as an appropriation in and at page 455 of the Diplomatic and Consular Service Estimates, is received from Japan and Siam respectively.
(Answer.) The sum of £4,000 taken in the estimates was based on the average sum collected in fees for three years to 1900–1901, as follows; Japan £1,640, Siam, £2,367; the fees collected in the last completed year, 1900–1901, amounted to; Japan, £2,289, Siam, £2204.—(Foreign Office.)
MR. WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, seeing that the sum of £600 is placed on the Diplomatic and Consular Service Estimates for the salary of a Vice Consul (Hiogo and Osaka), Japan, will he say at what place the Vice Consul performs the duties of his office; and will he state the whole amount expended for consular services at Kobé (Hiogo), including salary of Consul, staff and all other expenses.
(Answer.) As to the first part of the Question, the Consular Office is at Kobé (Hiogo) at which port the Vice Consul is appointed to reside, but the Consular district includes the city of Osaka (the trade of which is only about 3 per cent. of that of Kobe), and the Vice Consul performs duties there when necessary. The whole amount expended for Consular services at Kobe (Hiogo) is £2,181 per annum, exclusive of travelling expenses and outfits which depend upon the exigencies of the public service.—(Foreign Office.)

Post Office—Female Assistant Telegraph Supervisors.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will explain why the holidays of the female assistant telegraph supervisors have been reduced from one month to three weeks, whilst no reduction has been made in those of the men doing exactly the same work; and whether the month's holiday for this grade, which has been granted since 1886, can be restored.
(Answer.) The annual leave of female assistant telegraph supervisors, as a class (whose maximum pay is less than £300 a year), was reduced from one month to twenty-one working days, in view of the fact that the annual leave of postmasters and sub-postmasters drawing salaries of less than £300 is limited to that period. But it is provided that all officers who have already enjoyed the privilege of a month's leave shall continue to have that period. The duties of men and women are scarcely comparable, seeing that women are not required to perform night work or to give early and late attendance.—(Post Office.)

Volunteer Adjutants' Pay.
THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, having regard to the act that adjutants of Yeomanry get the same rate of pay as adjutants of Cavalry, whether he can consent to recommend that the pay of Volunteer adjutants be raised to that of adjutants of Line Regiments.
(Answer.) Adjutants of Yeomanry were originally granted the higher rate of pay owing to the exceptional duties imposed upon them on the institution of the new force. It is not proposed to extend this rate to adjutants of Volunteer Corps.—(War Office.)

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: In the absence of any other Question, it occurs to me to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he actually intends to take on Thursday not only the Navy Estimates but also the Admiralty Vote. I would point out that it is usually considered advisable to keep over one Vote till a later period of the session, in order to afford an opportunity for discussing any other matter connected with the Navy Estimates.
  THE FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I think the general principle laid done by the right hon. Gentleman is a sound one. A demand has, however, been made for an early opportunity of discussing the Admiralty Vote, and so I have put it down. By keeping open the Report stage, however, I can subsequently put that down if a serious demand for discussion is made in many quarters of the House. I may perhaps say that as a rule I do not regard myself as at all bound, in the interests of the House, to put down Report stages unless the House desires to have a second discussion. As a rule, also, I should rather prefer to take on the allotted days Votes hitherto undiscussed, than that we should have a repetition
  674
  of old debates. On Friday I think it will be convenient to take the Procedure Rules, and I shall put down first the Motion that the Rules already passed shall become Standing Orders. I shall not take any Rule which I believe to be of a controversial character.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I be allowed to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to put down a most controversial Motion, for it affords an opportunity of reviewing the whole scheme.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: While it is undoubtedly true that a general survey of the Rules proposed to be made Standing Orders would be quite proper on such a Motion, yet some of the most important changes in procedure have not been made in new Orders, but as Amendments to old Standing Orders, and those will not come under discussion.
  MR. BLAKE: I would suggest that the Orders passed should remain Sessional Orders until they have been put to a greater test of experience. Surely that would be a course attended with less inconvenience.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to appeal to the Leader of the House not to take on Friday the Motion for making Sessional Orders Standing Orders, which surely ought to come at the end of our discussions on procedure. I do not see what additional advantage is to be gained by now converting these Sessional Orders into Standing Orders.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: There is also the advantage that by delaying this Motion we shall gain experience in the working of the new Rules.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is no Question before the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will fully consider the appeals that have been made.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When will the Budget be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That, I think, must depend on other things. It would be a very inconvenient course to take to discuss the Budget while other things are in the balance.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Do I understand that the further consideration of the Finance Bill is indefinitely postponed? My right hon. friend, before the recess, mentioned a day, and said that the Bill would be persevered with de die in diem; and yesterday he spoke of Friday as the earliest day. Is it now to be indefinitely postponed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the whole House agrees with the statement I laid down as to the proper course to be pursued, and I really do not know what my right hon. friend gains by raising the subject.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the right hon. Gentleman has any difficulty in disposing of next Friday, I would suggest that he devote it to the Irish Land Bill.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: Can the First Lord of the Treasury now inform the House what terms have been offered to the Boers?
  [No answer was given.]

  WAGES BOARDS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  ICE CREAM SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES) (IRELAND) BILL.
  As amended, to be printed. [Bill 222.]

SUPPLY.
[NINTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JAMES LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902– 3.

  CLASS II.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,716, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and to pay certain grants in aid."
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he thought hon. Members were entitled to complain of the action of the Government in springing this Vote upon the Committee at such short notice, as it was not until the preceding day that any intimation was given that it was to be taken. A good many hon. Members interested in agriculture, and representing agricultural constituencies, naturally preferred to stay in the country, as they were under the impression that the Vote was not likely to be brought on so soon. He was quite aware of the reasons for putting off the Budget Bill, which was originally to have been taken, and in view of the fact that the proposal to impose an import duty upon corn was to be reconsidered, he thought agriculturists were not sorry at the postponement, as they did not look with any pleasure upon a proposal which would place a heavy tax upon foodstuffs used by them. He hoped that in the future a little more than a bare twenty-four hours notice would be given before a Vote of this kind was taken. In moving the reduction of the Vote of which he had given notice he wished to ask one or two questions of the right hon. Gentleman. Was he, for instance,

  677
  satisfied with the working of the Food and Drugs Act of 1899? As most of them would remember, the object of that Act was to give greater power to the local authority to deal with adulteration of dairy products. Under that Act strong instructions were given to the various local authorities to take samples of agricultural produce—such as butter, cheese and milk—with a view to ensuring that it should not be adulterated in any way. Power was also given to the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture to take steps to secure the enforcement of the law in cases where the local authorities failed to do their duty. Now, he had heard many complaints that the local authorities in great cities like London were not doing their duty. They did not seem to care whether the produce was adulterated or not, because they had in their mind the idea that very often adulteration was simply a means which enabled the produce to be sold cheaply. Such a state of things was intolerable, not only in the interests of the farmer who sent his goods to market, but also in the interests of the working classes of the big cities, who ought to be protected, and should have such things as milk and butter sold to them in the state in which they left the farms where they were produced. Take, for instance, the case of milk. A large quantity of milk was sold now-a-days which was, to say the least, watered-down. Instead of, as formerly, going to the nearest pump, and turning water into the milk, the dairymen now put in separated milk, and then gave the liquid a nice high yellow colour, in order to make it look like milk full of cream. Now, he had been given to understand that the Inspectors of the Government did not look after this matter, and he ventured to assert that it should be one of the duties, both of the Board of Agriculture and of the Local Government Board, to send round inspectors occasionally to check the work done by the inspectors employed by the local authorities in great cities. He could assure the President of the Board of Agriculture that there existed in many localities a strong feeling that this work of inspection was not being properly performed; and he would point out how unfair it was that the honest
  678
  trader should be penalised in the way he was, because this adulteration made him unable to compete with the dishonest trader, for he could not sell his goods at the same price as the man who adulterated his articles. He hoped that steps would be taken to put an end to this carelessness—or even worse—on the part of the inspectors of the local authorities. It would be found that in some of the smaller towns of the West of England the Act was very strictly and diligently en forced, and the example thus set would, he hoped, be very widely followed in the future.
  Then, he wished to ask whether the working of the Act was satisfactory so far as concerned the prevention of the mixture of margarine with butter. He had heard complaints that a large amount of butter was still sold in which margarine formed a very considerable constituent, and he was one of those who believed that these frauds in connection with the sale of margarine as butter would never be successfully put an end to until it was forbidden to colour margarine so as to make it resemble butter. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them some indication that he took the same view. He could assure him there was no farmer in the country who had anything to do with the production of butter who would not be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to take some special action, and he might further add that the working classes generally would also equally approve of such a step. Again, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the Board of Agriculture were doing in regard to the question of putting preservatives in milk and butter? The right hon. Gentleman would probably remind him that the British Dairy Farmers' Association recently passed a resolution in favour of allowing preservatives to be put in milk, but he would like to inform him that that resolution was passed by means of a snatch division, and that it did not by any means represent the feelings of the milk sellers generally. Throughout agricultural districts they held that milk should be sent up to market in a perfectly pure condition, and that the use of boracic acid and

  679
  other preservatives ought not to be allowed. That naturally led him to the question of milk - blended butter; he would preter to call it water - logged butter, because one quarter of it at least was water. He did not propose, however, to go into the question at any length, because the right hon. Gentleman had already laid it down that it was impossible for his Department to issue, any order on the subject, and that it would be absolutely necessary to deal with the question by means of fresh legislation; but he would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was a matter of great urgency, and required very careful consideration.
  Then he would like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what he was doing as regards giving premiums for breeding. As the Committee were aware. Queen's Plates were given as premiums with the idea of improving the breed of horses. As be understood it, the premiums were given entirely to thoroughbred horses distributed over various parts of the country; they ware not given in the case of shire horses: and he could not help thinking how very desirable it was, in these days of agricultural depression, that farmers should be encouraged to breed cart horses. It was possible for them to do so, to keep the horses working on their farms for the first five or six years, and then to sell them at a remunerative price in the large towns; but at the present moment they really had no opportunity to secure the services of stallion horses at reduced fees. In that respect Ireland was much better off, for at the present moment the Government gave the Irish farmers a good many advantages, in regard to shire horses, pedigree bulls, and boars. They did everything they could to foster the breeding of good horses, cattle, and pigs in Ireland, and he thought the English farmer was in a less advantageous position in this respect, simply because the agricultural Members of the House had not taken up the attitude adopted by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, and had not sufficiently pressed on the Government, in season and out of season, the necessity of giving English farmers these advantages. The fees now charged for the use of stallions of high class were absolutely prohibitive so
  680
  far as the ordinary farmer was concerned. In his own district they had some fine shire horse stallions belonging to Sir W. II. Wills, a former Member of the House of Commons, but the fees insisted upon were so high as to be absolutely prohibitive to the tenant farmer.
  The right hon. Gentleman had made speeches outside the House on the question of technical education, and he had pointed out that where one pound was spent on the advancement of the agricultural interest in this country something like five pounds was spent in the advancement of the education of other classes. That was a very serious statement indeed for, after all, the agricultural interest was the greatest interest in this country, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that his declarations on this point had given special satisfaction to agriculturists. They gladly accepted his promise to hold out a helping hand to the agricultural interest, and they were looking forward very anxiously to the time when he would be able to give practical effect to the suggestions he had thrown out. They hoped the right bon. Gentleman would be able to give them more grants for their technical schools, and that he would be able to provide premiums for shire horses, pedigree bulls and boars. In that way he would generally advance the agricultural interest, and if he could only induce the Government to treat that interest more favourably than it had done in the past, and to put it on an equality, say, with the Irish agricultural interest, he believed the right hon. Gentleman would render a vast service to the country.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries and Wages) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the President of the Board."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he wished to join in the complaint of his hon. friend as to the inconvenience caused by bringing this Vote forward at such short notice. He too had a few questions to address to the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the time had come when we should begin

  681
  to learn some lessons from the war. A question which was largely exorcising the agricultural interest at the present moment was that of horse buying for the Army. Everyone knew what a fiasco there had been in connection with the purchase of remounts for the Army, but the President of the Board of Agriculture, in a speech the other day, said he was now working very cordially with the War Office, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the House all the information he could as to the requirements of the military authorities. The right hon. Gentleman said last year that Devonshire was free from rabies. The Dog Muzzling Order had, however, been recently put in force in the county, and he was sorry there should have been any cause to necessitate its re-imposition. The county suffered very severely from it three or four years ago, and he trusted that, as a result, rabies had very largely diminished. The order stated that all dogs were to be muzzled, with the exception of packs of hounds and dogs used for sporting or for the capture or destruction of vermin. As dogs were not used for sporting purposes between June and September, he could not see the reason of the exemption. The right hon. Gentleman might, however, have made an exemption in favour of farmers' sheepdogs. It did seem hard that a landowner using dogs for sporting purposes might allow them to go unmuzzled, and yet a farmer who used his dogs for business purposes had to muzzle them, thus rendering them practically useless for the purposes required. It was stated in the order that all these dogs should be under the charge of competent persons, but a sheepdog would naturally be more under control than a pack of hounds. Last year there was an appalling amount of statistics on swine fever, and he was very glad that according to the Returns the disease showed signs of decrease. Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was a spontaneous disease or not? There had been a care in Devonshire. Why should disease suddenly spring up in the middle of a great county like that? He did not understand it, and if the right hon. Gentleman could give them any information on the subject, and indicate how the disease could be avoided, he should be
  682
  very much obliged. A disease which had not decreased to the same extent was anthrax. As to that great ignorance prevailed among country people. A case occurred in Devonshire only the other week. A bullock died, it was thought, from inflammation. The farmer who helped to cut it up died from blood poisoning as the result of handling the animal. There was a coroner's inquest, at which it transpired that the farmer was suffering from a weak heart at the time and that he caught the infection, dying a week afterwards. The animal, too was being cut up as food for dogs, and thus the disease might have been still further spread, He should therefore like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to disseminate in rural districts as much as possible information as to the symptoms of anthrax. He also wished for information in regard to glanders, which prevailed in the Metropolis very considerably. He would like to know if the Departmental Committee had reported on the subject. He also wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity for agricultural education, which was mostly deficient in the strictly rural parts of the country. He thought the Board of Agriculture should draw-up some conditions which they could suggest to County Councils for the purpose of carrying out education in agricultural subjects in the most rural districts. Devonshire was an orchard county and grew many apples, but it was the most difficult thing in the world to get a man who properly understood how to prune an apple tree. It seemed to be a lost art, and he thought the importance of providing education of this kind in rural districts should be impressed upon the local authorities by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman took a wise step last year in appointing Professor Somerville to the Board of Agriculture, and he hoped his experience had proved of value. They ought to disseminate in the rural districts the very admirable information contained in the Journals of the Board of Agriculture. Farmers, at present, did not see it. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day he thought there were good grounds for inquiring into the question of differential railway rates. If

  683
  the right hon. Gentleman could do anything to reduce the railway rates, which so much fettered agriculture in the counties, he would be doing something far greater than had been done by any of his predecessors. He would also like to know how the milk standard was working. The local authorities, as he had pointed out, were lax in carrying into effect the Food and Drugs Act, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to remedy that state of things.
  MR. LLOYD MORGANsaid he wished briefly to associate himself with the observations which had fallen from the last speaker in regard to the muzzling order. The county of Carmarthen, with which he was associated, had had that order in force, off and on, now for a period of some five or six years. He was not going to discuss the general policy of the order; it might or might not be a very good thing; but one thing was obvious, and that was that the people who resided in a district where the order was enforced found it to be an intolerable nuisance. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to accede to the suggestion made by his hon. friend to grant farmers exemption for their sheepdogs. Those who lived in agricultural districts knew how difficult it was for a farmer who lived by the roadside constantly to keep his dog muzzled. The dogs would not do their work when they were muzzled, and if they were left unmuzzled it was hard to prevent them straying into the public thoroughfare. If the animals did so and were seen, the farmers were prosecuted and called upon to pay fines. The fines themselves were comparatively trivial, but the costs which they carried with them made the matter a serious one. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman might, without at all weakening the effect of the muzzling order, grant the exemption in the case of dogs used for purely agricultural purposes. He would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the very unsatisfactory results which had accrued from the imposition of the order in the county of Carmarthen. Either the order had been most loosely administered or its effects
  684
  were valueless. It was first put in force in the county in July, 1897; it remained in force until May, 1898; in August, 1899, it was re-imposed, remaining in force until the 10th May, 1900; on the 5th October, 1900, it had again to be put on, and remained in force until the Summer of 1901; then at the end of last year, or the beginning of the present year, the order had again to be put in operation and it was still in force. The mere statement of these dates would prove either that the order was no good at all or that it had been administered in so very unsatisfactory and ineffectual a manner as to render it absolutely valueless. At the same time, the order had been an intolerable nuisance to the inhabitants of the county of Carmarthen, and the length of time it had had to be kept in force showed there must be something wrong in its administration. The mistake of the Board of Agriculture had been that, during the whole of the time, the order had never been in force through the entire country. He had not sufficient knowledge to say whether the order was good or bad but if it was good, it ought to be put in force over a considerable area, and remain in force for a considerable time. The way in which the order was put into force seemed to be that the Board of Agriculture picked out a petty sessional division in which rabies, or supposed rabies, had been found. No particular regard was paid to density of population, and, if the district was not found to be quite satisfactory, the area was gradually enlarged, until a considerable area came within the scope of the order. That was a very unsatisfactory system. During the last five or six years the Board had been putting people to great inconvenience, and they had done it in such a way as to lead to no satisfactory result. The fact that the order had been enforced in the county was sufficient evidence that the Board of Agriculture believed a considerable amount of rabies to exist in Carmarthenshire, but there was a very strong feeling that at times it had been enforced when it ought not to have been. Another point was with regard to County Councils sending to the Department the heads of dogs supposed to have been suffering from rabies, for the

  685
  purpose of being scientifically examined, in order to discover whether or not the supposition was correct. The complaint was that, after the examination, the Board of Agriculture had not sent to the County Council the result. The President of the Board, while not accepting the facts as stated by the County Council as to whether or not, on certain occasions, the information was supplied, had promised that in future it should be done. The County Council had a very strong interest in the matter, and, when they took every precaution to assist the Board, they were surely entitled, as the most important representative body in the county, to have the fullest information at the earliest convenient moment. He desired to join in the request that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the question of assisting in the improvement of the breed of shire horses. That was the most important kind of horse-breeding, as far as the ordinary small farmer was concerned. It was of far greater importance to them to have assistance in the breeding of shire horses than of thoroughbreds.
  MR. JOHN HUTTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had thought out a scheme by which The principle of the Food and Drugs Act could be applied to fertilisers and feeding stuffs. There was no point which more interested the farmers in the North of England. The County Councils were most anxious to have power to examine the genuineness of the stuffs sent out as fertilisers or feeding stuffs, and would be only too glad to co-operate with the Board of Agriculture in the matter. There were great difficulties involved, but surely some scheme could be invented by which an inspector appointed by the Board might be permitted to examine the goods either before delivery, while in the hands of the carriers, or, under certain circumstances, as soon as delivered to the purchaser. With regard to the muzzling order, when it was put in force in the North of England, three or four years ago, the area was a very large one, extending over a radius of twenty-five miles, and was never limited to the petty sessional division. He agreed that
  686
  it would be of great assistance if the right hon. Gentleman could really define swine fever; for years they had been under the impression that it broke out spontaneously: it was a very tiresome and troublesome disease, and, although from time to time it might appear to be gradually dying out, experience had shown that it invariably burst out again with renewed vigour.
  DR. FARQUHARSONcongratulated the President of the Board of Agriculture on the energy he was throwing into his business. The farmers of the country were beginning to see that at the head of the Department in which they were chiefly interested they had a Minister who was really putting his back into the work, and there was good reason to hope that attention would be more definitely and scientifically directed to agricultural matters. As to the muzzling order, he associated himself with the suggestion that farmers' dogs might be exempted, but only on an assurance being given that it should not in any way interfere with the muzzling regulations which had been carried out with such vigour, pluck, and determination by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor, and with so much success. Scientific men had come to the conclusion that the muzzling order had been well conceived and carried out. The results had been such as to justify the means, and, although people complained of the inconvenience to which they had been put, it had been for the benefit of the community at large. Reference had been made to the enormously infective nature of anthrax. The right hon. Gentleman would doubtless be aware of the instance in which an infected carcase was buried. The bacillus was brought up and deposited on the grass by earth-worms; it was then eaten by cattle, which in consequence became infected with anthrax. Burying alone was not a successful method of dealing with the carcases, even though lime or other destructive material were used. He was a great believer in cremation in such cases; in fact, he did not see how the matter could be effectually dealt with in any other way. As to swine fever, he, like other Members, would be glad to know whether

  687
  it broke out spontaneously, or whether it could be checked and stamped out. It seemed rather a reflection on modern agricultural science that £38,000 a year should be spent for the purpose of checking a disease, which, so far from being checked, seemed to get worse and worse as time went on. The chief question he desired to refer to was that of the exclusion of Canadian cattle. Much inconvenience was caused to many of his constituents by the exclusion of what might be called the raw material of their industry.
  THE PRESIDENT OF the BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): I have no power to deal with that matter; it is a question of legislation.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: But the right hon. Gentleman has power to initiate legislation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member himself has the same power. Matters which have to be dealt with by legislation cannot be discussed on the Estimates, but it it is a matter which can be dealt with by Order in Council, of course it may be now discussed.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Perhaps, Sir, you will tell me which horse I am to ride.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Minister in charge has stated that he has no power over the matter. I assume, therefore, it is a matter that must be dealt with by legislation. If that is so, the hon. Member cannot pursue the subject.
  DR. FARQUHARSONthought this was a very good opportunity for making known the woes of his constituency, and perhaps, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to promising that he would take an early opportunity to initiate legislation to remedy this grievance, which was pressing hard upon agriculturists. In the Channel Islands the exportation of cattle had been forbidden, and he could not understand this, unless the foot-and-mouth disease, like swine fever, had the property of originating de novo. He should like
  688
  the right hon. Gentleman to explain why foot-and-mouth disease had broken out in the Channel Islands.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he had forwarded his right hon. friend an extensively signed petition in relation to the admission and detention in the United Kingdom of pet dogs. Surely people with pet animals which hardly ever left their side would be the last people in the world to bring back a dog into this country with any trace of disease upon it and the right hon. Gentleman's regulation of six months quarantine for pet dogs was almost an infringement of the liberty of the subject. Out of 300 cases of imported dogs, there had only been at the outside two with any disease, and only one of them was true rabies. These pet dogs were not animals which were allowed to wander about the streets, for they were kept under the highest form of control; and yet drovers' dogs, which were not so well looked after, were admitted into the ports perfectly free, although they were much more likely to introduce rabies than pet dogs. He thought that if an owner took his dog abroad, and upon returning home got a certificate of health from a veterinary surgeon, his dog might be allowed to go home with its owner, instead of being sent to quarantine. He did not object to muzzling, or any reasonable control, but he thought that in this matter the Board of Agriculture were overstepping the bound; of reasonableness, for they wished to make it impossible for an owner to take a pet dog abroad He thought a certificate from a veterinary surgeon abroad would be as good a safeguard as six months quarantine.
  MR. CROMBIEreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Co-operative Congress at Exeter had passed a resolution in favour of the importation of cattle from Argentina. As to the muzzling of dogs, he happened to be one—and probably the only one—who sat upon the Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to inquire into this question. At that time he was very much opposed to restrictions on dogs in the form of muzzling, but after his experience upon

  689
  that Committee he was very much like the reformed drunkard on the Salvation Army platforms, for he became a complete convert to those restrictions. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not go too far in removing restrictions. The hon. and gallant Member for Epping had spoken of a certificate being given by a veterinary surgeon abroad, but the long period of incubation would make such a certificate of no value. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to deal with the question of sheep worrying. A Bill upon this subject was introduced some time ago and dropped, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have the courage displayed by his predecessor upon this subject. They had suffered enormously in Scotland from the ravages of sheep worrying, and he hoped the President of the Board of Agriculture would be able to give them a favourable report.
  MR. MACDONAsaid he wished to associate himself with the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire in congratulating the President of the Board of Agriculture in again enforcing the muzzling order, for he was firmly of opinion that the former President of Agriculture by his firmness in this respect exterminated that awful disease hydrophobia from the United Kingdom. The thanks of the whole community of the kingdom ought to be given to him for this. The President of the Board of Agriculture showed the courage of his convictions in at once resorting to this unpopular method—the muzzling order—upon the first re-appearance of this fell disease in our midst. Common sense pointed to the conviction that it must have been imported from abroad. It was earnestly to be hoped that the same success in stamping out hydrophobia in the recent cases will be as undeniable as in the former cases. Whilst fully sympathising with the hon. Member for Essex in his insisting upon taking his pet dog with him in his travels abroad—because he had no family of his own as he stated—he, although he had 300 dogs shortly before he entered Parliament and only one child, when he travelled abroad, invariably left the dogs behind and occasionally took his son with him instead. As an old dog
  690
  fancier he would suggest to his hon. friend the Member for Epping, when he went his travels abroad he took with him what dogs he liked best specially for the purpose, and left them behind on the Continent as special souvenirs, highly prized by foreigners, who dearly loved a British born dog. Another, it possible a more frightful and fatal disease came, he thought, under the purview of the Board of Agriculture—that was anthrax. He was afraid he must admit that in some few cases, his own constituency, Rotherhithe, was to some small extent liable for its introduction, for the barges in transferring Australian hides to the wharves carried the germs of this frightful disease in the hair of these hides, but he believed some rules, if properly laid down, might meet the case, and extra inducements ought to be given to our medical authorities to discover some remedy for so terrible a disease as anthrax to man and beast.
  MR. MANSFIELDsaid he wished to say a word or two in regard to the question of preferential rates, which were given by railway companies for the conveyance of foreign, as against home products. A few days ago the President of the Board of Agriculture promised to inquire into this matter, and it was to emphasise the idea of the agriculturists that he now referred to the subject. The rates for home produce ordinarily were so heavy that farmers often found; very great difficulty in making their farms remunerative, but when the rates were compared with those paid for foreign produce it would be seen that competition was made doubly hard for the farmers. The matter was not a new one. It had been brought up in the House several times, and instances had been given of the difference between what was charged for carrying German and French products and English products, such as cabbages, carrots, potatoes, and onions. There was a difference of nearly 50 per cent. between the rates charged for imported products from the seaport to the large centres, and the rates which would be charged to the home grower around the same port if he sent his products to the markets.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I fail to see exactly how the question of railway rates can come under this Vote. If it comes under any administrative office it is that of the Board of Trade, but that is not the Vote we are discussing today. The question is how the administration of the Board of Agriculture can be improved.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I have no wish to trespass by discussing a question which is out of order at present, but an inquiry was promised.
  MR. HANBURY: No. I told the hon. Gentleman when he put a Question to me that there was a very strong case for inquiry on certain points, and that I would press the matter on the attention of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade. I am doing so now.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If it is intended to go into the matter at any length, it must be raised on the Vote for the Board of Trade.
  MR. MANSFIELDsaid he would not go into it at length. All he wished to say was that an inquiry ought to be held, and if the President of the Board of Agriculture could do anything to induce the President of the Board of Trade to take the matter up, he would do the agricultural interest a great service. Referring to the question of horses for the Army, the hon. Member said the Returns showed that 300,000 horses had been purchased in connection with the South African war. Not more than one in every five or six had gone from England. The matter had been brought before the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture, but it did not seem to be possible to get anything done to have English horses used in greater numbers. The farmers and breeders had come to the conclusion that it was almost impossible to compete with the foreigner in the matter of these horses, unless some help was given to them. He asked a question some time ago as to whether the Board of Agriculture would publish a return showing the requirements of
  692
  the War Office, and the answer he got was practically that the President of the Board did not know what the requirements of the War Office were. He was told, indeed, that he would perhaps be able to get the information if he would address the question to the Secretary of State for War. The idea of agriculturists was that the Board of Agriculture ought to have considered this matter, and that it should not take them two years to find out what the War Office wanted. They thought that some action should be taken whereby the country should know what the War Office wanted. The right hon. Gentleman should publish leaflets and let the farmers and horse breeders know exactly what was wanted. Speaking at York not long ago the right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to make farmers feel that in the Board of Agriculture they had not a mere doll dressed up in red tape, not a mere Department that took no interest in them. By his speeches the right hon. Gentleman had won the hearts of the farmers and agriculturists generally, but they now wanted him to come down from his after dinner altitude and tell them what the War Office wanted, and to help them to see whether they could supply the demand. As showing that the Board of Agriculture did not quite know where they were in this matter, he would refer to a Question which was asked as to whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause inquiry to be made in regard to foreign stud?. The reply he received—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying it—was flippant, and showed a desire to score off the questioner. But the whole gist of the Question was missed. The Question did not refer to foreign breeding studs consisting largely of mares, but to entire horses kept by foreign Governments, and lent to farmers at a nominal cost. If such a practice prevailed in this country, it would be an incalculable gain. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should look into this matter, and see whether anything could be done, if he could do anything to make the farmer's occupation a little more pleasant and profitable, hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House would be grateful.
  SIR JAMES RANKINcalled attention to the quest on of grants towards agricultural education. There was a certain sum which was at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and which he gave as he thought proper. He should like to know the conditions on which the grants were given. Those who had done anything in the way of agricultural education knew that it was rather an uphill game. There was a great amount of discouragement in carrying on agricultural education. The fact was that farmers as a rule were not rich enough to be able to pay much for education, and therefore it was often almost a vital matter that assistance should be given to those institutions which had been established and were able to give a good education. He had often applied for assistance, but he had hitherto been told that the case he had put before the Minister was not exactly a case which could receive a grant. He should very much like to hear a statement from the Minister of Agriculture as to the exact conditions which bad to be fulfilled in order to be able to receive a grant. He thought the Agricultural Department could do more to encourage education apart from the question of money. The County Council through their Technical Education Committees were giving in many cases useful instruction, but they were also giving certificates for certain operations. It had often occurred to him that it would be a great encouragement to the working men in the country, who were learning, for instance, the pruning of fruit trees and work of that sort, if they could receive a certificate from the Board of Agriculture. No doubt they valued the certificate given by the Technical Instruction Committee of the County Council but he believed they would value a certificate from the Board of Agriculture very much more highly. It would be of very great importance in such counties as Herefordshire and Devonshire, where there were apple orchards, if they could train up a band of thoroughly good pruners. If the orchards which had fallen into a state of disrepair could be put right a great source of wealth would be restored. He would therefore urge that encouragement should be given to working men to improve themselves in this art, so as to
  694
  gain certificates from the Board of Agriculture. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman had considered the matter, but he had not yet seen his way to do what was now proposed. No doubt, there were many other matters in connection with agriculture in which similar things could be carried on. He did not for a moment suggest that they should not be taken into consideration also. What he had proposed in the way of granting certificates would really cost very little money. Good examiners could be found for a small payment, if the Board of Agriculture had not a competent examiner. Therefore, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would do what he could in his small and unheroic, but still useful way to encourage the interest of the working classes in agriculture.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he was at some disadvantage, owing to the suddenness with which this Vote had been brought on; but there were one or two questions to which he should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. It seemed to him an extraordinary thing that after all these years a question should be asked in the House of Commons whether swine fever was a disease that burst out spontaneously, or was an infectious disease which could be stamped out. The amount of money that had been spent in ineffective attempts at extermination was enormous. The responsibility for that did not rest on one side of the House only. The House generally had given its sanction to the policy which the Board of Agriculture had, to the best of its ability, endeavoured to carry out. Year after year he had asked whether it was not the fact that the whole or a considerable proportion of that money might not as well have been thrown from the terrace of this House into the Thames as spent in the direction in which it had beer spent. His very strong impression was that the greater part of that money had been absolutely wasted, and might as well have been thrown into the river. He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was in search of objects on which to exercise the virtue of

  695
  economy, might very well turn his attention towards that particular direction, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do something in that way. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed for a party of economy in the House, and he firmly believed that this was one of the directions in which economy could be most effectually exercised. The country was not satisfied that in this respect it had had value for its money; and it might be found yet that those who had raised their voices against this expenditure had not been very far from the mark. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had done his very utmost to promote the true interests of agriculture in this country; but having shown one direction in which a saving might be effected, he wished to indicate a direction in which money might be most usefully and profitably spent. Many hon. Members had alluded to the small amount expended on agricultural education in this, as compared with foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman knew—no one better than he—what had been done by money judiciously applied in this direction in Sweden. Finland, and Denmark; how agriculture had been revolutionised in these countries, and how agricultural methods had been by these mean entirely altered in three or four years. He had been at an agricultural exhibition at Stockholm not long ago, when be confessed he was amazed at the progress made in that direction. What happened in Denmark? In that country a few years ago agriculture was in a perfectly ruinous condition. Its methods were primitive, and the farmer hardly obtained any return for his exertions. Now there had been established sixteen agricultural schools, eighteen dairy schools, two schools of horticulture, a school of forestry, a higher institute of forestry, and a cattle-breeders school. The Government also provided a number of specialists who advised farmers in various parts of the country as to the purchase of agricultural machinery, as to the erection of farm buildings, the draining of marshes, and the reclamation of waste land. Not only had the Government Department done all that good
  696
  service to agriculture, but it had answered thousands of questions on agricultural subjects, had given a great number of popular lectures, had established chemical and seed stations in different parts of the country, where, for a nominal sum, analyses might be obtained by farmers. Reference had been made to horse-breeding. What had been done in that and other respects by the Government Department had led to an immense expanse of private enterprise. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture to try and obtain the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the educational institutions in this country which were already doing such good work in agricultural education. They were helped now to the extent of their means by the County Councils, and also by voluntary subscriptions; but a good deal more could be done in that direction. And he asked whether it would not be possible to save the money spent in trying to extirpate swine fever, and devote it to the benefit of agricultural education. He agreed with what had been said as to the appointment of Dr. Somerville to an important post on the Board of Agriculture; and he hoped that the Minister, by turning his attention to all those matters to which he had referred, would engage that a great deal more useful work would be done for agriculture in the future than in the past.
  MR. HUMPHREYS - OWENsaid that if any scheme was being proposed by the Board of Agriculture for afforesting different tracts of country, he hoped certain portions of these tracts would be set apart for small holdings of from ten to twenty or thirty acres for the use of the foremen foresters and others. These would be of the highest value, and might be easily found in sheltered situations in the bottoms of the valleys, while the slopes of the hills were planted with timber. On the subject of education he would like to impress on his right hon. friend the great valne of giving instruction in agriculture not only to adults but to youths in schools and colleges. The real

  697
  way of improving the standard of skill amongst agriculturists was to make the latter familiar with sound methods, and to give them a grounding in science while still at school or at the university colleges. The right hon. Gentleman was aware of the work of that kind that had been done by the two Welsh colleges, and the equally good work accomplished in the Newcastle College of Science, and other places. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of this educational work as a national investment. They had had a very interesting speech the previous evening from the Colonial Secretary, who, â propos of the improvement accomplished in Cyprus, had reminded the House that the State could afford to lie longer out of its money than an individual; and that it would be a great national economy for the State to the out of its money for some time in expectation of a larger return in the future in the improved condition of the people. There was far too great a tendency at the present day to devote large areas of land to be worked by capitalist farmers, He believed that the true idea of agriculture was that as many families as possible should be settled on the land in small holdings; and in order to bring that about, the large holdings should be broken up into small holdings. Before sitting down he should like to warn the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture against the seductive appeal made to him by friends from the East of Scotland. He dared say that the farmers in that part of the country would like to have store cattle introduced here from all parts of the world: but there were other places in Great Britain than the East of Scotland, and the introduction of disease into this country would not only be disastrous to large industries in England and Wales but to the graziers themselves, who were pressing for the introduction of cattle from Canada and Argentina, where it was by no means certain that they were safe from disease. He joined in the general chorus of appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. He was quite aware of the difficulties the right hon. Gentleman had to
  698
  meet when his colleagues asked for more money, but he might be assured that he would receive the support of both sides of the House when the time came to make the appeal at a more favourable period.
  MR. WHARTONsaid that everybody in the House was anxious that any article they bought should be the pure article and not a blended article, and he quite agreed with what had been said by the hon. Baronet who brought this matter forward. There was no doubt that butter had become mixed—he would not say adulterated, because the products blended in it were usually of a wholesome character—and by this blending an article was obtained which was inferior to that which the purchaser anticipated buying. The right hon. Gentleman was quite aware of the present condition of things, and he (Mr. Wharton) hoped he would do what he could to remedy what was now an admitted failure of the laws that were attempted to be put into force with regard to these matters Those laws had admittedly failed to bring about that condition of things which they all desired to see. With regard to rabies, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman in following up as he had done the labours of his predecessor, who had had the satisfaction of practically stampiug out one of the worst diseases with which human beings could be afflicted, in spite of the reproaches heaped upon his head when carrying out his policy. His right hon. friend had been asked to exempt sheep dogs from wearing a muzzle, but of all dogs in the world sheep dogs had the greatest freedom. They had no kennels, they never were a collar, they were not kept on the chain, and he could conceive no animal so likely to communicate rabies as a sheep dog. With regard to swine fever, it had been said that there had been a great waste of money in the attempt to stamp out swine fever. He did not agree that that was so. There was no more waste in spending money in the attempt to stamp out this disease than there was in spending money in attempting to detect the origin and find a cure for the

  699
  terrible disease of cancer; and no one would suggest that that was a waste of money.
  MR. EUGENE WASONasked the President of the I Board of Agriculture if he could take some steps to bring to the notice of the local authorities in Scotland the powers which the County and Parish Councils had of acquiring allotments. Although from the Return obtained last year he found several applications had been made to County Councils for allotments, in no case had the Council done anything with regard to those applications. He hoped something would be done to bring the statute with regard to allotments into operation.
  MR. SEELYsupported that contention of the right hon. Member for the Ripon Division. He said the very worst case of rabies that he ever saw was a case in which a sheep dog was affected; that dog went mad when twenty miles away from a town, but he ran into the town and bit fourteen children. The point, however, he rose specially to draw attention to was one which he had been pressed by his constituents to mention. He desired to know whether powers could be given to County Councils to supervise the use of stallions in their counties and to prohibit the use of unsound stallions. It was obviously a matter of great importance that only sound cattle should be used, and although a great deal had already been done both by the Government and private persons in this matter there was still room for improvement.
  MR. JOHN DEWARcalled atention to the western highlands of Scotland as a source of supply for Army cobs. At the request of one of his constituents, who had a great deal of experience in the breeding of horses of this kind, he had approached the War Office and appealed to them to encourage the breeding of the High-land garron, the type of cob to which he referred, from these districts, but his efforts had met with very little encouragement. All that was necessary was to let the
  700
  crofters know there was a market for these horses when they were three years old; that was the age at which they were sold. Although it was a younger age than that at which the Army bought, there was no reason why the War Office should not purchase them at three years old and keep them until they had a use for them. He trusted the President of the Board of Agriculture would give attention to this matter. He supported the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Kinross with regard to allotments. There was a great need for a more energetic enforcement of the terms of the Allotments Act. He did not know what had happened in other counties, but in the county which he had the honour to represent, where there was a very intense land hunger, he knew that applications, supported by the Parish Councils, were submitted to the County Council, and these applications were completely ignored. The County Councils did not refuse to grant the applications made to them, which would of course have given the applicants a right to appeal; they simply did nothing and so hung up the applications indefinitely.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEhoped his right hon. friend would be able to deal with what perhaps was the most important question in regard to agriculture at the present time, the Question of distribution. There could be no question whatever that the proper supply of fruit and vegetables to the large town populations of this country should be as remunerative to the grower as it was beneficial to the consumers. He knew that many difficulties would have to be overcome before a perfect system of distribution was found, but if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the year books of the United States Department of Agriculture he would see what an immense amount of work was done in collecting and distributing farm produce.' Not only was the produce collected, but care was taken to see that it was distributed in the most remunerative manner. Day by day efforts were made to find out where these things were most wanted, and they were thrown into that market in the freshest possible condition. He further suggested that the time had now

  701
  come when the model clauses for securing the purity of milk supplies in large towns, which had been adopted in so many Corporation Bills, might be made of general application by legislation.
  SIR JOHN KINLOCHsaid that the finding of remunerative and ready markets was a mere question of railway rates; it was those which must be struck at if these markets were to be found. As an instance of the exorbitant rates which farmers had to pay, he might inform the House that he remembered some years ago potatoes being sent from Scotland to London via New York because it was cheaper to send them that way than direct by rail.
  MR. HELMEurged on the President of the Board of Agriculture the necessity of introducing legislation to deal with the question of purity of butter, so that the farmers might no longer be subjected to unfair competition. The recommendations of the Departmental Committee, with its proposal to adopt a limit of 16 per cent. for the proportion of water in butter, with its permission to sell when containing a larger percentage provided that sufficient disclosure be made to the purchaser, did not go far enough or meet the requirements of the public if they were to be protected. This was not only a producers' question, but a traders' also, as was shewn by the action of many Chambers of Commerce in passing resolutions and asking help of Members, as it had been asked of him in this matter. It would be a strange thing if the County Councils, instead of teaching how the best quality of butter containing the least possible percentage of water could be produced, had to give instruction how to introduce the greatest possible percentage in order to meet the competition of those who made "milk blended" or "loaded" butter and sold it as "pure." If, however, the President of the Board of Agriculture desired to render real service to the dairy farmers, he would urge him to use his influence with his colleagues in the Cabinet to remove the proposed duty on feeding stuffs. He had been informed on good authority that these duties amounted to from 8 to 12 per cent. on the rentals
  702
  which farmers had to pay in the North of England, and he considered that that was a grievance that ought to be prevented.
  MR. HANBURY: The discussion has ranged over a considerable number of subjects, and I have no reason to complain of any of the topics introduced. The hon. Member for South Somersetshire made a very interesting speech on the whole of the subject in connection with the Food and Drugs Act, and he was quite justified in saying that in some parts of the country, in our large towns, and I am sorry to say some of them are in Lancashire, the Act is not carried out with that efficiency with which it ought to be. Of course we must remember that it is comparatively a new Act, and we must give the local authorities time to properly exercise their powers. But I have a reserve power at my back, and if the local authorities do not carry out the Act, I shall show no unwillingness whatever to use that power, because I think it is in the interests both of the honest traders and the consumers that full effect should be given to the various provisions of the Act. My power, of course, is limited to the question of adulteration of agricultural products, and if I find there is any laxity on the part of the local authorities, so far as I have the power, I shall have no scruple whatever in bringing those powers into force. The hon. Member suggested that it would be a good thing to have a check on the authorities by having inspectors at the Board of Agriculture. Well, we have two inspectors, I think, whose duty it is to watch the local authorities and to report how far the Act is enforced and where it is not enforced at all. These inspectors' reports are very excellent, and we have really all the information it is necessary to have for dealing with this matter. The only thing is, the Act is a modern one, and some little time must be allowed to the local authorities, but I do not think much time should be allowed to elapse before I insist on it being properly carried out. The hon. Member said he thought we had reached a stage when not only the cheapness of the article should be considered but also its purity. I think we have now reached a further stage, when the honest trader has

  703
  to be protected against his fraudulent rival. I think in the case of butter, for instance, the farmer and the producer are perfectly right when they suggest that an article which is not of the substance of butter should not be sold as butter. Then it is said that the Margarine Act has been directly abused, and a great amount of margarine is sold under the name of butter. I have not got that information, and if the hon. Member can give me information of cases within his own knowledge of that having been done I will have the matter investigated. The Margarine Act is a very important Act, and we must see that it is carried out in its entirety. If we find it is not, then we must go further, with the powers that are behind me, in the direction desired by the hon. Member. A further question was raised as to the use of preservatives in milk and butter. The hon. Member knows that there was a Committee which considered the whole general question, and so far as the general question goes the Local Government Board is more concerned than I am, but I must confess that I myself am disinclined to encourage the use of preservatives in such articles as butter. We ought to have these articles as pure as possible. Salt is used for the preservation of butter, and I do not see the need for any other preservative being used so far as butter is concerned. The hon. Member also touched on milk-blended butter, and suggested that in that case the use of some other preservative was more necessary, as it had been found that that butter would not keep, the milk which had been introduced into it having the tendency to bring about the opposite result.
  The hon. Member also dealt with the question of improving the breed of horses. The funds available for this purpose are not in the disposition of the Board of Agriculture. I very much wish they were. In fact, I would go so far as to say, looking to the fact that the Board of Agriculture have the interests of farmers to consider, that farmers have a claim to larger assistance, in this matter than they at present receive. It is very difficult for me to speak of the action of a Royal Commission, but I have a strong opinion
  704
  myself that the time is coming when the money might be spent with greater advantage in horse breeding than it is at the present time. We are at a disadvantage as compared with Ireland with respect to the money available for purposes of this kind. The provisions made with reference to the Irish Board of Agriculture make me extremely jealous of the way in which that Board is able to benefit the farmers of Ireland. I hope when more peaceful times come, and a little more money is available in the Exchequer, I may be able to soften the hard heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and get him to feel that the time has come when would be only reasonable to put the English farmer in this respect on a more equal footing with the Irish farmer. At the same time, when the hon. Member for the Spalding Division says I have made encouraging speeches, but that he wants to see something done, it must be borne in mind that there are two sides to that question. In the first place, as I have said time after time, although no doubt farmers may look for a certain amount of State help, after all, it is self help that is most needed. One cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that farmers might do a great deal more to help themselves than they are doing at the present moment, and it is by disseminating the kind of information to which the hon. Member referred, by trying to get the smaller men to co-operate, and generally by a better system of education, that I think one must first act. One's hands are more free in that direction than when it is a question of granting money. I see constantly springing up all over the country a greater desire on the part of farmers to co-operate, and there is no doubt that they can do a great deal in various ways to help themselves.
  With regard to education, I feel that, although you cannot teach agriculture in the elementary schools in the country districts, the managers can at any rate see that the kind of education given is one more fitted to country pursuits and less adapted for merely town life. The Board of Education and ourselves are working together on this question of agricultural education in the closest harmony. We have appointed a Committee dealing with both elementary

  705
  and agricultural education. But it is no good the Board of Education allowing certain subjects to come within the code in these schools unless the managers themselves take up those subjects Whether it is that the clergyman does not take sufficient interest in the matter, or that he does not get sufficient assistance from his parishioners or the lay managers, there can be no doubt that in five cases out of nine there are still a vast number of subjects being taught in these country elementary schools which are not so well fitted for the education of our agricultural children as are many other subjects included in the code, and which the managers might very well have taught in the schools.
  Secondary education, of course, is at present being dealt with by a Bill in this House, and I cannot go very largely into that question. But I can at any rate deal with the question of grants to agricultural colleges and others. I am glad to say that, although the amount at my disposal is a small one—between £9,000 and £10,000—I have managed, even in this year of war, to get a further £1,000 out of the Treasury for that purpose. The hon. Member for the Leominster Division asks on what principle we distribute these grants. I am bound to tell him that the first thing we consider is as to how far the County Council spends the Local Taxation Fund for agricultural purposes. We give the money to a certain extent to those counties which we see are trying to help themselves, and I am sorry to say that in Herefordshire a less proportion is spent on agricultural education than perhaps upon any other.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: Outside the County Council?
  MR. HANBUBY: No. I mean the County Council money.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I spoke with reference to grants to institutions outside the County Council money.
  MR. HANBURY: The County Councils do help these institutions very much themselves, and the additional £1,000 which I have at my disposal this year I have given to colleges which are being
  706
  supported by the County Councils. There is one change which I have introduced in regard to these grants which I think on the whole is a wise one. Hitherto we have given grants only to colleges which represented more than one county. That limitation is removed, and we shall give the grants even to colleges which deal with only one county. I am not at all sure but that some of these smaller colleges are just as useful as, or perhaps more useful than, the larger colleges. They are closer at hand for the farmers, the fees are generally smaller; and they are more likely to be used by the actual farmers, who are the men we want to benefit, than are some of the larger colleges. At the same time, we give these grants to the large colleges because we feel that, although the farmer class are not sending their sons to these colleges as largely as we could wish—to some extent on account of the high fees—still, after all, we are passing through a time of transition, and there are other people besides farmers who want agricultural education. The sons of landlords, and certainly land agents and estate agents, are being sent to these colleges, and it would be a very good thing indeed if we could have a class of land agents in future more closely in touch with agricultural necessities than has been the case in the past.
  So much for education. Now I come to the question of remounts, on which the hon. Members for the South Molton and the Spalding Divisions spoke I appear to have misunderstood a Question of the hon. Member which he put to me a few weeks ago as to a breeding establishment. I now understand that what he really desires is to see something in the way of the provision of stallions encouraged by the State. I thought he wanted a large breeding establishment for Army purposes. As to the question of remounts, what I have impressed on the War Office is this—that, although the kind of horse that is wanted for the Army is not a kind that it would pay the farmer to breed, still it would be a useful thing if the War Office were to make it a great deal plainer than they do exactly what they want, the number of horses they require every year, and the price they will give, so that the farmers may have this information in front of them ;

  707
  and in addition to that, that the Army buyers should be brought into much closer touch with the farmer than is at present the case. I am glad to say that the War Office has met me on all those points, and I hope that in a very short time we shall have this information. Of course, the case I put before the War Office was not that of the remounts in the present war, but as to their normal requirements in time of peace. I know that the normal requirements will not be very considerable, but, whether the requirements be great or small, I think the first opportunity ought to be given to farmers of the United Kingdom.
  Now we come to the more thorny question of muzzling. Complaints have been made as to the long existence of the muzzling order in Carmarthenshire. I regret it very much, but, after all, the muzzling order has been very successful in every part of the country except Carmarthenshire. Whether there is anything peculiar in the conformation or the people of Carmarthenshire, I cannot say, but the fact remains that for some unknown reason the disease has lingered there in a way that it has not in the rest of the country. It is very likely due to the fact that it is a very thinly populated part of the world, and that there are few police about. The police are not very numerous in any country district, but in that district there are perhaps fewer than any where else, and it is no doubt more difficult to give due effect to the muzzling order there than in more thickly populated parts of the country. With regard to the exemption of sheep dogs, I entirely agree with my right hon. friend the Member for the Ripon Division. So far from making an exception in their case, the tendency of my mind is rather in the opposite direction. If there was any outbreak, I should not hesitate to put on the muzzling order, without exemptions of any kind. We ought not to leave any loophole whatever for the spread of such a disease. That really is my main answer to the hon. Member for the Epping Division of Essex. He appeals very strongly indeed in favour of the pet dog which is taken abroad and which the owner wants to bring back to this country. But what really is the position? At the present moment
  708
  this country, with the exception of Carmarthenshire and a district around Plymouth, is free from rabies—a most terrible disease—while the continent is reeking with it, and I do not think that any precautions we can take would be too severe. I am asked why the regulations now should be more stringent than my predecessor thought necessary. For two reasons. Under the old regulations, the owner of a dog which he had owned for three months before bringing it back to this country was allowed to keep that dog in quarantine in his own house, and then at the end of three months, if certified by a veterinary surgeon to be free from disease, the dog was allowed to go loose. I am sorry to say that that privilege has been grossly abused. There has been case after case in which it has been found the regulations have not been observed. I think myself that that would be a sufficient reason for abolishing that privilege, and requiring the dogs to be kept under the eye of a veterinary surgeon. Of course, the case has become stronger since the muzzling order was abolished. If such a dog strayed from its owner's house without a muzzle when the muzzling order was in force, it could be detected at once, and it was known that the regulations were being disregarded. But now, when there is no muzzling order in force, a dog may stray from its owner's house, and there is no possibility of knowing that it is a dog which ought to be in quarantine. I confess that when I think of the millions of people in this country who are at the present moment free from any risk of rabies, and when I think of the few people who, after all, do take their dogs abroad—it is more a luxury than anything else—I feel that I must consider the public interest and the public health of those millions rather than the convenience of a very small section of the community. Therefore I do not think they have any right whatever to complain of the alteration I have made that, instead of keeping their dogs for three months in their own house, such dogs should be kept for six months in quarantine and under proper charge.
  Now I come to the question of swine fever, and I am glad to say that during the first three months of this year there

  709
  have been fewer cases of swine fever than for many years past. Last year the disease was very widely spread, but this is the best year we have had for some six or seven consecutive years. I have been asked whether this disease breaks out spontaneously, or whether it can only be conveyed by a bacillus. The veterinary surgeons of the Board have no doubt about it. They say it cannot originate spontaneously, and they are absolutely certain that the disease can only be caused by a bacillus being conveyed from one place to another. I know there is a strong theory which a good many people attribute this disease to, and it is that feeding on maize or upon wash and swill has had something to do with the spreading of this disease. Undoubtedly, it is a remarkable fact that we do get reports of swine fever increasing near large watering places during the tourist season, and it is thought that this is due to the use of wash and swill from the hotels and lodging houses which is supposed to affect the pigs. However that may be, undoubtedly there is an increase of the disease during the tourist season and in localities such as I have indicated. There was a great restriction with regard to the feeding on maize meal brought from America, where it was said there was a great deal of swine fever which was not under proper supervision. With regard to this point I am having very careful inquiries made on the subject in the United States, but I have not yet received replies sufficient to justify me in forming an opinion. The Committee, however, will see that we are inquiring into the matter, and it is possible that some extension of the outbreak of the disease may be traced to this cause. But putting aside the question of whether the disease is caused by feeding upon wash, our experts are absolutely certain that swine fever is not a disease which arises spontaneously, but it is due to infection by a bacillus. On the West Coast of Scotland and England, after we had practically stamped out the disease it has broken out again there, and the disease is largely traced from Ireland. I have been in communication with the Irish Board of Agriculture urging them to adopt very much more stringent regulations with regard to
  710
  swine fever, because I felt that if disease could not be dealt with as vigorously in Ireland as in England, it might be necessary to forbid the importation of pigs from Ireland into this country. I am glad to say that the Irish Board of Agriculture are now in accord with the English Board, and the regulations between the two countries will in future be practically on the same footing. I also hope that the regulations introduced some months ago with regard to pig-dealers may have some good effect, because I am quite sure that a good deal of this disease was spread by the carelessness of the dealers.
  With regard to anthrax, I am sorry to say that this disease is rather gaining ground. It has been suggested that the Board should disseminate information more freely as to the nature of this disease, but though it is easy to print leaflets it is not easy to get them to the farmers. It is very difficult for a central body to distribute leaflets, though a number of very well written ones have been printed, and I shall be glad of any assistance that can be given by the Press and the various agricultural societies in bringing them to the notice of the farmers.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I think they might also be sent to the various cattle shows. If the farmers could see the leaflets there they might ask for them.
  MR. HANBURY: I think that is a good suggestion. I will consider what can be done to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire that the burning of the bodies should take place in cases of death from anthrax.
  With reference to railway rates, the only way I am concerned is in regard to the promise I gave in the House that I would do what I could to influence the President of the Board of Trade to deal with this subject. I am doing all I can in the matter, but I would suggest to hon. Members that there is also a Board of Trade Vote, and the agricultural Members interested in this subject might take that opportunity of expressing their views upon this question, when

  711
  possibly my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade may be able to give them a more satisfactory answer than I am able to give.
  I have been asked a question as to bow the milk standard is working. On the whole, I think it is working well. I admit it is a low standard, but there is no possibility of raising it at present, and I know that if I had put it higher to start with it would have been a great injustice to the smaller men.
  Complaint has been made as to the County Councils not being informed of the result of a veterinary examination of a dog inoculated for rabies. That is a matter upon which the local authorities ought to be informed at once, and this is now being done. The local authorities are the last people who ought to be in the dark on this subject. Until the question was put to me I was not aware of the fact, and care has now been taken to remedy this omission.
  Canadian store cattle I cannot deal with now, but with regard to Argentine cattle I will state my position frankly. As to the admission of cattle from the Argentine, I believe that that country is in the future going to become such an important source of supply to this country that the trade ought to be placed on such a footing that it cannot be intercepted or broken into by an outbreak of disease. It is quite possible that for some months past there has been no authenticated case of foot-and-mouth disease in the Argentine, but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that it is a very large country. Although the Government of that country has, with the most complete bona fides, certified that the country is free from the disease, I have sufficient evidence to lead me to believe that they have been misled. I am aware that that statement has been made with the greatest good faith on the part of the Argentine Government, but on account of the vast extent of their country and its thin population they cannot have the necessary information, and it has been found that there are cases of disease which they were not acquainted with. I wish to be especially cautious in opening our ports, because if they have to be closed again it will be very difficult to reopen them. I have represented to
  712
  the Argentine Government that this country is practically their only customer, and that they ought to take the most stringent precautions to prevent the importation of disease into-their own country. We do not allow the slaughter at our ports of cattle from that country, and we have a right to-expect that the Argentine Government should themselves take precautions similar to our own. I do not think it is too much to ask them to do this, because it is to their own interest as well as ours, for any outbreak of the disease might have the effect of again stopping the importation of cattle, and it would be a bad thing, both for the Argentine and the consumers of meat in this country, if there were any uncertainty about the supply.
  I think I have now touched upon nearly all the points which have been raised in the course of this discussion.
  Reference has been made to the necessity for a Bill dealing with sheep worrying. I had hoped that I should have been able to introduce a Bill dealing with that subject, but I have had so many applications from various local, authorities in the kingdom that I shall not be able to bring in a Bill dealing only with Scotland. The conditions in the two countries are somewhat different, but I shall try to get a Bill into shape dealing with Great Britain generally, and to introduce it before the end of the session, so as to afford opportunity of discussion to those interested in the subject. I do not hope that it will be-passed this session, but it will give an idea of what we propose to do in another session.
  The next question has reference to the examination of fertilisers. My hon. friend suggests that they should be examined by inspectors. I should like to go into that question a great deal, more fully with my hon. friend and my advisers at the Board of Agriculture. It is to a certain extent a technical question, and I do not wish to reply off hand. I think there must be something wrong, and I should be very glad to take any steps which would bring the benefits of the Act within the range of certain, of the smaller farmers. I do not think they get the benefit from the Act which they might reasonably expect. Whether

  713
  that; is owing to their own fault or the technicalities of the Act I do not know, but I am trying to get some information on the subject. Perhaps my hon. friend will consult with me privately on the matter, and I will see what can be done. A suggestion has also been made to make the milk clauses which are introduced into the private Bills of local authorities of general application. At first sight it would appear that what is good for local corporations is also good for the country generally, and I will consider the point. I hope that after my long statement the mover of the Amendment will not think it necessary to reduce my salary.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman having given assurances of what he would do in future, the Committee might for another year put off reducing his salary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £18,442, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that in 1894 a Committee sat and inquired into the operations and status of the Charity Commissioners at considerable length. The Committee presented a Report which he ventured to say at this moment contained, with the evidence given, the best account of the powers, duties, and functions of the Charity Commission. His complaint against the Charity Commission was that it stood in a very anomalous position to this House, their being no Minister representing that body here. He raised no complaint now against the mode in which that body discharged its functions, nor against the hon. Member for the Tonbridge Division who so ably represented it in the House, but he thought that instead of a private
  714
  Member there should be in the House a Minister specially representing the Commission. During the sitting of the 1894 Committee there came to light a very remarkable Minute which was drawn up by the late Mr. Smith, who was then First Lord of the Treasury, in 1888, dealing with the Charity Commission. The Treasury had been approached for further grants in and, and Mr. Smith pointed out the increasing cost, and expressed the opinion that pretty swift steps should be taken to bring the Commission within more reasonable limits. He suggested that the Commissioners should come back to their original number of three, and his Minute declared that the policy of the Treasury should fee firm and vigorous with regard to this body. He was glad that Mr. Smith's views had in the long run prevailed, and that part of the work of the Charity Commissioners had been transferred to the Education Department. He hoped the process would be carried still further. The 1894 Committee consisted of fifteen members who were markedly divided by political differences. As Chairman of the Committee he drafted the Report which was accepted by the Committee, and a very able Report on the other side was drafted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penrith division. He was glad to know that the principles of the Report and of Mr. Smith's Minute had to some extent been carried out. The gist of the matter lay in paragraph 8 of the Committee's Report which referred to the Parliamentary weakness of the Commission. The Committee remarked—
  "This arises in some degree possibly from the want of accurate knowledge on the part of the public and Parliament of the work of the Commission, but also from that jealousy on the part of Parliament of public Departments not brought in the usual way under its control. The position of the Charity Commissioners has now become analogous to that of the old Poor Law Commission, which it was found necessary to abolish, and to replace with a Minister responsible to the House and the country."
  Without being offensive, he thought he might describe the old Poor Law Commission as having actually stank to the nostrils of the public, and it had to be dissolved. What he was now advocating had

  715
  in principle been endorsed by Mr. Disraeli, and had been embodied at the end of the Report of 1894, when the Select Committee recommended that the Charity Commissioners should be merged in the Board of Education represented in this House by the Minister of Education who should be fully responsible for all their proceedings in this House. In due time, and before very long, the opportunity would occur of making some change in this direction. He did not wish it to be understood that he brought any charge against any of the members of the Charity Commission. He did not say for a moment that the members thereof were doing anything but good. His objection to the Commission was entirely a constitutional one.: Turning to the cost of the Charity Commission, it was, he believed, at the present moment £33,442 as against £30,742 in the year 1894–5. He was bound to say that he did not see the necessity for that increase. He I thought that there would not be much difference of opinion in the Committee on that subject, and that the operations of the Commission could be conducted quite as successfully as at present for a very much less sum than £33,442, and that an enormous reduction might be accomplished in that direction. That, however, was not the main point which he wished to urge. Of course the matter to which he was going to refer was not one which the Secretary to the Treasury could deal with, and there really was no Minister on the Treasury Bench who could give an authoritative reply to the point which he wished to urge. He merely raised the matter now to call attention to it in view of the personal changes that must inevitably occur before long.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that no doubt the point raised by the hon. Member was of very considerable importance. He understood that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that the Charity Commission should be merged in the Board of Education, or that it should be represented directly by a Minister in this House. [Mr. ELLIS was understood to dissent.] Very well; in regard to the merging of the Charity Commission in
  716
  the Board of Education, no one was more jealous of the privileges of the House in regard to the control of expenditure, but in his opinion, so far as the House could control expenditure, it could exercise it just as well now as if the Charity Commissioners were placed under another Department. There were, on the Estimates, the salaries of many of the officials of the Charity Commissioners which were open to criticism and reduction. He confessed that he did not see in this case any advantage to be gained by a change in the constitution or position of the Charity Commission—all the more that the hon. Gentleman had assumed that all the schemes with which the Charity Commission had to deal were educational charities. A large proportion of those charities had nothing to do with education, and therefore he thought that the Charity Commission ought to have a separate existence. What was the Charity Commission? It was strictly and truly speaking a sort of excrescence on the Court of Chancery—he did not know whether it was good or bad—for the purpose of defeating the intentions of the pious founder. That was its special function which it had been discharging for a long time; and so long as that function was maintained by Parliament, the Commission should have a separate existence. He had a grievance against the hon. Member for Tunbridge. There was a small and admirable town in this kingdom, perhaps the most admirable of all. It was a very old town, and from the very beginning of its history it had been prolific in pious founders, beginning with King John. There was no town, in fact, of its size, which had so many foundations for apprenticing boys, granting dowries to girls when married, maintaining schools, and hundreds of other charities. He meant King's Lynn, and his constituents naturally took a great interest in these charities, which they rightly thought were their own endowments. He had endeavoured to ascertain what the total amount of these charities was, and what was done with them all. He applied to the Charity Commissioners, and they replied that they had not had any accounts for years. That seemed to him a very

  717
  remarkable dereliction of duty on the I part of the Commissioners, because under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1855 the Charity Commissioners had most complete powers for obtaining the accounts of all charities; and if they had any difficulty in obtaining these accounts they were armed with the most tremendous powers of coercion. He recognised that his hon. friend the Member for Tunbridge, on his representation, endeavoured to obtain, and had obtained, a portion of the accounts of some of the charities in King's Lynn; but, after all, such accounts as he had been able to get had been obtained at his own expense. He insisted that the Charity Commissioners ought to supply copies of these accounts gratis, to be placed in the Town Hall. The accounts which he procured he had sent down to the Town Hall of King's Lynn, where the people in large numbers enjoyed their perusal from morning to evening. He thought that the Commissioners ought to have more allowed them for the purpose of copying accounts than they now had, and that economy might be exercised in cutting down the inordinate sums for printing Papers which only found their way in the paper basket. He could not move to reduce the hon. Gentleman's salary because he did not possess one, nor could he move to reduce that of the First Commissioner, who had a salary of £1,800 a year, because that Vote was not before the House, but he would like to know why the Commission had kept him waiting so long for an account of the charities, and why they had made him pay £8 or £10 for a copy. He suggested that the Commission should economise on their printing bill, and not send so many Papers to Members of this House.
  MR. RICHARDSendorsed the views of the hon. Members for Rushcliffe and King's Lynn as to the anomalous position of the Charity Commission, the disgraceful manner in which it at times had dealt with charities. In days gone by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote was only too ready to join in the attacks made on this anomalous body. Now he was just as zealous in upholding their shameless proceedings. As to the absurd Papers sent
  718
  to Members of that House, they were a self glorification of the Commissioners. Certainly he thought no money ought to be charged to a Member for information with regard to the charities in his own constituency. He called attention to the treatment of the schools of St. Paul's, Finsbury, by the Commissioners, who refused to allow the charity to leave the money they had obtained for the sale of their property on deposit in the Bank of England, absolutely requiring them to purchase Consols, which had at one time stood at 112. When this charity had built new schools with the money they believed they possessed and came to realise their Consols they found they had to sell at 92, so that there was now a deficiency, with the natural result that one of the first persons asked to decrease it was the Member for East Finsbury. It was an absurdity that there was no real Parliamentary representative of the Commission and no real Parliamentary control. All the work with regard to educational endowments ought to be transferred to the Education Department.
  MR. CREMERsaid he desired to elicit some information with regard to the St. Katharine's Hospital. He had brought the matter to the attention of the House on four or five previous occasions, and divided the House upon the question. He proposed to follow out that practice on the present occasion, and in order to put himself in order he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100. He did not propose to go at length into the history of this charity, which had been described by more than one Charity Commissioner in the House as little less than a public scandal. This, perhaps, was the oldest of our charities. It was founded in 1273 by Queen Matilda, and had an income of nearly £15,000 a year. It formerly occupied the site on which were now the St. Katharine's Docks. He now desired to know how that enormous sum of money was spent. Nine years ago he put the question to the then Charity Commissioner, and elicited from him the fact that there was a Master, who had a salary of £1,000 or £1,200 a year, but nobody knew what he did for it; that there

  719
  were three brethren, who each had a house given to them to live in and a salary of £300 a year besides, for the performance of duties which were absolutely unknown to anybody, all that was known was that they let their houses and added the amount received to their salaries; there were also three sisters with salaries of £200 a year each, whose duties were a mystery but two of whom followed the example of the brethren and let their houses and so increased their salaries. There were also a number of bedesmen and bedeswomen with salaries, though what they did nobody knew. A number of nurses also had £50 a year each, though who they nursed, or whether they nursed anybody was not known. Then, to give a little spice of charity to the institution, a handful of boys and girls were clothed and educated. From the first there was a bad odour in regard to this charity, for in 1698 reports were furnished and suggestions made for very drastic reforms, and more recently at different periods a number of Com missioners had been appointed to inquire into the administration of the charity. Some years ago the Charity Commission appointed a member of their own body to make inquiries. He made a very valuable Report, recommending drastic reforms in the administration of the charity, but that Report was never given effect to, the London School Board also made an inquiry and arrived at practically the same conclusions. But at the present time the scandal was almost, if not quite as bad as it ever had been. In 1893 the Parliamentary representative of the Charity Commissioners, in reply to questions in the House, stated that the amount expended by the charity on education was £561 per annum, the amount upon salaries was £3,209, the amount on gifts was £190, and the expenses of management £3,193. The Commissioner was therefore quite justified in describing this state of things as a monstrous scandal. There had been some tiny efforts at reform, he believed, and the master, who used to have a salary of £1,200 a year and a splendid house, which he let for £700 a year, had now been deprived of the house, but no one knew what services he rendered for the
  720

  salary he received. He wished to know whether the figures given by the Charity Commissioner in 1893 were to be relied on today, and whether any more was expended on education, and whether it was in contemplation, as was suggested last year by the hon. Member, to consult the Attorney General as to whether something could not be done to give effect to the recommendations of the various Commissions which had inquired into the management of this charity, and place it upon a sound footing.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That a sum, not exceeding £18,342 be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Cremer.)
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid that as a reduction had been moved it would be more convenient to deal with this particular charity first of all, with regard to St. Katharine's Hospital. The hon. Member was in error in saying that he (Mr. Boscawen) admitted last year that there was any scandal in the management. What he said was that it was impossible for him to know anything of the particular question, until he had received notice; that he would make inquiries, and that if such a state of affairs existed, as the hon. Member asserted, in the case of any charity, and the trustees were unwilling to move after having been approached by the Charity Commissioners the only course was to cite a case for the Attorney General. The facts of the case were these. St. Katharine's Hospital was originally situated in the East-end on the ground now occupied by the St. Katharine's Docks, and when that ground was-taken for the docks in 1825 the charity was removed to Regent's Park. This was done under a scheme of the Court of Chancery, and the Charity Commission, which was not in existence at the time, of course could not be held responsible. What had occurred since was simply this. The patronage was vested absolutely in. Her Majesty. It belonged to the late Queen, but as it appertained to Queens Consort, it now belonged to her present Majesty. The jurisdiction of the charity was excercised by the Queen by means

  721
  of rules drawn up by the Lord Chancellor, and the Charity Commissioners had no power whatever to interfere in the; administration of the trust. He did not for a moment allow that there was any sort of scandal in this matter, and he disclaimed any responsibility for the words used in regard to it by the late Mr. Ellis, when Parliamentary Charity Commissioner in 1893. It might have been a strong thing to move the charity from the East-end to the West, but this was all done under the scheme of 1825. In 1868 a Royal Commission inquired into the endowments of the charity, and he believed their recommendations were carried into effect. In 1878 the Lord Chancellor, in conformity with a warrant under Her Majesty's sign manual, drew up new rules for the management of the hospital. These rules fixed the master's stipend at £800 and the brothers' and sisters' stipend at £300; the master was required to reside three-quarters of the year in the dwelling house appointed for him, and the brothers, and sisters were prohibited from letting their houses in case of non-residence. So far as he was aware those rules had been carried out since; but even if they had not, the Charity Commissioners had no jurisdiction in the matter. Their jurisdiction was limited to the property, and in case of any sale, or anything of that sort, they would have to be consulted. With regard to any other information the hon. Gentleman required or any other inquiries he desired to make, he must refer him to the Members of the Front Bench, who might be able to give some information on the subject.
  MR. CREMER: Were the figures I quoted correct?
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid as to the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Haggerston, they had reference to a certain year, and he could not say whether they were applicable at the present moment. Turning to the general question, whether the system under which he was called upon to act was the best system was a question for greater persons that he to decide. He was there under the present system. But in regard to the general attack made on
  722
  the administration of the office, he would like to say that the Commission had endeavoured to carry out the duties put upon it by the law in a proper manner. It might be that there had been cases, especially under the Endowed Schools Act, in which the original wish of the founders had been interfered with in a manner calculated to cause a certain amount of discontent. There was a time when it was held that the eleemosynary work of these charities did very little good, and it was thought better to divert their funds to educational purposes. He believed the Commissioners had done a great educational work, for which the country was deeply indebted to them, and it was not for him to cast any slur upon them. To subject the Commissioners to the Board of Education would, he thought, be the worst way of remedying any cause of complaint which existed in this matter. As to the complaint that the Commissioners had not obtained the accounts of the charities for King's Lynn, he stated that the Commissioners had now been able to obtain those accounts, about which there was at first some delay. He did not know the facts of the case to which the hon. Member for East Finsbury had called attention, but he would inquire into them.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I regret that the Under-Secretary for the Home Department is debarred from answering the speech which the hon. Member has just made to the Committee. Ever since the Charity Commission was instituted twenty years ago, the answers given in this House to our inquiries and complaints have been the same as that which the hon. Member has just given. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, he has not touched one of the points that have been brought to his attention. The hon. Member, in his reply, told us that the as carrying out the law and that the Charity Commission were doing something. But what the House of Commons wants is an opportunity of bringing to bear upon the official representative of the Charity Commission that judgment which we are entitled to express upon what, in our ignorance, we might think inefficient administration of

  723
  the charities, and upon the perpetuation of this do-nothing policy. With regard to the publication of accounts, I agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and I am certain that if these accounts were handed over to the county of Norfolk they would receive much better supervision than they do now. What I want to ask is what has been put to the Secretary to the Treasury before, and that is, why we have this Vote at all. Why are not the expenses of this Commission paid by the charities which they administer? I would like to see this Vote reduced not by £100, but by £30,000. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will say that what is suggested is impracticable. Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Goschen—and I think these names are fairly representative of the Treasury—all admitted that it was practicable to put the cost of the administration of these charities on the charities themselves, and that such a proposal ought to be carried out. [The right hon. Gentleman read an extract from evidence given by Sir Henry Longley before the Departmental Committee of 1893.] If the House had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the question whether our object should be to curtail the expenditure upon the charities representing such a very large sum of money, I think we should decide that the charities ought to pay. This can be done very easily whenever the Treasury makes up its mind to do it. The cost of this Charity Commission ought not to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund, but it ought to be defrayed by those charities for whose benefit the Charity Commission exists. The present Secretary to the Treasury is a young man of very great ability and power, and of great ambition, and I take this opportunity of pointing out to him that here is a field for him which has been favourably commented upon by such distinguished men as Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Goschen, and others. Here is a chance for the hon. Member to once again re-open this question. He should not ask the Charity Commissioners whether this is practicable or impracticable, but he ought to say to them that it is the decision of

  724
  the Government that this shall be done, and in a very few weeks time the Commissioners would submit a plan.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN-CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ton-bridge upon the ability and the fulness with which he has answered the various questions put to him by hon. Members of the Committee. I think every hon. Member of the Committee will feel the great difficulty anyone representing the Charity Commission has in coining down here and being subject to the liability of being cross-questioned without notice upon any one of some seventy or eighty different charities, for the administration of which the Charity Commission are in some degree responsible. Obviously, it is only when notice is given of the intention to refer to a particular charity, or when the subject happens to be fresh in the mind of my hon. friend, that satisfactory information can be given about it.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I quite agree with that.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad that my right hon. friend agrees with me upon that point We all recognise what a difficult task my hon. friend has had to discharge, and we all recognise the courtesy and success with which he has discharged that duty. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe and the right hon. Gentleman opposite have, however, raised a rather different question, namely, the position of the Charity Commission as a whole. Both the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand them, desire that the Charity Commission shah be gently brought to a close, and that its work and its staff, I presume, shall be swallowed up by some other Department of State; and they urge as a ground for taking this course that its representation in this House is anomalous, and that it is not sufficiently subject to Parliamentary control. I must point out, in the first place, that, after all, the position of the Charity Commission is not so unique as the speeches to which we have just listened would lead the House to believe. After all, it is very

  725
  similar to the position of the Civil Service Commission or the other Departments whose Votes are included in the class we are now discussing, and which have no direct salaried representatives in this House, but for which the Secretary to the Treasury is held to be responsible. The only difference is that in this case we have, not a salaried officer, but a Gentleman directly representing the Commission itself, sitting in this House, who is able to give the Committee that amount of detailed information which I think the Secretary to the Treasury could not possibly be able to give. But, so far as information is concerned, I think the Committee is perhaps in a better position for getting that information on this Vote than upon some of the Votes for other Departments, which are not directly represented by a salaried Minister, and with regard to which there is not present in the House itself an unsalaried member of the ordinary working staff of the Department. But then, Sir, if a wider control is required, and some method is desired of bringing to bear upon the Com mission the pressure of Parliamentary opinion, or of indicating what that opinion is, there is the ordinary resort to Parliamentary opposition—there is the power to move a reduction such as has been moved of the whole of the salaries of the Commission which are borne upon this Vote, and exception can be taken to those salaries by any member of the Committee. I think if we were to do what the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposes, and transfer the whole of this charge from the Votes to the local authorities or to the charities themselves, Parliament, instead of gaining control, would lose it.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Not the charities themselves.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thought the right hon. Gentleman meant the expense, but if he will look back upon his own speech he will see that he made two or three suggestions which are very inconsistent the one with the other. In the first place, he suggested that the work of the Commission should be transferred to another Government Department directly represented in this
  726
  House. Then, the work of the Commission is to be transferred to the local authorities, and the Commission is apparently to continue, and all the expenses are to be charged to the charities themselves.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I did not at all endorse the view of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. What I said was that the expense should be charged to the charities. I wanted the Charity Commission to be responsible to the House, because the Government of the day have always held that they had no responsibility for the schemes of the Charity Commission.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is clear that if we remove the Vote the House will lose such control as it has, be that control little or great. I have a great deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's views as to giving the local authorities greater control and power in these matters. I think I remember speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Parish Councils Bill which hardly went so far in that direction as some of us urged him to go at the time, and certainly not so far as he urges us to go now. I entirely-associate myself with what my hon. friend the Member for Tonbridge has said upon this point. The Charity Commission have, after all, carried out the ideas which were prevalent in the country at a certain time. Finding themselves largely bound by statute, they have continued to carry out those ideas even after the opinion of the country has changed; and now the work which they are doing, instead of being in harmony with the general opinion of the day, is, I think, in conflict with it. Having had some experience, not as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but as the Member for a constituency which is the fortunate possessor of some of the most lucrative charities, I must say that I always found the Charity Commissioners most willing to meet the wishes of the localities and ready to give such assistance as would make the charities of the greatest benefit to those for whom they were intended—namely, the poor of the district themselves. It would not be right for me not to pay that tribute to the Charity Commission,

  727
  after my own personal experience of their work in these matters, because I have been brought into considerable relations with them in the course of the last few years. The right hon. Gentleman invites me, as a young man, to enter upon the task of charging upon the charities the cost of their administration, inspection, and control. In order to encourage me upon that enterprise, the right hon. Gentleman cites to me great names of those who have expressed a favourable opinion upon this subject in the past, and he mentions Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Mr. Goschen, who have been previous Secretaries to the Treasury. Yes, Sir, but why, if all these right hon. Gentlemen have expressed these favourable opinions of the proposal, has the proposal never been carried out? I think I am not quite so young as to be led away by the invitation of my right hon. friend. After all, the right hon. Gentleman should remember that Mr. Gladstone himself not only expressed an opinion in favour of such a proposal, but he proposed a tax in order to do it, and afterwards withdrew it, because from his own side of the House not one single Member came forward to support him. That is not very encouraging, and unless I see a much greater prospect of such a proposal being accepted by the Committee than I see at the present time, I think it would be not merely useless, but harmful, to make such a proposal simply for the purpose of having to withdraw it. I submit that the control the Committee exercise, though it may not be, direct, is sufficient for the purpose of making public opinion felt upon the Charity Commission. The great complaint used to be that the Government Whips were able to secure a majority for the schemes of the Charity Commission, although the Government disclaimed all responsibility for such schemes. The Charity Commissioners are bound by the statutes under which they act, and they cannot of their own free will dispense with these statutes. If they are dissatisfied with the statutes, they ought to represent the matter to Parliament. They have again and again expressed dissatisfaction with the law in
  728
  certain respects, but no Government up to the present time has given them the new powers for which they have asked. It is not they who are wholly to blame. Although I am sure my hon. friend richly deserves a salary, the adoption of the proposal would not give much greater control than we have at present.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid there was one misconception on the part of the hon. Member in regard to his attitude in this matter. The proposal in the Report of the Committee of which he was Chairman was that the functions of the Charity Commission should be transferred to a sub-department of what the Committee called the Ministry of Education. Now, it did not follow for a moment that if the functions of the Board of Education were enlarged so as to include the administration of the charities, and its official description was, say, the Ministry of Education and Charities, this would ensue—which he should deprecate—that they should divert the funds of these charities necessarily to educational purposes. He was very well satisfied with the direction matters were taking; events had proved that everything was moving in the direction recommended in the Report. He ventured to say that, whether it was done by hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the other side or by Gentlemen sitting below him, more would be done in the same direction.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman had asked the Committee seriously to believe that the failure of the Commission to get the accounts of the King's Lynn Charities for seven or eight years was because they had been refused by Mr. Beloe, who was a very respectable small attorney. The hon. Gentleman had enormous powers of coercion, and he could have taken Mr. Beloe to Whitehall and kept him there until he produced the accounts. He wished to know from his hon. friend, the official, though unpaid, defender of the Charity Commission, whether they intended to go on spending enormous sums yearly in printing useless Papers; and, further, whether there was no appropriation in and for the Commission. He had

  729
  himself paid the hon. Gentleman £10 for his copy of the accounts of the King's Lynn charities, and do doubt other persons had paid similar sums. What was done with that money? He asked the hon. Gentleman to make an amende to his friend Mr. Beloe for what he had stated concerning that gentleman.
  MR. HUMPHREYS - OWENsaid he had, during the last eight or ten years, had constant occasion to deal with the Charity Commissioners on matters of considerable importance, and he wished to bear his most emphatic testimony to the excellent and business-like manner in which their work was done. He did not confine what he said to the educational part of their work, because he found in connection with a small village charity the Commissioners fully considered the wishes of the locality, and the scheme which they ultimately framed was carried without any dissent whatever. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had complained of being overburdened with the Papers issued by the Commission. He thought the Papers sent out by the Commission were full of interest, and of the greatest value to the different localities in the way of preserving evidence about charities, in bringing to light charities which had been forgotten, and in recalling charities which had been misused. He supposed the Commissioners were bound by statute to issue these Papers to all the Members of the House, but whether it was done under statute or in accordance with custom, he hoped that nothing would be done to lessen the completeness with which they were sent out. Considerable complaint had been made that part of the work of the Charity Commissioners took the form of poaching on the preserves of the Court of Chancery. He held that it was most desirable in the public interest that decisions upon legal principles should be given in the manner in which they were given by the Charity Commissioners without the excessive formality and the enormous cost which attended the obtaining of decisions upon questions in the Court of Chancery. Reforms the Charity Commission required were
  730
  only in regard to matters of administration. There was nothing at all inefficient, or hide-bound and savouring of red tape, in the manner in which the work was done.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the Charity Commissioners had invariably administered the Welsh Intermediate Education Act in a broad and liberal spirit, and it would be most ungrateful for the Welsh people, so far as the educational work was concerned, to cast any reflection on the Commissioners. He called attention to two sums which were now lying in the bank, and which formed the ultimate proceeds of the collection made forty years ago to assist persons in distress in consequence of the cotton famine. The persons in the cotton districts for whom this money was originally intended were probably all dead by this time. He hoped the hon. Member would be able to give an assurance that something would be done in the direction of applying the money to some local charity, such as a dispensary or convalescent home. Surely it was only fair in a matter of this sort that the desire of the subscribers should be respected. There was no special distress in the cotton districts at the present time calling for relief. He was told that the doctrine of sy-pres, to which allusion had been made, prevented this being carried out, but surely, one would imagine, they were getting as near as possible to the intention of the donors of the charity if they applied the money in the district in which it was actually raised.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he was very much obliged to the hon. Members who had just spoken for what they had said about the Charity Commission. The Commissioners had always endeavoured to do their best in the administration of the educational endowments with which they had been concerned. With reference to the small local cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, he was aware of the circumstances, but was sorry that he could not meet the hon. Gentleman in the matter. The case was rather peculiar. At the time of the Lancashire cotton famine, funds were raised all over the kingdom, and among

  731
  other places two funds were started in Holywell, in Flintshire, both having the same object in view, viz., the relief of those who suffered from the cotton famine, principally in Lancashire, but to some extent also in Cheshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire. A considerable sum was handed over for relief, but the whole of the money was not expended, and there remained in the Holywell Bank a balance of £60 in respect of one fund, and £55 in respect of the other. The trustees were all dead, and the people for whom the money was collected were all dead, or were not now subject to distress due to the Cotton Famine. In fact, here was a case where charity funds existed, and where the object of the charity had entirely failed, and the Charity Commissioners had to apply the doctrine of cy-pres. In applying that doctrine, two principles were involved—first, the object selected for the benefit of the fund should be as near as possible that which the donors had in view; and, second, that it should not be extended beyond the class for whom it was intended. The Charity Commissioners had to ask what was the class for whom this charity was intended, and which was the nearest object to the original? Following that doctrine, and guided by two precedents, they had come to the conclusion that, as this money had been originally subscribed for the relief of operatives in Lancashire, Cheshire, and Yorkshire, it was their duty to apply it to operatives living in these districts. He could assure the hon. Member that the Charity Commissioners individually would have been most willing to apply the funds for the benefit of a cottage hospital at Holywell; but as a Commission they felt bound to see that, as the money was originally subscribed mainly for Lancashire, to Lancashire it must go. He had said there were two precedents dealt with by the Court
  of Chancery. In the first the unexpended balance of the Hartley Colliery Relief Fund was devoted to the relief of sufferers from colliery accidents in the same district. The second case was more applicable. A general fund had been formed for the people who suffered from the cotton famine, and the whole of that general fund was not expended. The balance was devoted by a scheme to the formation of convalescent homes in the cotton districts. If the trustees of the Holywell funds had done their duty, they would have handed over their money to the general fund and it would have formed part of the general balance dealt with in the scheme. He thought the hon. Member would see that no other course was open to the Charity Commissioners than to refuse the application made to them. As to the complaint of his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, some of the accounts of the charities in that town had not been rendered, and that was the reason for the delay in the preparation of the copies. As regarded the £10 which the hon. Member had paid for copies of the accounts, he could assure him that the money would be accounted for as an extra receipt.
  MR. CREMERsaid that there was no evidence forthcoming that any of the reforms suggested by Lord Cairns had been given effect to in connection with St. Katharine's Hospital. It was rather unfair of the Charity Commissioners to take refuge behind the robe of our late Majesty; and no one had any idea of the way in which the funds of this charity were squandered. He should press his Amendment to a division.
  (6.56.) Question put.
  The Committee divided :—Ayes, 118; Noes, 200. (Division List No. 180.).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Allen, Charles P. (Gouc., Stroud

  Burns, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Ambrose, Robert

  Caldwell, James

  Crean, Eugene

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cameron, Robert

  Crombie, John William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Delany, William

  Blake, Edward

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Cha

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Leese, SirJosephF(Accrington)

  Redmond,Joan E.(Waterford)

  Edwards, Frank

  Leng, Sir John

  Reid, SirR.Threshie (Dumfries)

  Elibank, Master of

  Levy, Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Evans,Samuel T.(Gl'amorgan)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Farquahar-on, Dr. Robert

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, RtHn C. R. (Northants

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas,JA(Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Gilhooly, James

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Gladstone, RtHn.HerbertJohn

  Mooney, John J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Walton, JohnLawson (Leeds, S)

  Grant, Corrie

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Griffiths, Ellis J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Harmsworth, R. Liecester

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Harwood, George

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tipper'y, Mid

  Whitley J. H. (Halifax)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Young, Samuel

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Mall'ey, William

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lambert, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Mr. Cremer and Mr. John

  Langley, Batty

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson (Durham).

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Coddington, Sir William

  Garfitt, William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cohen Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gordon, MajEvans.(I"rH'ml'ts

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athol'e

  Gorst, Rt.Hon.Sir John Eldon

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manch'r

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Greene, SirEW(B'ry S Edm'nds

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gretton, John

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Groves, James Grimble

  Barry,SirFrancisT.(Windsor)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

  Beach, Rt.HnSirMichael Hicks

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hamilton, RtHnLord G.(Mid'x

  Bignold, Arthur

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Bill, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickinson, Robert Edmund

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bull, William James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Patterson

  Butcher, John George

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Carlile, William Walter

  Elliot,Hon.A.Ralph Douglas

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Carson, Rt.Hon.Sir.Edw.H.

  Fardell, Sir. T. George

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Cavendish,R.F.(N.Lancs.)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Manc'r

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehnrst

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Finch, George H.

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

  Chapman, Edward

  FitzGerald, SirRobertPenrose-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Long, Rt Hon.Walter(Bristol, S

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  734

  735

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Sturt, H m. Humphry Napier

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rattigan, Sir William

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Renwick, George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt,'n

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Mitchell, William

  Round, James

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Nott-)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Rutherford, John

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Sinclair, Lewis (Romford)

  Worsley-Taylor. Henry Wilson

  Myers, William Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, H. C. (North'd. Tyneside

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Orr-Ewing. Charles Lindsay

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Parker, Gilbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Question put and agreed to.

  3. £26,402, to complete the sum for Civil Service Commission.
  4. £38,005, to complete the sum for Exchequer and Audit Department.
  5. £4,361, to complete the sum for Friendly Societies Registry.
  6. £420,145, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.
  MR. WHITLEYhoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give them some hope of a reduction of this immense Vote in the future. The total Estimate amounted to £770,145 and therefore the printing account of this House was upwards of three-quarters of a million. The increase in the precent Vote was no less than £122,000. He did not think that the Committee ought to allow a Vote of this magnitude to slip through without some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will probably remember that last year and the year before we had to have considerable Supplementary
  736
  Estimates because we had underestimated our requirements. This year, however, I have made a serious effort to obtain a more correct estimate by which I hope we shall be able to stand. I also hope that next year I shall be able to make a reduction in the Vote. Of course this very greatly depends upon the action of hon. Members themselves. There is a constant pressure being exercised upon Ministers by hon. Members for the publication of Returns and other printing which in a good many instances, I think, is money thrown away. Very often if I venture to point this out to hon. Members as a reason for refusing such Returns it is treated as a want of respect to themselves and to the House, and some hon. Members make this a very serious grievance. I hope the hon. Member for Halifax himself will give me all the assistance in his power in this direction, and also use his influence with his friends, and remember that when they ask the Secretary to the Treasury to issue Papers and Returns and circulate other information they are helping to swell the Stationery Vote.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he had asked for a Return of the managers of existing voluntary schools but he was met with

  737
  a flat negative, although he was not quite sure that this refusal was based upon the ground of economy.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is one Return which has been asked for in respect of voluntary schools costing £1,500, and that Return was necessarily inaccurate owing to the absence of information at the disposal of the Departments out of which to compile it correctly.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was not in the least responsible for the Return which had been spoken of. The information which was refused him would have come upon a single sheet, and certainly would not have increased to any great extent the amount of this Vote. What he wished to know was whether there was not a very great amount of waste in this Vote. He did not know upon what basis the Pink Paper was circulated every day, or what calculation was made in regard to the other Papers circulated to hon. Members, but he imagined that there must be an immense accumulation of Papers unused which perhaps made a periodical bonfire. There must be in this great Vote some considerable waste which need not be incurred, and the expense of which could be avoided without in any way curtailing the reasonable rights of hon. Members in regard to information that ought to be laid before the House. He wished to have from the Secretary to the Treasury some indication of the amount of printing there was in this Vote which was never called for and which had to be destroyed in some way.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is an enormous amount of printing in this Estimate which is not called for by hon. Members of this House. This Vote covers the whole of the stationery supplies for all the Departments of His Majesty's service as well as for both Houses of Parliament. There is, no doubt, a certain amount of waste, but if hon. Members insist, as unfortunately they do, upon having all those Returns and information printed, I do not see how this waste can be avoided. There are undoubtedly a great many things printed which had better never have
  738
  been printed at all, and there are doubtless others printed in greater numbers than are required. But after all, whether we have 300 copies or one of a short document makes very little difference to the expenditure. I am doing my best, and the Controller of the Stationery Office is doing his best, to check the expenditure under this Vote, and to see that in no case is it extravagant or wasteful, to see that we do not get more expensive materials than are necessary, and that we buy those materials as cheaply as possible. I shall be glad of any assistance the House can give me in the matter. I cannot pretend to hope to stop all the waste that goes on. If hon. Members went round the lobbies at the present moment I think they would find a great deal of waste of stationery which no Secretary of the Treasury can control except by taking the paper away altogether, which is not a possible solution.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENasked how much of the Printing and Stationery Vote was due to Members of the House, and how much to the Government Departments. He thought if those figures were given it would be seen that Members of the House were not such great offenders as regarded waste as some other people. As an illustration of a small economy which might be effected, he referred to the Pink Paper, on which a large number of Papers were set down as being Returns from the Board of Education of inquiries into certain charities. Each charity was set out in identical terms, taking up many lines of print. The Return might quite easily be made on one sheet instead of on about five.
  MR. STOPFORD SACKVILLEspeaking as one whose memory went back to the Parliamentary practice of thirty years ago, said he was devoutly grateful for the change which had been made. Thirty yeare ago one's life was made a burden owing to the enormous accumulation of Papers which, at the end of the session, could only be disposed of by sale. Many Members did not want all the Papers that were printed even now, but he assured the Committee that under the system which now prevailed, the waste was very much less than in former times.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISdrew attention to the great delay in the delivery of the numbers of Hansard. He did not say the delay was immediately due to the contractors; he had not the least doubt that they fulfilled their engagement; but he desired to ask whether it was not possible, at all events, to approximate to the speed that obtained in Canada, Australia, and France. In some of the Colonial Parliaments, Members of Parliament received the report of the previous day's proceedings at breakfast-time just as they received their newspapers. Such a report could not, of course, be more than a proof report, but if they could do such things in the backwoods of Australia, why could they not be done in the Metropolis of the Empire He thought much greater expedition could be shown if fresh arrangements were made in this respect. Another question associated with Hansard was as to the possibility of having in the Library, at least, the Questions and answers from day to day—not scattered about among the Votes, but in a complete list. If a daily index were then kept up it would prevent Members putting Questions which had previously been answered. At present it was impossible for Members to follow the proceedings of Parliament from day to day unless they searched through a file of The Times, whereas if they had an index in the Library they would be able to ascertain exactly what had been done in regard to any particular Question in which they were interested.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Questions which appear in the Votes and proceedings are already placed in the Library, but I understand that what the hon. Member desires is that they should be separated from the rest of the Votes and proceedings, and indexed as far as possible from day to day. That is not a matter over which I have any control, but I will make the suggestion to the authorities and see whether they consider anything can be done. With regard to the larger point raised by the hon. Member, viz., whether the delivery of the parts of Hansard can be accelerated, that is a matter to which I have given a good deal of time and thought during the last few
  740
  months in consequence of the fact that the present Hansard contract expires at the close of the year, and that we shall have to consider the conditions of tender for a new contract. Of course, it would be physically possible to have a delivery next morning of the report of speeches made in this House; it is more or less done by our newspapers, and no doubt could be done by Hansard But in that case it would have to be an uncorrected report, and Members have never yet been willing that Hansard should be printed without their having an opportunity of correcting the errors which occur in the reports of their speeches. Whether that be a wise practice to pursue or not I will not say, but it has been the desire of the House that there should be that opportunity. If time is to be given for correction, it is quite obvious we cannot have an immediate report. In that case, we must look to the newspapers for our immediate report, and to Hansard a few days later for the corrected and permanent record, and I am inclined to think that that is the best thing to do. If the Hansard parts are not to be delivered the morning after the speeches have been made in this House, I do not think it matters very much whether they are delayed one day longer or not. I could understand great sacrifices being made in order to have the report delivered in a perfect form the morning after the speeches had been made, but I do not think it worth while to make great sacrifices merely to hasten the delivery by a day in six or seven days. The hon. Member must also remember that to obtain such a delivery as he desires involves an enormous increase in the cost of production. All the work would then be night work, which has to be paid for at double rates, or something very like double rates, and therefore the expense of Hansard would be enormously increased. I do not think, after the desire for economy which the Committee has just evidenced in the earlier discussion, I should be justified in proposing to expend a largely increased amount on the reporting of speeches in the House.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that, while thanking the hon. Gentleman for the first portion of his speech, as regarded

  741
  the latter part he could only regret that London was still to be inferior to Ottawa and Melbourne.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENreminded the Financial Secretary that he had overlooked his question.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As far as the figures can be disentangled, the hon. Member will find, under subhead J, "Printing, Papers, Binding, etc., for two Houses of Parliament, £85,000"; and under sub-head M, "Parliamentary Debates and Records, £9,500." There are other expenses which, although not called for directly by Parliament, are indirectly caused by Parliament, but those I cannot separate from the ordinary expenditure of the offices concerned. Those figures, however, will probably be sufficient for the hon. Member's purpose, and I hope the Committee will now allow us to take the Vote.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £14,135 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the office of His Majesty's woods, forests, and land revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he did not enter upon this matter in any spirit of hosstility to the Office of Woods and Forests. The questions he desired to raise were of an administrative character, into which policy to some extent entered, and which ought to be discussed by the Committee. One of the most important offices the Department had to discharge was the supervision of the foreshores——
  It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported tomorrow; Committee also report progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.
  OPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

    RICHMOND HILL (PRESERVATION OF VIEW) BILL (BY ORDER).
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that in the course of a good many years he had not come across, he thought, a more grossly and thoroughly impertinent proposal than that which they were asked to pass that evening. The title of the Bill was absolutely misleading. It was called a Preservation of View Bill, but it fact it was a Bill to enable the landlord, Lord Dysart, to build over some 176 acres of land now used as common land. They had a circular sent out that morning, almost every word of which was misleading. These circulars were fluttered down upon them as if they came from Heaven, but the gentleman who sent them never favoured them with his name. Why, judging from one of these circulars, one would suppose that Lord Dysart was conferring great public benefit on Richmond and the Metropolis. It was said that the Bill had been urged by the authorities of the neighbourhood, as if they desired to promote this piece of vandalism. He did not complain of Lord Dysart. After all, when one had a piece of land which, as market gardens, would bring in a few hundred pounds, who could blame him if he could induce that House to assent to the building of houses which would make the property worth some £170,000? Therefore, he said, he did not blame Lord Dysart, but he should blame the House of Commons if it assented to such a scheme. The law had already been laid down as to common land within fifteen miles round London being dealt with. What was it Lord Dysart was giving in return for this Bill? He was surrendering his manorial rights over Ham and Peter sham Commons; and he was giving up the right to cart away gravel—a right he had scarcely ever exercised. He was

    743
    also handing over his title to some thirty acres of land, known as Petersham meadows, and he was giving a cricket field of nine acres to Kingston. He thought they might say that Lord Dysart gave them nothing when he gave them his manorial rights. As to the Petersham meadows, close under Richmond Hill, they could not build over them, because the river repeatedly overflowed them, and besides that they were covered with a network of footways, which rendered building over them utterly impossible. Was it likely that these meadows would have been let to the Corporation of Richmond for a term of twenty-one years, of which sixteen years were unexpired, if they could have been built over? Practically these fields had no economic value. Then, amongst other so-called considerations was a tow-path, which was a public path; but why should Lord Dysart give up a public path with which he had nothing whatever to do? By the side of this path there was a strip of grass land, forty or fifty feet wide, which Lord Dysart had claimed as his own, but his right to it had always been contested. He now pro posed to give that over to the public, and, by setting back some hedges, to increase the width to 100 feet; but in return the local authorities were to construct a wide carriage road, which would be of immense benefit to his property. Finally, he was going to give a sum of £3,000 to the Ham Urban Council. What was the quid pro quo? He would get possession of 176 acres of Lammas land and secure valuable building rights, notwithstanding that Parliament had decided that no common lands within a radius of fifteen miles of London should be built upon. The London County Council and the local authorities had agreed to purchase Marble Hill to secure the view on the other side of the river, for £70,000. Could anything be more absurd than to pay £76,000 to secure the view on one side of the river and to give the noble Lord a right worth £150,000 in order to destroy the view on the other side? If he was asked why the Bill was not opposed on the Second Reading, his answer was that the title was misleading. It was called "a Preservation of
    744
    View Bill." Those who wanted to preserve the view could not know that it was really a Bill to destroy a view. The promoters of the Bill were heard, and there was no opposition, because the measure was not understood. Although it was unusual to throw out a Bill after it had passed Committee without opposition, he asked the House in the circumstances to do this. Because the local authority might think they had made a good bargain, was no reason why the House should allow a breach of the law that no common within a radius of fifteen miles of London should be built over. The House should not, For the sake of any private individual, or the bargain of a local authority, surrender open spaces. He would, under the circumstances, divide the House on this question.
    MR. BULLwould not have intervened in this debate had he not thought this a matter of vital importance to London. The statement circulated among Members was, in his opinion, the heaviest condemnation of the measure. The tremendous bribe given to various local authorities, and the specious suggestions made, cast on the proposal the gravest suspicion. If the Bill were not passed, it was clear that these Lammas lands would remain open to the public. But the promoters would, by this Bill, be able to turn the land into a very valuable building site. Per years he had worked for the preservation of the open spaces in and around London, and he was sorry that certain representatives of the Commons Preservation Society, whom the House had been accustomed to regard as the watchdogs of our open spaces, had, in this instance, gone over to the side of the promoters. It had been stated that if the Bill were not passed, Petersham meadows would be immediately built upon. That was not true, for the meadows were let on lease, and could not be built upon until the lease expired sixteen years hence. The President of the Royal Academy, Miss Braddon, and other leading residents of Richmond were opposed to this scheme, and from no selfish considerations, but in the public interest. As had been remarked by the hon. Member for Northampton, what was everybody's business

    745
    was nobody's business, and so it had come to pass that there had hitherto been no proper opposition to this Bill. He, a Conservative, hoped, however, that it would not pass.
    MR. RICHARDSsaid he very much regretted the opposition of the last speaker, but he was not surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for Northampton, who, however, was scarcely one whose advice to throw out a Bill as to which a Committee had shown itself satisfied the House would be willing to accept. He was astonished at the suggestion that the Footpath Preservation Society had in any way bartered its hold on the confidence of the House in favour of a noble Earl who sat in another place. This was a question in regard to which the opinion of the local authorities should prevail, although there seemed, in this case, to be a desire to put their views on one side. The arrangement made was in the public interest and for the preservation of open spaces. The London County Council, which fought for open spaces, had made no objection to this measure. It was an extraordinary proposition that a measure which had gone through the ordeal of Committee should be rejected at the suggestion of an hon. Member who, he believed, was a riparian owner, living in great luxury somewhere on the banks of the Thames, and probably driving down in his carriage, or in the motor-car, which seemed to be the new instrument of progress on the other side of the House. In the interest of the man who went down to Richmond on the 3d. omnibus, he protested against this measure being opposed by plutocrats opposite, whose objection probably really was, although not avowed, to the invasion of the Londoner at the week-end. He hoped the House would not sanction this insolent attempt to reject the measure, which had the approval of the Committee and every local authority interested in it. He wondered would the hon. Member for Northampton have dared to raise similar opposition to a scheme promoted by the Northamptonshire County Council had they ventured to try and bring more people into his neighbourhood. Not a scintilla of evidence had been given to justify the House in rejecting a measure which
    746
    a Committee had approved and which unquestionably had the sanction of the local authorities.
    MR. CAWLEYsaid that this Bill came before the Committee, which dealt with it as concurred in absolutely by the Richmond Council, the Kingston Council, the Ham rural district authority and the Surrey County Council. He thought the Committee had some right to listen to the evidence of those bodies and to give it full consideration. They did give it great consideration, and they came to the conclusion that those authorities would not barter away their rights, as the hon. Member for Northampton suggested they had done. The hon. Member had said that 176 acres of common lands were to be taken from the public, but the public had no right whatever over these lands. Lord Dysart altogether had given 93 acres of freehold land, as well as his manorial rights over Petersham Common and Ham Common and had given £3,000 to the Ham local authority. The Committee thought that the bargain between Lord Dysart and the local authorities was a fair and square bargain. The scheme was passed by all the local authorities, the members of which knew every yard of the land, and told the Committee in their evidence that the bargain was a fair land reasonable one. The Committee thought it was, and he trusted the House would not reject the Bill.
    MR. JOHN BURNScontended that too much reliance should not be placed on the attitude of the local authorities. In spite of the support of the Richmond and Kingston authorities, a somewhat similar Bill was rejected in 1896 by the House of Commons. The Bill of 1896 laboured under a disadvantage the present Bill did not possess, viz., that it bore its true title on the face of it. It was called the Petersham and Ham Lands Bill, and was thrown out by a majority of 144, to the delight of nearly everybody in the neighbourhood. What improvement the present Bill had over the 1896 measure was entirely due to the rejection of the earlier Bill. When the House was

    747
    asked to defer to the opinion of local authorities, he wished hon. Members would remember that when London County Council Bills came before the House. The history of commons preservation during the last forty or fifty years was nothing more nor les than the history of a long struggle against the surrender by local authorities of public common rights over scores of thousands of acres. The hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury had asked where the London County Council were in this matter. That body had no locus, and if they had intervened the hon. and learned Member would have been the first to accuse the County Council of imposing its omnivorous maw or claw where it had no local interest or status. Moreover, the County Council had been too busy saving sixty-seven acres north of this particular spot to have either time or money to interfere in this matter. He appealed to the House of Commons to act up to its past traditions in this respect, and not to yield what Lord Dysart demanded. The Bill contended that a great advantage was being conferred upon the public. But what it really meant was that Lord Dysart, by conceding shadowy rights which he could not possibly maintain, obtained the valuable asset of 176 acres of Lammas land under Richmond Hill, which in a few years time would be worth £2,000 per acre for building purposes. He (the hon. Member) had spent a portion of his Whitsuntide holiday in examining this land, and he assured the House that the view would be greatly impaired by what Lord Dysart was doing. The Bill, in fact, was not calculated to preserve the view from Richmond Hill, but to spoil it. With regard to the thirty-two acres of Petersham meadows which were being given up, they were water-logged, and, if they had been under the jurisdiction of the London County Council, would have been scheduled under the Low-lying Land Act of 1894 as an insanitary and undesirable area, and it would have been impossible to build there. That was one of Lord Dysart's concessions. He suggested that Lord Dysart should copy the generous and public-spirited action adopted by the hon. and gallant Member for Essex in a similar case, and had his Lordship done so this Bill would not have
    748
    been opposed. This Bill would do nothing for the preservation of that view which they were all so anxious to maintain unimpaired. This Bill would convert land owned by Lord Dysart, which was not worth at the present time more than £60 or £ 100 per acre, into building land which would be worth at least £2,000 per acre for building purposes. He hoped the House would forgive him for wearying them with all these details. It had been his pleasurable duty to take an interest not only in parks and open spaces but also to go into the details of this question in order that the House should be in possession of the facts from both points of view. In his opinion, Lord Dysart did not give to the public the equivalent of what the public were giving him, and was not acting with generosity and public spirit to Richmond and Kingston, from which in the future the value of his estate would be enhanced. He thought that upon this occasion the House of Commons ought to go one step farther, and make Lord Dysart offer such terms as would be mutually beneficial, terms which would give his lordship all he had a right to demand, and which would preserve for this vast city of London one of the most beautiful views and the most valuable aesthetic positions which it was possible to confer upon the Metropolis.
    MR. SKEWES-COXhoped the House would not be misled by the speech which had just been made by the hon. Member for Battersea. Lord Dysart was approached by the local authorities with a view to securing for ever those lands which met the view from Richmond Hill. If this had not been done, his Lordship would have been able to build upon those lands. It ought to be clearly understood that from Richmond Hill no one could possibly see even a blade of grass upon the Lammas lands. Of course, they would be able to see those lands from the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea; but, although he lived in the neighbourhood himself, he had never had an invitation to go there, and the point referred to was private property.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I admitted that I was trespassing.
    MR. SKEWES-COXsaid that when Lord Dysart was asked to give up ninety-three acres of land he naturally asked what was going to be given him in return. Consequently, they had suggested this exchange of land proposed in the Bill, and the public were getting the greater portion. These proposals had all been before the Committee, and had been unanimously approved of, and surely the House was not going to throw out this measure, seeing that it was supported by the local councils and other public bodies. Only one gentleman had written to him, on a postcard, requesting him to oppose this measure. He lived in the neighbourhood himself, and only three residents had objected to the scheme, as far as he knew, and they lived at some distance from the spot. He was perfectly sure that this House would be doing the right thing by passing this Bill. These Lammas lands were not open common lands, and the right to them was supposed to belong to copyholders, and if they could assert any right to them, provision had been, made in the Bill for ample compensation being given. It was not known who were entitled to those rights, but he believed that there were certain members of a family in Australia who were supposed to possess substantial rights. On public grounds, in view of the fact that this Bill secured these lands to the public for ever, he urged the House to pass this measure.
    MR. PIKE PEASE, speaking as a member of the Committee which passed the Bill, expressed the opinion that no measure had ever been passed through a Committee with so much unanimity as the one now under the consideration of the House. He would like to point out that the Bill of 1896, to which reference had been made, was entirely different in character from the present one, and many of those who supported this Bill were the keenest opponents of the former measure. As to the Lammas lands, there was no evidence before the Committee that any one objected to these rights being given up, nor was there evidence of any kind that any one had any right over these lands. The hon. Member for Battersea and the hon. Member for Northampton
    750
    seemed to think that some rights of the public round about were being given up, and that a certain amount of breathing space was being absorbed by the Bill. At the same time the hon. Member for Battersea said that that did not matter to the people of Kingston. But Kingston was nearer to these Lammas lands than some of the other portions of the district, and, as no one had any right over the lands, the breathing space was more important to the people of Kingston than to many of the others. He asked the House to support the decision of the Committee, which was composed of four Members with wide business experience, and who had a better opportunity for coming to a sound judgment than the House could possibly have. Within a radius of five miles there were 7,000 acres of open spaces, and within a distance of two miles there were open spaces to the extent of 2,000 acres. Therefore, he had no hesitation in asking the House to support the, Committee upon this measure. He believed Lord Dysart had acted in a most generous manner, and he hoped the House would see its way to follow the advice of the Committee.
    MR. PAULTONsaid he would refrain from entering into details, because it was quite impossible for the House to judge such matters unless they had expert evidence before them. He would, however, refer to the Motion passed by the House in 1896 in regard to its application to this particular Bill. That Resolution had been quoted by his hon. friend the Member for Northampton. It was based upon the policy of the Metropolitan Commons Acts of 1866 and 1869, which were intended to place common lands within the Metropolitan area under local management, in order that money might be spent upon them for improvements of various kinds. The question now arose whether that Motion was applicable to the present case. There was a very great distinction between this measure and the Bill which was rejected in 1896. In 1896 the public interests which were safeguarded by the Metropolitan Commons Act were to a very great extent disregarded. He entirely agreed with what had been said about the attempts made at that time to drive the

    751
    local authorities on that occasion. He resented what appeared to be the undue influences which were then brought to bear on those local authorities. Where common lands or public rights were taken by a private individual, it was only right that some quid pro quo should be given. He could not help thinking that this Bill, so far from being in spite of the Resolution of 1896, was a direct consequence of that Resolution. This was a far better Bill. He had no doubt that if they kept on rejecting Bills of this kind, they might by the end of this century get something better than was offered in this Bill. Nevertheless, it was quite true that the circumstances under which this measure was rejected upon a former occasion had been entirely altered. In the year 1900 the Board of Agriculture was asked to sanction a scheme for placing these Lammas lands under regulations, and that Board was asked to carry out the policy of the Metropolitan Commons Acts of 1866 and 1869. What did the Board of Agriculture report upon that occasion? They reported that the conditions under which the fields were held and cultivated would render it impracticable for any Conservators to give effect to such an object—that was, the preservation of those lands for public purposes—seeing that those particular lands were not available for the purposes contemplated by the Metropolitan Commons Act. The Resolution passed by the House never contemplated that under no circumstances whatever were Lammas lands or common rights ever to be dealt with by private Bill legislation. It did, however, lay down a principle that public interest was to be safeguarded in any legislation which was passed by the House with regard to it. This Bill did secure very valuable concessions to the public in return for a consideration which was of very little value to the public. A good deal had been said by the hon. Member for Battersea and the hon. Member for Northampton about the value of the land which Lord Dysart was prepared to give up, but the point which they had to consider was in
    regard to the value of the land his Lordship proposed in the future to exercise rights over. He agreed with the hon. Member for Richmond with regard to the value of the Lammas lands, and under the Bill the public certainly did get a very great protection—he would not say a complete protection—of the view from Richmond Hill. He believed that the view from the terrace was absolutely protected. The public would get under this Bill a most valuable extent of ground. There was a large strip of ground near the river which, if this Bill was rejected, could be built upon tomorrow. The arrangement proposed in the Bill was a reasonable one, and would settle a much-vexed and long-standing question. He hoped that the Resolution passed in 1896 did not apply in particular to the special case of this Bill. Although the Bill of 1896 was properly rejected, he thought the House would be extremely ill-advised now if it disregarded the opinion of the Committee which considered the matter.
    MR. YOXALL: As a resident at Richmond claimed the attention of the House to briefly state his opinion of the Bill. He had formed the impression, slowly and reluctantly, that the Bill did not propose a bargain that would promote the public interest. It was not so good a bargain as could be driven by the Richmond and other local authorities in dealing with the Dysart Trustees. His impression was that the House would act wisely if it threw out the Bill at the present time. It was absurd to say that if this Bill was rejected the land would be built upon. If that was true now, it was true since 1896, but the trustees had not built upon the land. The fact that they had not done so went to show that the public rights in connection with the land were perfectly well protected. Under this Bill the public would get no sufficient return for the concession which was proposed to be made.
    (10.28.) Question put.
    The House divided :—Ayes, 179; Noes, 79. (Division List No 181.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Atkinson, Et. Hon. John

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Myers, William Henry

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Beresford, Lord Chas. William

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Groves, James Grimble

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Bond, Edward

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Brassey, Albert

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Butcher, John George

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Purvis, Robert

    Cameron, Robert

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Holland, William Henry

    Renwick, George

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'd, Brightside

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hoult, Joseph

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Rigg, Richard

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Chapman, Edward

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Joicey, Sir James

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

    Rutherford, John

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawson, John Grant

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Leng, Sir John

    Smith, H C (North' mb. Tyneside

    Denny, Colonel

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Dewar, John A. (Invernes-sh.)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Dewar, T. R (T'rH' mlets, S. Geo.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.

    Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

    Doughty, George

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    M'Crae, George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mitchell, William

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Finch, George H.

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Wilson-Todd, Win. H. (Yorks.)

    Garfit, William

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Mount, William Arthur

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    TELLERS FOE THE AYES—

    Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Mr. Skewes-Cox and Mr.

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Bigwood.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Charming, Francis Allston

    Ffrench, Peter

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Flower, Ernest

    Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

    Crean, Eugene

    Flyon, James Christopher

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Gilhooly, James

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Delany, William

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Blake, Edward

    Dillon, John

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Doogan, P. C

    Jones, Win. (Carnarvonshire)

    Burns, John

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Joyce, Michael

    Caldwell, James

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Leamy, Edward

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S,)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Levy, Maurice

    754

    755

    Lloyd-George, David

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Lough, Thomas

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

    Thornton, Percy M.

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Toulmin, George

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    O'Connor, James (Vicklow, W.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

    Weir, James Galloway

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    O. Malley, William

    White, George (Norfolk)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    M'Kean, John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Price, Robert John

    Young, Samuel

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Moss, Samuel

    Runciman, Walter

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Mr. Labouchere and Mr.

    Norman, Henry

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants

    Bull.

    Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    SUPPLY.
    [NINTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £135,323, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Local Government Board."
    LORD HUGH. CECILdrew attention to the position in which the Poor Law authorities of the Greenwich Union found themselves in respect of the recently erected workhouse. The subject was one of only local interest, but it had some remarkable features which might warrant him in for a short time engaging the attention of the Committee. The position at present was that the union had erected, at very great expense indeed, a workhouse which was standing empty, and the old workhouse was at this moment sufficient for the number of paupers who were required to reside in it. The union had got into this position by transactions extending over a number of years. In 1887 the Local Government Board drew the attention
    756
    of the Guardians to a want of accommodation in the existing workhouse, and after correspondence this new building was ultimately erected four miles from Greenwich at the extravagant cost of £192,000. It was, perhaps, some slight consolation to know that this workhouse gained the prize at the Paris Exhibition for the best building of the character which had been erected. This was an illustration of how imperfectly local authorities recognised the necessity for practising economy. It could not be doubted that over and over again local authorities set before their minds the idea of having the very best. Everyone knew that in the administration of his own private income he must often be content with the next best which differed very greatly in price and comparatively little in value. Outdoor relief had been liberally administered, and pauperism had declined under prosperous times, though, of course, in hard years circumstances might be different. This, however, could not be denied, that where there were two sides to a question, and a doubt of the sufficiency of the accommodation in the existing workhouse, it was not necessary to have the best workhouse in Christendom to hold 800 inmates. There was, he thought, a case for some inquiry. The majority of the Guardians were in favour of selling this costly building without more ado. Another suggestion was that some additions should be made to the existing house. Yet another suggestion was—and he particularly commended it to the attention of his hon. friend—that an opportunity should be taken of dividing the union and handing over this palace to Deptford. His object in raising this subject was to invite an opinion from the President of the Local Government

    757
    Board, and to induce him to consent to some sort of inquiry, so as to discover the best way out of the difficulty.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid he wished to call attention to the question of the medical charges for vaccination. In many cases during a large epidemic there was agitation, produced mainly by the medical men, whose charges were raised from 5s. or 6s. for each vaccination up to 8s. or 9s. He asked whether that was not an extravagant charge for so small a service. He was of opinion that less than half would be amply sufficient. He also thought that some provision should be made to prevent persons who were perfectly well able to pay for their vaccination having the charge for that vaccination thrown on to the public rates. He thought that the Local Government Board should institute some regulation which would prevent this waste of money. Another point was, whether the Board could not control the magistrates in dealing with applications for exemption from vaccination. He thought the Local Government Board should send out a circular to petty sessions courts calling the attention of the magistrates to the fact that when persons declared in Court that they had a conscientious objection to vaccination, believing it to be detrimental to the health of their children, no magistrate had a right to cross-examine these poor people with a view to confusing them, and thus depriving them of their statutory rights. There was precedent for that suggestion, because the Home Office frequently sent round circulars to magistrates' clerks calling their attention to various matters, and to changes in the administration of the law of the land. He had himself seen magistrates bullying persons out of their statutory rights when they applied for exemption from vaccination. His hon. friend the Member for Chesterfield asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question, a few months ago, as to the use of lymph derived from a monkey. [Laughter, and cries of "Oh, oh!"] The case was notorious, and he must insist on its being thrashed out. The right hon. Gentleman did not contradict the fact that vaccination had taken place from a monkey to a human
    758
    being, although he said that he had given orders to the effect that nothing more should be done in that respect.
    MR. FLOWERsaid he wished to make a very earnest remonstrance to the President of the Local Government Board as to what seemed to him the very unwise policy which the Department had recently embarked upon in regard to the treatment of children under the Poor Law. The Committee were aware that the barrack school system had been practically condemned, and he believed that notice to that effect had been issued by the Department. He believed that the Sutton barrack schools were shortly to be closed, but there was a dangerous tendency on the part of the Local Government Board to sanction the erection of large and costly buildings for the accommodation of the children now in these schools. He had been told that the cost of the "village community" system to Poplar would amount to £100,000, and that the cost per bed to accommodate the children from Greenwich was £150. These were very startling and extravagant figures indeed. One would not quarrel so much with them if they could really believe that the result would be commensurate with the expenditure. There was a danger that these "village communities" would be nothing more nor less than a revival of the condemned barrack schools under another name. He had noticed that the President of the Local Government Board had made a most interesting speech at the opening of cottage homes erected for 300 children by the Woolwich Board of Guardians. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the barrack school system had been condemned by most anthorities, although he found a few good words to say for them, and then he went on to praise the action of the Woolwich Board of Guardians. But these so-called cottage homes were not cottage homes at all. They were merely barrack schools built in blocks, and the revival of the old system of housing the children was a most unwise one. There was no similarity whatever between these huge communities, in which the children lived together, and the true cottage home system, which had been adopted in Yorkshire, under

    759
    which the children were distributed amongst ordinary homes, each living as a member of the family, subject to the control of the heads of the family, who were persons of their own original class in life, and associating at the public elementary schools and at play with the other children in the locality. That principle had been most successful wherever carried out. It was well known, on the other hand, that the taint acquired by children brought up in these huge barrack schools never left them. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would exercise very great care in granting powers to Boards of Guardians to erect these huge and costly village communities for the children under their charge, and that he would advise them to adopt the true policy of scattered homes or boarding out.
    MR. STEVENSONsaid that, without wishing to enter into the question raised by the hon. Member for West Bradford, he would point out that the grievance the hon. Gentleman referred to did not stand on the same footing as that brought forward by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. Ashe understood the latter case, £192,000 had already been spent by the Greenwich Board of Guardians, although the total amount would probably reach a quarter of a million for a building which they did not want at all. That expenditure was forced upon them by the Local Government Board. It appeared to him that this was not a case which affected only the Borough of Greenwich; a parallel for it could be found in different parts of the country. Again and again the ratepayers had reason to complain of the demands forced upon their representatives by the central authority in London. If the loca authority, of their own option, acted extravagantly, they could be called to account by their constituents, but if the local authority was obliged to carry out the behests of the central authority, with whom there was no responsibility to the ratepayers, there was no redress. Centralisation had been rapidly increasing in this country, to the detriment of local feeling and responsibility, and it was time that some
    760
    check should be placed upon the centralised bureaucracy of the Local Government Board. In order to bring this matter to a head, and if possible to take the view of the Committee on the subject, without the slightest hostility to the President or Secretary, he removed the reduction of the Vote by £50.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £135,273, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Stevenson.)
    MR. CHAPLIN: I wish, if I may, to pass from the subjects we have been discussing in order to make some observations with regard to the present law and regulations by which motor car traffic is governed, and to ask some questions with regard to it. I desire, first of all, to point out that the present law and regulations appear to me to be entirely ineffective and unadapted to the circumstances of today, and that greater safeguards are required, not only for the convenience, but for the safety of the public from the dangers to which they are sometimes subjected by some of the more reckless drivers of motor cars. The present law and regulations, which were perfectly proper and appropriate to the circumstances of the time when they were enacted, are entirely inappropriate and unfitted to the present time. Let me remind the Committee that the present law regulates the maximum speed of motor cars at not more than fourteen miles an hour. A provision inserted in the Act of 1896 enabled the Local Government Board to make regulations imposing a lower maximum if they thought fit. Acting under considerable pressure from the County Councils at that time, and after full consideration and consultation with them—I myself was responsible for it—the Local Government Board limited the maximum speed to twelve miles an hour. These regulations are, I contend, absolutely ineffective at the present time, because the law is habitually broken. I speak from my own experience on the subject. I do not possess a motor car myself, still less do I attempt to drive one; but I have been conveyed on motors a great deal during the past

    761
    winter, chiefly for the purpose of going hunting, and I am bound to say that there was no occasion which I can remember, whether the journey was long or short, on which I travelled on a motor car driven by someone else without the law and the regulations having been broken. My experience is not by any means singular. It is the experience of nearly everyone; and, although occasionally people are apprehended and fined, including distinguished Members of this House, who have broken the law in this matter, still the fact remains that, in my humble opinion, the, present regulations do not give the public the safeguards which I think are required, and which the public ought to have. As to the second point, that the present law and regulations are ineffective, I have heard it said very often that they are absurd, and I am bound to admit, that that is true. But I may be permitted to say, as being largely responsible for them myself, that there was very good reason why that should be the case. Let me point out the extraordinary change that has taken place in the conditions and circumstances since these regulations were first imposed. No system of locomotion, and, as far as I know, no new invention, has ever developed with such extraordinary rapidity as has automobilism since the passing of the Act of 1896. Let me give the House one single illustration, of which a great many hon. Members are totally unaware. When these regulations were enacted by the Local Government Board, the highest average speed of any motor car, either in this country or on the Continent, as tested by racing over considerable distances, was 15½ miles an hour. There was considerable anxiety felt about it at the time, and after considerable pressure from the local authorities fourteen miles an hour was held, under all the circumstances, to be a reasonable pace. What are the facts at the present day? Why, speed has gone up by leaps and bounds, and last year the highest average speed under similar tests was no less than 59½ miles an hour. I think I need not say any more to show that regulations which were thoroughly appropriate in 1896 are altogether out of date at the present time, and that
    762
    some alteration is required. I am perfectly well aware that there are considerable difficulties to be faced by any Minister who attempts to deal with this matter. There is a very widespread feeling of prejudice and hostility towards motor cars in some parts of the country, and this feeling has arisen principally, if nor entirely, from one cause, and one cause only, and that is the extreme recklessness of a certain number, a limited number, of individuals, and their utter disregard of the care, convenience, and comfort of other travellers, who have just as much right to the highway as they have. I wish to see this state of things remedied. I believe that the present law and regulations are totally ineffective, and, with the greatest respect and deference to my right hon. friend who is now responsible for the Department, I will venture to make one or two suggestions. The Local Government Board has the widest possible power in this question. Under one of the clauses of the Act of 1896, it has power to make regulations with regard to the use of the highways by motor cars, with regard to their construction, and with regard to the conditions under which they may be used. That seems to me to be a pretty wide power, which enables the Local Government Board to do almost everything that is necessary. But there is one thing the Board cannot do, and that is a bolish the present limit of speed without an Act of Parliament. The present limit of speed is entirely ineffective, for it is broken, and the law is broken, with impunity every day in the week. What I should like to suggest to my right hon. friend as a means of getting out of the difficulty is a very short and simple Act, consisting of one clause, to repeal Clause 4 of the Act of 1896, which imposes the present limit of speed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss future legislation. He can discuss the administration of the Local Government Board, but he cannot suggest what future legislation should be.
    MR. CHAPLIN: lam obliged, Sir, to you for reminding me. I recollect now I was going beyond the limit, but it will not be necessary to go any farther. If

    763
    the law is altered in that respect, the I regulations would afford perfect safety, and motor cars would be subject to the law for the prevention of furious driving which applies to all other carriages. But we want something more than that. We want a complete means of identification in order that we may be able to detect and punish drivers who are guilty of breaking the law. What these means of identification may be, is of course, a matter of opinion. I have my own opinion, but I do not think it necessary to put it before the Committee, as it is a matter which must necessarily be settled by the Government Department which is in charge of the question. If we have a means of identification, then I think we will have advanced a very considerable step. Then, further amendments to the present regulations are very necessary and desirable. Half the accidents to motor cars occur when turning corners at great speed and meeting other traffic, and even if they do not come into actual collision, they create great alarm and annoyance, and frighten horses, and still more the people who are travelling. It is a very common thing to find a highroad constantly traversed by cross roads, and sometimes motor cars pass these cross roads at tremendous speed, irrespective of what may be hidden by the hedges on either side. The same thing holds with regard to traversing villages and small towns. It is obvious that a rate of speed which might be perfectly safe and reasonable in the open country would be entirely indefensible while passing through a village or town, and I think that the existing regulations in that respect are not sufficiently strong. At all events, it would be better if they were strengthened. I also share the opinion, which I know is entertained by many experts, and those who are in favour of automobilism, that it is desirable, at all events, to carefully consider whether the drivers of motor cars ought not to have a licence, and whether they ought not to pass some examination before they are allowed to undertake a serious duty, which involves considerable danger if they are not sufficiently experienced. I believe that if my right hon. friend would take these suggestions seriously into his consideration, a great double purpose would be effected. In the first
    764
    place, he would give to the public greater safeguards against the difficulties and dangers with which they are constantly confronted at the present time, and which I do not think they ought to be subjected to, and at the same time remove undue hindrances and annoyances to a system of traffic which is daily becoming more and more used, with great service to the public, and which, I believe myself, will continue to develop and will render services of a different character, of which perhaps not many of us may be aware. I apologise to the Committee for dealing at such length with this question, but I make these suggestions to my right hon. friend with great respect, and I believe he would give the widest satisfaction if he were able to hold out any hope that he would be able at no distant date to deal with the question.
    MR. BAYLEYsaid he desired to elicit further information with regard to the action of one of the servants of the Local Government Board. It was reported in all the medical papers that Dr. Monckton Cope man had taken virus from a smallpox patient, vaccinated a monkey with, the smallpox, and afterwards successfully vaccinated a great number of children with the vaccine taken from the monkey. The President of the Local Government Board might laugh, but it was a disgrace to any Government to allow one of its servants to do such a thing, and the country would not stand it.
    THE PRESIDENT OF the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I assure the hon. Member I was not laughing at his statement.
    MR. BAYLEYsaid he wished to know if these children had been vaccinated with smallpox taken from a monkey. Was the permission of their parents asked before the experiment was tried on the children? He had no doubt that the lymph was issued with the Government guarantee that it was pure vaccine.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in some wild suggestions. This lymph, which he calls small pox, given through a monkey, had nothing

    765
    to do with Government lymph. I have already given the hon. Member a full answer to his Question. There were experiments conducted by the distinguished gentleman, who is an inspector of the Local Government Board, but not with the sanction of the Department, and they had nothing to do either with the Government or the Department.
    MR. BAYLEYsaid that Dr. Copeman was paid by the Government for these experiments
    MR. WALTER LONG: No; the hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that a great many scientific gentlemen are employed by the Government Departments. Some of them conduct, for the public benefit, experiments and scientific work on their own account, and carry on much research work with which the Government have nothing to do. Dr. Copeman carried out this particular experiment, in support of which he had high medical authority. He did it on his own account, and not in the remarkable manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The Government were not in any sense responsible for the lymph, but they did not condemn what Dr. Copeman did, as they believed it was work of the highest scientific value, but it was work not done by the Government, on behalf of the Government, or with the sanction of the Government.
    MR. BAYLEY: But the Government paid Dr. Copeman.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Dr. Copeman is paid a salary as an inspector, but that does not prevent him from engaging in research work.
    MR. BAYLEsaid that from the right hon. Gentleman's statement it would appear that the Government were not responsible for the servants they paid. He wished to know whose children were vaccinated with the lymph derived from the monkey, and in what part of England, Wales, or Scotland they lived.
    MR. MUNTZ: May I ask the hon. Member why a monkey is inferior to a calf?
    MR. BAYLEYasked whether the lymph was used for the compulsory vaccination of children.
    MR. WALTER LONG: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with the somewhat complicated problem which the hon. Gentleman has just presented to us. I have tried very hard, in following the questions which have been asked with reference to Dr. Copeman's experiment, to find out what part in the puzzle the monkey was supposed to play, but I have not yet succeeded in arriving at any satisfactory opinion on the subject. The hon. Gentleman says that the whole country is moved to its very heart by this question; but, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman and one or two other hon. Members, I have not hoard of anyone who is in the least excited as to whether, as my hon. friend suggested, a monkey or a calf is used for the purpose, not, as the hon. Gentleman said, of conveying small-pox but for the purpose of extracting lymph, which subsequently goes through various processes. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that the lymph extracted from the monkey was conveyed immediately to the human being. It was passed through a calf, so that the monkey was not brought into close contact with the children, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the calf was there before any vaccination took place. Dr. Copeman conducted some extremely valuable experiments entirely on his own account, and I think even the hon. Gentleman in his quieter moments will agree that it is desirable that scientific men employed by the Government should not be precluded from scientific research, which not only contributes to their own efficiency for their departmental work, but also renders enormous public service by the results they obtain. Dr. Copeman made certain experiments on his own account, and the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that he vaccinated himself first; and, having satisfied himself that the lymph was not likely to produce injurious results, he did vaccinate children of certain people. I cannot tell whose children

    767
    they were, but I presume the parents knew how the lymph was obtained, and that the monkey had played some part in the process.
    It may be convenient if I now refer briefly to the other subjects which have been raised. My noble friend the Member for Greenwich, supported by the hon. Member for the Eye Division, brought a very serious indictment against my Department. He suggested that we forced the Greenwich Guardians first of all to build a new workhouse, and then to retain that workhouse when it was no longer necessary. I cannot believe that my noble friend has examined this question himself, because if he had, I think he would have hesitated before bringing it forward. The facts are these. A long time ago the Local Government Board satisfied themselves that the existing workhouse was not sufficient for the number of paupers to be accommodated, and they called on the Guardians to erect a new workhouse. It is perfectly true that the Guardians spent nearly £200,000 on that workhouse. Conceivably it was too extravagant for the requirements, but the workhouse is there, and it is most desirable that the Guardians should remove the paupers from the old work house into the new workhouse. My noble friend says that the old workhouse is sufficient, but it is not a question of number alone. It is certified for 1,100, and he says that there are never more in it than 1,400 at the outside, and that the accommodation is decreasing owing to the extension of outdoor relief. I can assure him that if he examines the poor law administration in the adjoining Union of Woolwich he will find decreased pauperism both, indoor and outdoor, but the Guardians are making better provision for the paupers, and are now making still better provision for the children. That is not the policy of the Greenwich Board of Guardians, and I can assure my noble friend that I have not the remotest intention, as long as I am responsible for my Department, of allowing the Guardians to sell their new workhouse, at any rate until they can satisfy me that they are able to make the existing workhouse in all respects a satisfactory place for the reception of paupers. That, I believe, it will be impossible for them to do, and I
    768
    am sure that my noble friend will be the last to suggest that a Board of Guardians should be encouraged to make provision for the poor which is not in all respects satisfactory, without being foolish or extravagant. The Greenwich Board of Guardians have not taken what appears to me to be a wise view of their duty, and I am bound to continue the policy adopted by my predecessors. I am now awaiting the Report of a Committee appointed by the Guardians themselves, and if that report produces any new information which would justify me in believing that there is any ground for a change in my attitude, I will, of course, be quite ready to consider it. But unless I receive information very unlike that which I now possess, I shall feel it my duty to use all the influence I possess to induce the Greenwich Board of Guardians to make use of their new workhouse.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: The suggestion I made was that there should be some sort of a public inquiry into the matter.
    MR. WAITER LONG: This is not a case for a public inquiry. It is a case of the responsibility of the Minister. There is nothing to inquire into. It is a case in which I must take the responsibility myself, and, as the Minister responsible, do my best in the interests of the ratepayers and paupers of the Union, and I cannot consent to a public inquiry where no public inquiry is necessary. I cannot pass the speech of the hon. Member for the Eye Division without one word of comment. He condemned the policy of the Department in forcing unnecessary expenditure on the local authorities. I do not believe the central authority does anything of the kind. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that when the Local Government Board finds that the provision made by a Board of Guardians is unsatisfactory and insufficient, and when all suggestions for improvement are neglected, that we should hold our peace? The hon. Member for Leicester complained of the vaccination charges, and he asked me if I would issue a circular to magistrates.

    769
    With regard to the vaccination charges, I will only say that when the Act was passed the Government had, of course, no especial experience as to what the working of it would be, but I think it is quite possible that I may have to reconsider certain payments made in respect of vaccination, and I have the matter under consideration now. With regard to the issuing of a circular to magistrates, I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in stating that the Home Office issues circulars indicating to magistrates how they should administer the law. The Home Office issues circulars calling attention to changes in the law, and I cannot undertake such a novel and undesirable a course as to issue a circular to magistrates as to how they should administer the law.
    MR. BROADHURST: The Home Office issued circulars more than once with regard to the administration of the Summary Jurisdiction Act.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I will not argue the question, but I cannot undertake to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The magistrates are perfectly capable of interpreting an Act of Parliament, and to satisfy themselves whether those who apply for exemption have or have not a conscientious objection to vaccination. The hon. Member for West Bradford made some reference to the provision for children, and he condemned "the village community" system and expressed the hope that I would do all I could to secure the adoption of what is called the scattered homes or boarding out system. A great deal is to be said for scattered homes for children, but I think my hon. friend has lost sight of the very great difficulty of finding homes for the children. There are certain advantages, too, connected with the barrack school system because, if anyone will follow the lives of children who have left a barrack school, he will be surprised at the number who occupy leading positions in the Army and the Navy, as well as civil professions. We must make the best of the material at our disposal, and, while we will do
    770
    everything we can to secure improvements in the Poor Law system, especially as regards children, we cannot, of course, impose a new system until we are sure that the old system has broken down and must be replaced. We are not departing from the rules laid down by my right hon. friend who preceded me at the Local Government Board; we are following the policy he initiated, and my hon. friend may rest assured that nothing will be done to encourage large collections of children in new schools.
    My right hon. friend the Member for the Sleaford Division brought forward the motor car question. The powers of the Local Government Board in the matter are not quite as complete as he thinks they are. We have powers, no doubt, and very wide powers, with reference to the construction and use of the cars, but the suggestion that we should make a regulation which would secure the identification of motor cars by some system of registration at the Local Government Board is an impossible suggestion. I would ask hon. Members to contemplate what it would mean if the Local Government Board became the Department responsible for the holding of the register. It would be of no use to compel motor cars to be numbered unless there was some central place where the number could be traced and compared. In all probability the better plan would be to vest local authorities with the duty of issuing their own regulations, and taking their own measures for identification.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that motor cars go all over the country, from London to Northumberland?
    MR. WALTER LONG: That is perfectly true, but there is nothing to prevent a system of registration which will enable a car registered in London to be identified in Northumberland. I entirely agree that the present regulations are altogether inefficient. They place undue restrictions in the way of

    771
    those who desire to use their cars wisely and prudently, while, on the other hand, they do not restrain mischievous people from doing great harm. I should be very glad indeed to find a way out of the difficulty, but my right hon. friend knows as well as I do that there is great opposition to any proposals of the kind. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] My hon. friend says "No," but he will find there is very great opposition to any proposal to increase the pace of motor cars unless identification is made simpler. I have taken the trouble to see a great many persons interested in motor cars. What were the suggestions they made? One was that motor cars of a particular kind should be exempt from the regulations. Do hon. Members adopt the suggestion that, for instance, a motor car going a certain pace should be exempt? I am only indicating the difficulties which exist, but I am very glad indeed that the House of Commons appears to be unanimous in favour of an alteration in the law which would compel motor cars to carry some means of identification and to enable them to go any pace they like without danger to the public. That is the line which reform must take, but I am afraid it will not be quite so easy as my right hon. friend thinks. Legislation will be necessary in order to secure efficient means of identification, and also, as my right hon. friend pointed out, in order to deal with the regulation of speed. Unquestionably, the motor car industry is a great and agro wing industry, which will effect considerable changes in the locomotion of the country; and if hon. Members are prepared to support me in an alteration of the law such as I have indicated, nothing will give me greater pleasure than to do my best to make proposals of a satisfactory character. But I hope hon. Members will realise that I am not prepared to make exemptions in favour of any particular class of motor car. If new regulations are to be made, they must be generally applied to all ears. I believe myself such an alteration would be beneficial. I have been in consultation with the Automobile Club and other gentlemen interested in automobilism, and I hope I will be able to make proposals which will be satisfactory to them, and which will at the same
    772
    time provide greater safety for the public. I have thought it desirable to deal with these few points, and I hope the Committee will now let me have the Vote.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there would be another opportunity of having a short discussion on the Vote, as there were some important questions affecting his constituents which he desired to bring forward. The Vote had only been discussed for an hour and a half, whereas the Vote for the Board of Agriculture had been discussed for an afternoon.
    MR. WALTER LONG: If the Committee see fit to pass the Vote tonight, we will put down the Report stage as first Order tomorrow after two or three small Bills, which I believe are not of a controversial character. That will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity he desires.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUsaid that, as a member of the Automobile Club, he wished to state that they did not wish in any way to be a nuisance to the public. All they wished to show was that it was perfectly possible to use a higher rate of speed than at present allowed with perfect safety to the public. He was entirely with his right hon. friend, and would be prepared to bring in a Bill to support him on the lines he had just fore shadowed to the Committee.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow (afternoon sitting).
    Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.