Sitting of 24 May 1907

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Sutton Coldfield Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order); read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; read a second time, and committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Dublin, Portrush, and Fermoy, presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the rural districts of Rathdown (No. 1), Monaghan, Balrothery, and Belfast, presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill and Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Ordered, That, in the case of the Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill and of the Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, Standing Order 193A be suspended, and the Bills be read the first time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Dublin, Portrush, and Fermoy," road the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the rural districts of Rathdown (No. 1),
1230
Monaghan, Balrothery, and Belfast," read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Ferry Port-on-Craig; Latheron; and, Rathven; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition of the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Fearn; and, London; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Chale, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition from Colchester, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ULLAPOOL FREE CHURCH.
  Petition from Ullapool, for further inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST DAY BILL.
  Petition from London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented, of annual statement of the trade of the United Kingdom with foreign countries and British

  1231
  Possessions for 1906. Volume II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ENDOWED CHARITIES (ELEMENTARY EDUCATION) (CORNWALL).
  Copy presented, of Report made to the Board of Education in the result of an inquiry into endowments subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part to purposes of elementary education in the county of Cornwall or in any part thereof [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Return of advances made under The Irish Land Act, 1903, during the months of July and October, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered, 14th May; Mr. Sinclair]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 162.]
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  Copy presented, of Returns relating to the Council up to 31st March, 1907, with Estimate of Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 163.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3,800 to 3,803 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Taximeter Cabs.
  MR. GODDARD CLARKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the statutory rules and orders of 1907 (No. 199), made under The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, providing that no distance recorder or taximetre shall be affixed to any hackney carriage without the seal or mark approved by the Commissioner affixed thereto, and that if a recorder or taximetre not having such seal or mark intact be affixed to any hackney carriage the licence of that carriage shall be liable
  1232
  to revocation or suspension, and of the fact that the learned magistrate at Bow Street on the 14th instant declined to enforce the scales of fares made in accordance with the above rules as applied to motor hackney carriages, on the ground that the taximetre affixed to the carriage, the driver of which was being then prosecuted for charging an excessive fare, had no such seal or mark as the rule requires, he will say whether there are any other motor hackney carriages plying on the streets of London for hire having taximetres affixed thereto, and which are unprovided with said seal or mark; and, if so, will their licences be revoked or suspended until such time as the said rules are complied with.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) None of the taximeter motor cabs, about 140 in number, which are now plying in the streets of London, have yet had their taximeters sealed as prescribed in the new Public Carriage Order. The cause of the delay has been the necessity for careful inquiry and experiment in order to decide what tests taximeters should be subjected to before sealing. This question is now, I hope, on the point of being settled. In the meantime the cabs already equipped could only have been prevented from running at great loss to their owners and some inconvenience to the public, and, while steps are being taken to ensure full compliance with the order at an early date, the Commissioner of Police does not contemplate taking such action as is suggested in the Question.

  Cocoa Duties.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by a large chocolate manufacturer that the absence of a cocoa drawback on exported chocolates considerably impedes the expansion of the export trade in these goods; and whether he will take steps in Committee on the Finance Bill to make such alterations in the Revenue Laws as will remove this hardship from the chocolate industry.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Yes, Sir. But, as I explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for North West Lanarkshire on the 29th ultimo, there are other anomalies in connection with the present scale of cocoa duties which make

  1233
  it undesirable to deal with the question of drawback except as part of a general scheme of revision, which I am not prepared to propose in connection with the Finance Bill of this year.

  Hartley Wintney School.
  SIR A. SPICER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, notwithstanding the repeated outbreaks of infectious disease at the Hartley Wintney districts schools, the adverse Report of His Majesty's inspector in 1905 regarding the children's education and attainments, the desire of a number of the guardians of the unions forming the school district to adopt other ways of dealing with the children, and the pledge given by the Department after the issue of the Report of the Department Committee of 1896 that barrack schools should not be enlarged, official encouragement is being given to the spending of a large sum of money on enlarging the present school buildings.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The accommodation at the school is not sufficient to provide for the children of the unions comprised in it. The Local Government Board's inspector for the district discussed the matter with the managers in February last. He pointed out various ways in which the difficulty might be met, and expressed his personal

  Imports into the United Kingdom consigned from Germany.

  Exports of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom to Germany.

  1904.

  1905.

  1904.

  1905.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Food, drink, and tobacco

  11,030,000

  11,230,000

  2,080,000

  2,946,000

  Raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured

  3,547,000

  3,896,000

  3,893,000

  4,458,000

  Articles wholly or mainly manufactured

  34,318,000

  38,057,000

  18,585,000

  21,635,000

  Miscellaneous and unclassified (including parcel post)

  617,000

  656,000

  543,000

  663,000

  Total

  49,512,000

  53,839,000

  25,101,000

  29,702,000

  opinion that an enlargement of the school would probably be found the best and, in the long run, the most economical course. Even if the accommodation was extended as suggested the institution would not be a large one, and would not appear to come within the category of a barrack school to which exception has been taken. The school is in an open and healthy situation, and His Majesty's inspector of schools has reported last year that the instruction had improved since his last visit and that it promised well.

  Imports from Germany.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what was the value of the consignments from Germany to the United Kingdom of food, drink and tobacco, raw materials, and manufactures, respectively, in 1904 and 1905.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the value of the exports to Germany from the United Kingdom of food, drink and tobacco, raw materials, and manufactures, respectively, in 1904 and 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following statement gives the information desired so far as shown in the United Kingdom Trade Accounts:—

  Revenue Penalties of over £50.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions that full particulars be given to the Annual Reports of the two Revenue Boards of any penalties of £50 and upwards inflicted on the sureties for Revenue bonded premises as a result of irregularities.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) There is no record for many years past of the infliction of any such penalty by either of the Revenue Boards; but, in any case, I do not think it would be advisable to publish details of cases of this nature in the Annual Reports unless there should happen to be in any case some feature of public importance.

  War Office Pensions—Case of Hugh Craig.
  MR. W. BENN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of Hugh Craig that he is not in a fit condition to undergo an anæsthetic, as required by the War Office before granting a continuation of his pension; will he say whether the pension will be granted if Craig produces a medical certificate to this effect; and what provision would be made for those dependent on him should he succumb under the operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) An anæsthetic would not be administered unless it was considered safe by the medical authorities. The latter will be glad to receive any evidence that Craig is unfit to receive a general anæsthetic, but the ultimate decision as to whether he is or is not fit must rest with them. In the event of death under an anæsthetic I regret to say that the man's dependents would have no claim to compensation.

  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN BILL [LORDS.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present session to encourage the formation of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—(i.) the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the salaries of the chairman, and of each of the other members of the Land Court; (ii.) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—(a) the salaries and remuneration of the Agricultural Commissioners and other persons appointed or employed by them, and by the Land Court, and the expenses incurred by the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners in the execution of their duties; (b) an annual sum not exceeding eighty-five thousand pounds for the use of the Agricultural Commissioners; (c) compensation in certain cases to members and officers of the Crofters' Commission."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  *MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that the general expenditure under this Bill ought to be reviewed as a whole. The Land Court, the Agricultural Commission, and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland were practically part of one organisation, and therefore it was necessary to take the whole subject of expenditure under review. After all, the Agricultural Commissioner was to act as the State Ground Officer in the scheme of expenditure on small holdings; he took the work in its first stage, and the Land Court would take it in its second stage, and then would come in the new Board of Agriculture. All these were, as he had said, very closely connected, and one organisation; and he could not see how they could deal with the question of finance without reviewing all the authorities set up by the Bill—the Land Court, the Agricultural Commission, and the Board of Agriculture. The work which those bodies were to

  1237
  undertake was to regulate the tenure of land in Scotland. Money would be required for all their operations. There would be the work of carving out the farms into small holdings, and the creation and equipment of small holdings. The Land Court would also have to deal with the whole question of intensive cultivation, in regard to which no provision was made for enlisting the assistance of the local authorities, and therefore that would have to be paid work. Then there was the question of making provision for sylviculture out of the grants; of promoting the efficiency of small cultivation and of agriculture generally. The cost involved was like the methods of the Bill—somewhat hazy, and he thought that the different items of expenditure ought to be more completely defined at the present stage. If not now, he did not know when. The system of finance was defended as being the cheapest way of dealing with the question. But they should look at the facts before they could say that it would be the cheapest. Clause 3 of the Bill which set up the Land Court was not in the Bill of last year, and they ought to be told why that clause had been found to be necessary. There was an item of £6,000 for salaries of the members of the Land Court; but they ought to know why that new provision had been found necessary. A Land Court had not been found necessary under the Crofters Act, and he did not know why it was necessary here. The Land Court would not be recognised as a judicial authority, because the State being the managing director in the co-partnership, the Land Court would be regarded more in the light of an agency than of a judicial body. The expense of the Crofters Commission had been very considerable, and the work of the Land Court would be very much greater than that of the Crofters Commission. Under the Bill leaseholders were added, and the Crofters Acts were extended to all holdings below £50 rent or under 50 acres—which might mean holdings up to £500 rent, and on pastoral farms in the West Highlands up to 1,000 acres. The expenditure, therefore, might be very much greater than the £6,000 here provided. The Court would have to superintend and authorise the gifts and the loans that were to be made for equipment. It would have to
  1238
  conduct valuations for the incoming and outgoing tenants, which would be very numerous among a mobile population. They were no longer dealing with a residential but with an industrial population, and the whole of the valuations would be much more complicated. They would have to value individual holdings instead of townships, and the litigation that would ensue would be enormous. Valuations would have to be made of the existing equipments. Calculations would have to be made as to whether the loss would not be too great to incur. The new equipment would have to be set up by aid of the State, and that equipment would have to be supervised, or there would be an immense waste of public money. In fact, when, in an industrial district, a man went out of his holding, there would be the most intricate basis of valuation that could possibly be imagined, especially when free sale was excluded. The Lord Advocate had admitted that in some parts of Scotland litigation was carried on with the greatest vehemence. He had heard of two litigants who were disputing as to whether a march fence should have two or six wires on it. The case was carried from the Sheriff Court to the Outer House of the Court of Session, thence to the Inner House, and eventually to the House of Lords. As a matter of fact the litigants were the proprietors of only 130 acres each. He thought it would be wholly unwise to assume that the litigation would be comparable with that under the Crofters Acts. It was assumed that a great number of tenants would be able to agree with the landowner and would not come before the Land Court at all. But the rating immunity under the Bill would force the small holders before the Land Court. That was the only way to get relief for the rating of their fixtures. That rating was a very serious item. The reduction of 3d. of the income-tax was a flea bite compared with the 5s. involved in local rates. If a man could build a house in Lewis or Sutherland-shire for £400 or £500 and escape rating on it, the inducement to escape from the incidence of that rating would be sufficiently great to force every tenant to go before the Court. Perhaps that point could be cleared up under the valuation proposals of the Government. The work also of initiating small holdings must necessarily come before

  1239
  the Court. It would be for the Court to take the initiative. The local authorities would not do it; and the owners could not do it. It was said that ownership was not touched by the Bill; but His contention was that the Bill destroyed ownership. The Court must, therefore, find their way out, or they would be making ropes out of sand. He did not think that the cost of the Court would be less than three times the salaries; or, say £20,000 a year. Regarding the Agricultural Commissioner, he had to direct the whole land policy of the Government; to conduct inquiries throughout Scotland as to the requirements of the districts for small holdings, and as to the land available; to present his reports to the Land Court; to make plans and new steadings; to devise methods of utilising the old equipment; and to supervise the expenditure. If the small holdings were to be a success they would have to take part in the establishment of land banks and co-operative enterprise, otherwise the small farmer would not be able to compete with the large, nor with the Danish co-operator, in which case he would be an economic failure. He would have no financial difficulty in regard to the extension of intensive cultivation, but he would have the entire arrangements to make for it. He would have the supervision of the expenditure of £65,000 a year, and that meant something like £3,000 a year, taking the average cost of management at 4½ per cent. The Agricultural Commissioner himself could not possibly superintend the management of all the scattered holdings and the scattered investments throughout the country. He would have to have deputies in the different localities; and while there would be a large central office in Edinburgh, there would have to be local offices for the State factors. Private factoring in Scotland cost about £250,000 a year, and the whole of that factoring would conflict with that of the State. He could not think, therefore, that the cost of this Department would be less than £20,000 a year. His next point was the cost of the new Board of Agriculture. The cost of the Irish Board was £190,000, and he thought they ought to be told what the cost of the Scottish Board was to be. The Secretary for Scotland said they ought to have £200,000 a year.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): No; what I said was that if we spent money upon agriculture in Scotland at the rate they did in other countries we should have to spend £200,000 a year.
  *MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that appeared to be the sum which would be needed if the expenditure was of a satisfactory character. But they ought to be told what they were going to spend. It could not be limited by the salaries of the proposed Commission in Edinburgh, as the existing powers of the Board of Agriculture would have to be transferred to the new body, which would want a staff, laboratories, and the services of experts, so that the experiments might be conducted which were much wanted for small farms and the general working of agriculture. Then the new Board would be entrusted with sylviculture, and many hon. Members had expressed themselves in favour of afforestation being dealt with. He wished to know, however, whether the words which had been uttered upon that subject were mere words or would result in the creation of timber; whether they were simply words in the air, or population on the soil. It was possible to spend £250,000 a year upon afforestation, and unless £25,000 were expended they should achieve no results at all. Then there was the question of the cost of housing all these bodies and of the provision of the laboratories, which with the expenditure upon the central local office, must be very large. He thought it would absorb about £100,000 a year to give the Bill a start. If the objects of the Bill were not developed by the money they voted and that £100,000 was wanting, it would mean the ruin of the Bill. In addition £65,000 for the equipment of small farms was sufficient for the experimental work in regard to them, but would be wholly inadequate to meet the demands of the system established by the Bill. The land system in Scotland, whether it was satisfactory or not, was very highly equipped, and the capital now invested would be diverted, probably to the extent of £1,000,000 a year, by the passing of this Bill. On the average in 1875 it had taken about 20 per cent. to equip land on a rental of £8,000,000 as it then was. Now the

  1241
  rental was far nearer £5,500,000, the equipment more costly, and the occupiers could not meet the deficiency with regard to equipment. They had to take into account the fact that the State might be called upon to make up a large part of that deficiency, or else the agricultural equipment of the country must deteriorate. Then there were one or two contingent liabilities which they would incur by the Bill. There was the security for the owners' rent under the Bill, because he had security for seven years or for the end of a lease. An assurance was given to the owner that there should be no loss under the working of the Bill, and he did not know whether that meant that his rent would not be reduced for a still longer period, but at any rate it would involve liability upon the State of the owners' loss which was to be made good, and he did not think it was provided for.
  MR. SINCLAIR,on a point of order, said his hon. friend had arrived now at a question which would have to be discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill, and which had only a remote connection with the finance of the measure. He would, therefore, ask the guidance of the Chairman on the matter. The discussion on the point must be renewed, and if it were continued they would be committing the Committee to a Second Reading discussion of the Bill. He was anxious not to do that and thus involve the House in the inconvenience of a duplicate debate.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member very carefully. His argument was that the provisions of the Bill being so and so, the expenditure under the Bill would be likely to be such and such a sum. That argument was in order, but he did not know whether that particular point he was on at the moment was. He did not think it was in order; the hon. Member seemed to be addressing himself to a Committee point.
  *MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid be did not know whether he was in order or not, but surely what he was entitled to point out was that, besides the Resolution they had under discussion, the clauses made it clear that there were certain liabilities which were a necessary
  1242
  consequence of the Bill and which they had to bear in mind in grasping the whole scope of the financial proposals.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid if that was the case and the liabilities in question were not included in the financial Resolution, he thought they ought to be dealt with in Committee rather than on that occasion.
  *MR. HAROLD COXasked what provision would be made for dealing with these contingent liabilities.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that was not a question for him. He had only to deal with this Resolution.
  *MR. HAROLD COXwas afraid he had not made himself clear; would these contingent liabilities have to come before the House in Committee of Ways and Means, because if there was in the Bill a contingent liability on the State, that should be dealt with in Committee of Ways and Means.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that was a point to be thrashed out in Committee. If there was a further liability upon public funds that would have to be thrashed out in Committee and possibly dealt with in another Money Resolution.
  *MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he quite understood the ruling of the Chairman and would therefore restrict his remarks to the three points as to the finance of the Land Court, of the Agricultural Commission on Small Holdings, and of the Board of Agriculture. Those were the three points which arose under the clauses, and unless the Treasury grasped them they would get into a financial morass. But he thought in connection with the three points of which he had spoken he had made out strong grounds for asking for some explanation.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid it would be convenient to the Committee to know exactly what they were voting upon, and he protested against voting on this financial Resolution in the dark. They were dealing with two separate matters. A Land Court was to be established for the first time, with a chairman with a salary of £2,000 a year, and with four other members, each

  1243
  of whom was to receive £1,000 a year, making £6,000 a year in all. They were then asked to vote absolutely in the dark some further expenditure for all the other officials connected with the Court and the expenses which they incurred in the execution of their duty. What he would like to ask was what officials it was intended to create and their number, and what was the total estimated expenditure upon them and upon the Land Court under the Bill. They had not been told that; they were simply writing a blank cheque for the use of the Secretary for Scotland for such expenses as he chose to incur with regard to the Land Court. There was a second point. It seemed perfectly clear that there was to be a totally different body created under the Bill—a Land Commission consisting of three commissioners, one of whom was to be the chairman. In the case of the Land Court they were told the salaries of the chairman and of the four assistant commissioners, but they were not given the same information about the Land Commission. He objected to vote in the dark as to what salaries the commissioners were to receive. What was to be the salary of the chairman?
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid there was no chairman with a salary mentioned in the Bill.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that from the language of the second clause an Englishman might well fall into the error of thinking that there was to be a salaried chairman. It was to the effect that it should be lawful to appoint not more than three persons to be designated Agricultural Commissioners for Scotland, one of whom should be chairman. How could the right hon. Gentleman expect he should know that the latter was not to be paid?
  *THE CHAIRMAN,interposing, said that that was surely a point for the Committee stage of the Bill.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he agreed it was a Committee point, but the right hon. Gentleman interrupted.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid there was no increased salary due to the appointment of the chairman.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he found in the Bill that the Agricultural Commissioners, and such other Commissioners as might be appointed should receive respectively such salary and remuneration as the Treasury might sanction, and that those salaries should be paid out of monies voted by Parliament. He submitted that that question was directly before the Committee. It was provided that there should be three Commissioners, one of whom should be chairman, and then the next section went on to say that the Commissioners should receive remuneration, but the right hon. Gentleman told him across the floor of the House that the chairman was not to receive remuneration. That was the matter which they were there to discuss, viz., the salaries and remuneration of the Commissioners and other persons employed. If it was correct that the chairman of the Commissioners was to be an unpaid official surely they should know that before they voted on the matter. According to the Bill it appeared to him that there were to be three people who were to be paid salaries. He wished to know what was the estimate of the Government as to cost with regard to not only the Land Court but also the Agricultural Commissioners. Was it an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds or was it not? He was not dealing with the merits of the Bill, but as an English Member he protested against the vague way in which the Financial Resolution was put before the Committee. He had just elicited that some of these people were to be paid and some unpaid officials, and they ought to have complete information in regard to all the cases. Before discussing the matter he wished to know what amount the Government thought was likely to be required on the Vote the Committee was asked to pass.
  *MR. HAROLD COXsaid he had no desire to express an opinion on the clauses of the Bill. He simply rose as an English Member to protest against the expenditure, because he thought it was time someone should protest against the way in which the Liberal Party, although pledged to economy, were continually adding to national expenditure. By Clause 3 of the Bill the country was being pledged to an unlimited expenditure. He was in favour, like the rest of the Liberal Party, of a

  1245
  large extension of small holdings, but he was not in favour of taking the taxpayers' money for the purpose of subsidising any particular form of industry. In his own constituency there were many small tradesmen who would like to set up in business, but would they be justified in coming to the House and asking for money to set them up? If once the Government admitted the principle that they might subsidise a particular form of industry, where were they to stop? Were mill owners to be entitled to come and ask for the capital to put machinery into their mills, or mine-owners for money to sink shafts? If once they acceded to the demand to equip small holdings at the taxpayers' expense, they would be met with demands to equip other industries in the same manner, and he did not see where it was to cease. They had no guarantee, moreover, that the small holdings would be occupied by labourers at all. He was informed that the reason that the price of small holdings in Scotland was so high was that instead of their being occupied by labourers, they were taken by the tradesmen of the neighbouring towns who used them as pleasure farms. He contended that the Government had no right to spend the taxpayers' money in subsidising industry; the House was pledged to economy, and hon. Members ought carefully to scrutinise the expenditure of every penny of public money.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the hon. Member for Preston had raised a very natural protest, but the hon. Member for Leith Burghs had entered much more fully into the administrative difficulties which might be involved, and shown how very blindly they were being asked to vote money so far as the extent of the different items was concerned. The first of the items was the money proposed to be expended on the Land Court, and the hon. Member had very successfully shown that the Land Court would cost £30,000 a year. He himself did not think it could cost less. The next item was that for the Land Commissioners, who would, he presumed, not cost less than £3,000 or £4,000 a year. Both the Land Court and the Land Commissioners were to have large staffs, and if the staffs were to bear the ordinary relation to the chiefs—if there was to be
  1246
  an army which was not composed entirely of officers—the salaries of that staff must bear a much larger proportion to the total than that which was spent on the Land Court and the Land Commissioners. It was impossible to say what the total expenditure, which they were asked to sanction so blindly, would be if they had no estimate. But it could not be less than £30,000 a year. What, was the amount of money which that £30,000 a year paid to officials was to administer? It was £65,000, or at the most £80,000, if to that £65,000 was added the £15 000 which had already been added to the congested districts fund. He, however, understood that it was £65,000, and the cost of the administration was to be nearly 50 per cent. of the amount administered. Was that the proper relation that ought to exist between the cost of administration and the sum to be administered? Only the other day when they were discussing the affairs of Ireland they found one item which was thought to be over large, and many Members discussing it thought that 35 per cent. was an unheard of cost for administration. In this case, however, it was nearly 50 per cent. There was no limit to the amount which might have to be spent under the first part of the Resolution, but the limit for recasting the small holdings in Scotland could not be less than £65,000, and at that rate the recasting of the Scottish system of holding land would be very slow. By its very nature the amount of money that would have to be administered by these officials could not be limited. There were certain obligations absolutely beyond the control of the Government which might arise and have to be dealt with. They were told on the occasion of the Second Reading that if there was a loss on these farms it was only fair that it should be borne by the State. How could the State limit such a liability as that? How could they say that such a liability would be con lined to £65,000 a year? The Secretary for Scotland shook his head, but he had not vouchsafed to the Committee any information. These points showed that the Committee was justified in insisting upon a full explanation of the financial clauses of the Bill, and in asking for an explanation of the reasons that had led the Government to impose on the country such an enormous burden

  1247
  of officialism, adding to the ranks already too costly another rank which would bear to the amount administered the marvellous proportion of 50 per cent. They were entitled to ask the Government who had proposed that an unlimited liability should rest upon the country whether they were prepared to say that the total sum which they intended to put at the disposal of the Commissioners could in the nature of things ever be confined to £65,000 a year. If they had some explanation perhaps the Committee would find itself in a better position to carry on the discussion.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Cambridge had raised a very important point, namely, that the Committee was asked to vote money for the payment of officials without having been given any information as to what that amount was going to be, and he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not given greater consideration to his remarks. The whole consensus of opinion three years ago of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the Treasury Bench was against anything of the sort here proposed being done. In June, 1904, when the Financial Resolution of the Aliens Bill was being discussed, the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington opened the debate by saying that it would be only reasonable that Resolutions of the kind should appear upon the Paper so that the Committee knew their precise provisions before they were asked to debate them. Why had not that been done in this case? Then came the hon. Member for Halifax, who said that a good deal depended on the quantity of administering they were to do, that being limited by the number to be employed. Then came the President of the Board of Education, who thought the Committee ought to know how many officials the Home Secretary was going to appoint and what sort of men they were to be. Nothing of the sort had been done with regard to this Bill. Then the Postmaster-General made two extraordinary admissions. The right hon. Gentleman first stated that he had voted for the Second Reading, but that he would not have done so had he thought it was to be sent to a Grand Committee.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid it was quite out of order for the hon. Gentleman to deal in that way with a Bill which was not before the House.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty also objected to the clause giving power to provide officers and to provide for the salaries of persons to be employed. He thought he had shown that on a precisely similar Resolution hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had not taken the very steps which they had advocated three years ago. He hoped, therefore, they would give some explanation why they had suddenly changed their opinions. With regard to the first Resolution, which said there should be paid £2,000 a year to the President of the Land Court and £1,000 a year to each of the other members, which money was to come out of the Consolidated Fund, he believed he was right in saying the effect of that would be that the acts of those five gentlemen could not be reviewed by the House of Commons, inasmuch as, since the money was to be taken out of the Consolidated Fund, there would be no opportunity of reviewing their acts upon the Estimates. On the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland there might be an opportunity, but that Vote might not come before the House except under the closure. He therefore objected most strongly to voting money out of the Consolidated Fund in the manner proposed. It was proposed to spend £6,000 a year on the salaries of five gentlemen, who were to administer a system which bad been most unsuccessful wherever it had previously been set up—to administer a Land Court for which there was no precedent in either England or Scotland, and over which Parliament might not have any control. The Secretary for Scotland ought to be able to give some idea to the Committee of what sum of money he was going to demand from the Treasury, what number of officials he was going to appoint, and what their duties were to be. The Committee wore asked by this Resolution to provide a sum of about £100,000, so far as he could understand; £85,000 was to be money taken from the taxpayers. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs bad shown—and the opinion of the hon. Member ought to weigh very greatly with the Committee—that £100,000 a

  1249
  year would be necessary for the officers of both bodies.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that was assuming that sylviculture was adopted.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that was what he understood was going to be done. The money would be devoted to the Land Court and the Land Commissioners, and they would do certain work which the Agricultural Commissioners had undertaken in connection with the Board of Agriculture, which was to be separated from the Board of Agriculture in England, and was to become a separate Board. If all those things were to be done the expenditure would be £100,000 a year, because anything loss would be false economy, and no economy could be so false as that which set up a Department in such a manner that it had not the funds to work properly. The hon. Member had said £100,000 would be required for that, and that only showed the danger of setting up Boards to do work which ought to be done by the landowners themselves. The hon. Member for Preston had pointed that out, and had made a very strong point when he asked whether the Government intended to set up manufacturers and others in business. How did the right hon. Gentleman know that the money was not going to be wasted; what would happen to the money; and what foundation or grounds had he for thinking that it would serve any useful purpose at all?
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that was a matter of principle which the House had dealt with on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was not in order to discuss it on this Resolution.
  SIR F. BANBURYasked whether, when they were going to vote away the money of the taxpayers, they might not deal with the question of what was going to happen to the money.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was arguing that the Bill would not have a good effect, and that argument was out of order, because the House had passed the Second Reading of the Bill.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that all he wished to know was whether
  1250
  the money was going to be wasted, or whether they were not going to enter into a large system of land speculation which might lead to no good result.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that that was the exact point which he understood the hon. Baronet was trying to make, and that point was out of order.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, but, nevertheless, it seemed to him that though the representatives of the taxpayers were asked to vote the money, they were not allowed to argue that it might be wasted. A full discussion should be allowed upon all the expenditure under the Resolution, and that was the only opportunity they would have to discuss it. What was to happen when a loss occurred in connection with these holdings? They were going to vote the sum of £65,000 a year, and that sum was to be devoted to certain objects. Would the amount be sufficient for those objects? The Prime Minister had said that any loss arising out of the Act ought fairly to fall on the State, and all they wanted to know was how it was possible to provide for a loss out of the sum of £65,000. The money was nothing like sufficient if the objects of the Bill were to be carried out in the manner which the right hon. Gentleman desired. If the whole of the £65,000 were directed to those objects it would only enable them to provide something like 130 small holdings annually, and that left wholly out of consideration the enormous expenditure which must arise when these different bodies were set up under the Bill. Under those circumstances, and in view of the fact that they had no opportunity of knowing what money was really going to be spent on the salaries of officials, he felt it his duty to oppose the Resolution.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being present—
  *MR. MORTONsaid a great deal had been attempted to be made of the loss which might occur under the Bill, but he did not believe that there would be any loss at all. As far as their experience went of small holdings and allotments there had been no loss. He quite agreed with hon.

  1251
  Gentlemen opposite that they had a right to ask for particulars with regard to expenditure under the Bill, and if the Secretary for Scotland could give them a rough estimate, they might get on much faster. It was absurd to think that they would be able to carry out the purposes of the Bill without any expenditure at all. They could not expect to have Commissioners and the other machinery of the measure without incurring some cost. His hon. friend the Member for Preston seemed to think that they ought to carry on the proposed Department without coming on the taxpayer at all. If they could do that with all the Departments the Government would get rid of the salaries of officials and probably those of Ministers. He did not object, but it had not been their experience hitherto that they could carry on a Department without expense. As he understood, the expenditure, save such as would fall upon the Consolidated Fund, namely, the salaries of the Land Court Commissioners, would come before Parliament year by year. That was his reading of the Resolution, but perhaps the Secretary for Scotland would presently explain the matter to them. His own impression was that they were taking now another Second Reading debate, so far as they could within the ruling of the Chair. They had already had three days discussion in the Grand Committee and after this financial Resolution was passed, they would be in a position, in the Grand Committee, to discuss financial matters thoroughly; he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would now allow the Resolution to pass. Something had been said about the English taxpayer. The opinion of Scotland was that she already contributed too large a share of the general revenue of the country, and that being so the cost of the Bill would fall upon the Scottish and not upon the English taxpayers. Nobody had a right to say that it was the English taxpayer who would have to find the money.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that what the hon. Gentleman said might be correct, but it did not make it any better for the English taxpayer that he would have to pay something more as his share of the expenditure under the Bill.
  *MR. MORTONsaid his point was that there was not going to be a special charge
  1252
  upon the English taxpayer in respect of the Bill, and that, as the Scottish taxpayer already paid more than his fair share of the Imperial Revenue, it was upon him the charge would fall. They had no business, therefore, to bring up the complaint that it was the English taxpayers who were going to be called upon to pay for the carrying out of the Bill when it became an Act. The measure would effect a saving of official expenses by altering the existing system, and getting rid of two Boards, viz., the Crofters Commission and the Congested Districts Board. Everybody was aware, who knew anything of the House, that he was as much in favour of economy as anyone, and more so than hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite ["No"], and all he could say was that they would have full opportunity of discussing these matters in the Grand Committee, and that, therefore, in order to get that opportunity, they should now pass the Resolution, without further delay, of which they had already had too much.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid the hon. gentleman who had just sat down had endeavoured to show that England would not suffer, but that Scotland would incur a heavy burden, because she already paid too large a share of the Imperial Revenue.
  *MR. MORTON: I never said anything about a heavy burden. I said that whatever expense the country may be put to would be paid by the Scottish taxpayer.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid he would point out to the hon. Member that this expenditure was to come upon the Consolidated Fund to which England contributed equally with Scotland. The hon. Member showed that Scotland already paid a larger share of the National burden than she ought to do, and, therefore he ventured to submit that whatever was added to Scotland's expenditure was a further injustice to that country, which was supported by the hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency.
  *MR. MORTON: No, no. I do not admit that.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid he understood that it was the rule of the House that these money Resolutions were not made

  1253
  public, but it was a matter of very great inconvenience to hon. Members that they had not an opportunity of considering important money Resolutions such as the present some days before the debate took place. The absence of that opportunity robbed the discussion of some of its interest; but perhaps when the Resolution came up on Report they would be in possession of further particulars which would enable them to go into greater detail than they could possibly do at present. As a Scottish representative, he had no objection in principle to English money being spent in Scotland, but as an economist he ventured to suggest that the money should be spent with some due regard to economy and efficiency, and that at least some statement should be made by responsible Ministers as to how that money was to be spent. He had glanced at the money resolution and he had looked at the Bill very carefully, and he saw a wide field of expenditure open to them, and, in the absence of any specific information from the right hon. Gentleman, they were unable to form anything like an accurate estimate of what was to be the total expenditure, or how it was to be met. One of the items of the Resolution was that they were to provide the salaries and expenses of the five members of the Land Court, one of whom would have to be an advocate of ten years standing. They were not told how those salaries were to be allocated. Might he ask the right hon. Gentleman why he did not in his Bill state the names of the gentlemen whom it was proposed to appoint members of the Land Court?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: pointed out that discussion of these details did not arise on the Resolution.
  *MR. COCHRANE: pointed out that on a similar occasion, with regard to the Land Act of 1881, the House insisted on the names of the Land Commissioners being inserted in the Bill, and that was done before the money Resolution was passed.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid they had nothing to do with altering the wording of the Bill, and the hon. Member's point had reference to an alteration of the wording of the Bill. The passing of this
  1254
  financial Resolution was not dependent upon that.
  *MR. COCHRANEthought it was a matter of considerable importance to the Committee that they should know the class of men upon whom the money was to be expended. If, however, the Chairman insisted on his ruling he did not propose to proceed further with the point. Perhaps, however, he would be allowed to ask about the allocation of the salaries. He understood that one of these gentlemen was to be chairman, and it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman informed them whether ho intended to nominate the legal member as chairman. He thought they were entitled to ask what would be the duties of the Land Court. He understood that they would be partly judicial and partly administrative. The Court would have extremely wide powers and functions, and except upon questions of law might state a case to the Court of Session. A Land Court constituted with such wide powers was a very dangerous experiment and might result in grave denials of justice. Let them take, for example, the precedent of the Railway Commissioners. From 1873 to 1888 that body had similar powers, but the cases were so stated that the superior Court could not deal with the merits of the case at issue, and in the year 1888 a free appeal upon all questions of law was substituted. The right hon. Gentleman was proposing to saddle Scotland with a system which had proved to be unworkable and effete. He wished to know why the Land Court should be set up at all. Why was it that the existing sheriffs could not do all the work expected from the new Land Court? The position of a sheriff in Scotland was both judicial and administrative—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That is purely a Committee point. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to argue that the Land Court ought not to be paid, but he is not entitled to argue that the sheriffs should be the Land Court.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid he would content himself with saying that many of the duties of the new Land Court could better be carried out under the existing

  1255
  system of Sheriff Courts in Scotland. These Courts did work similar in character to that which was being imposed upon the Land Court in regard to such questions as the extension of boundaries and the compulsory taking of land for a water supply.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must endeavour to carry out my ruling.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid that that was almost the only opportunity they would have of discussing the question of the finance of the Bill. When the measure got before the Grand Committee the discussion would be limited to the particular clauses under consideration. He would like to ask a question in regard to the composition of the Land Court. The right hon. Gentleman proposed in the Bill that the tenure of office should not be limited. In the case of the Land Commission appointed in 1881 in Ireland, the tenure of office of the chairman only was limited by the ordinary rules for appointment of Judges, but the tenure of the ordinary Commissioners was limited to seven years. For what reason were they giving a longer tenure to the members of the Land Court here proposed? Under the Bill they were handing over the control of 70 per cont. of the holdings of Scotland to be dealt with by the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners. That was to say, that 62,000 out of 89,000 holdings in Scotland, would be so dealt with, and if the cost of the whole estate management as stated by the Member for Leith came to £250,000 a year it was obvious that 70 per cent. would come to about £175,000 a year, and, the holdings being scattered throughout the whole of Scotland, the travelling expenses and salaries of sub-commissioner, valuators, and surveyors would be a serious item, adding considerably to the cost. They had had some experience of the kind in the case of Ireland. He would like the Secretary for Scotland to inform the Committee what particular items in the actual costs incurred in Ireland would not be incurred in Scotland. The officials employed in Ireland cost £101,000 a year for the Land Court alone, and he would like the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an estimate of the cost of the Land
  1256
  Court and the Agricultural Commissioners in Scotland. With regard to the setting up of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, it seemed to him to be a very unwise step and one which he hoped the House would not consider favourably. They had in Scotland every confidence in the existing Board of Agriculture with its efficient and experienced staff of officers, and, in the case of any large outbreak of disease, they had already at their disposal the whole of the staff and equipment of a big office which was quite capable of dealing with cases as they arose. Unless they maintained in Scotland a similiar body they would be placed at a considerable disadvantage and would in fact be in a worse condition than at present. In the present Board of Agriculture they had an office which was solely devoted to agriculture.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now arguing the merits of the Bill, and that has nothing whatever to do with the financial Resolution which is before the Committee.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid that the Secretary for Scotland, in a speech delivered quite recently at Edinburgh, had given a sketch of what would be the cost of the new Board of Agriculture, and in the course of his remarks said they were going to establish a Department which in no respect would be inferior to any other Department of the Government. The Agricultural Commissioners in Ireland cost £95,000 a year; was the expenditure contemplated in the case of this Board likely to amount to anything like that sum? It had been stated that the duties of the Agricultural Commissioners would be the laying out of small holdings and the preparing of plans. That would of course require surveyors. In the Works Department the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed that the employment of valuators and architects would be necessary, and in the case of the fisheries inspectors would have to be appointed, while from the educational side he mentioned the necessity of employing lecturers, teachers, and other inspectors. He also spoke of the development of forestry, sylviculture, and intensive cultivation. All that would probably cost at least £100,000 a year. The Secretary for Scotland had told them in the same speech that that was the

  1257
  deliberate and settled plan of the Government and it had to be placed before the country as a whole. He wished a clear estimate of the whole cost to be put before the Committee. They ought to know the number of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners, and what salaries they wore going to be paid. They should also be told how many teachers and instructors it was proposed to appoint, what salaries they wore going to be paid, and what amount was to be allowed for travelling expenses. All that information should be put before the Committee when the financial Resolution was under consideration. The opportunity they had had of considering the Resolution had afforded them a very short time, but they would, perhaps, be able to deal more fully with the question on the Report stage. He noticed that the last paragraph proposed compensation in certain cases to members of the Crofters Commission. He thought that was a point which required some explanation, because the Chairman of the Commission was a Sheriff in Scotland, and drew a salary and a pension already from that office. Was it now proposed to pension an official who was already receiving a pension? He thought that was a very unwise thing for an economical Government which objected to pensions on principle to do. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman said, the ultimate result of the proposals would be the placing of a very heavy burden on the finances of the country, with very little advantage to any part of the kingdom.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I shall be very glad to give all the information I can on the subject of the Resolution. We have simply followed precedent in putting the Resolution before the House in this manner. I pass, therefore, from the criticisms on that point. This is an enabling Resolution in order to enable the Committee upstairs to criticise and discuss the money provisions of the Bill. I shall not deal with estimates except in one particular, and I shall not enter upon the comparisons which the hon. Gentleman opposite has invited me to make with regard to the salaries and arrangements elsewhere. I shall deal simply with facts, and I would like to recall the attention of the Committee to the three clauses of the Bill which we are discussing. Nearly all the information which
  1258
  has been asked for is already contained in those three clauses supplemented by the statements made in this House in regard to the proposals of the Bill. In the first place let me remind the Committee that the proposals of the Bill relating to the constitution of the two bodies are based upon Scottish experience. It must be remembered that although two now bodies are created by the Bill, two existing bodies disappear. Let me deal with the Land Court. The Land Court is to consist of not more than five members, and the legal member is not necessarily to be the chairman. The Land Court is to be the successor of the Crofters Commission; it is not an administrative body, it is judicial or quasi-judicial. It is desired and intended that the Land Court shall consist of persons fully qualified and having authority from their experience and position in Scotland to deal with such matters, and these considerations must be borne in mind when the Committee has before them and are considering the salaries proposed to be attached to the appointments and the conditions of their tenure. My hon. friend the Member for the Leith Burghs has made a large estimate as to the cost of the Land Court. An hon. Member asked how many clerks, messengers, valuers, and other staff they would have to appoint. The Court will have full authority, subject to the control of Parliament and the Treasury, as other such bodies have, to appoint their own staff.
  *MR. COCHRANE: What estimate have you formed of the necessary equipment of staff?
  MR. SINCLAIR: The estimate which has been assumed in this debate has been somewhat large. I would remind the Committee that we have an estimate which will to some extent assist us in the experience of the Crofters Commission. The annual administrative expenditure of that Commission has been about £5,000 a year, and I should say that that is a far safer guide as to the probable expenditure of the Land Court than the estimate which has been given by previous speakers to-day. The expenses of the Land Court, whatever they are, will be under the scrutiny of Parliament. The salaries will be placed on the Consolidated Fund. In that we are following

  1259
  precedent elsewhere, and that will give security and permanence of tenure, which ought to attract the best available and the best qualified men for these offices.
  *MR. MORTON: Will all the salaries be placed on the Consolidated Fund?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No; only the salaries of the members of the Land Court. As to the Agricultural Commissioners, the Committee will be good enough to keep quite distinct the functions of the Agricultural Commissioners and those of the Land Court. It is perfectly true that both these bodies are intended to work in Scotland in relation to the land of Scotland, but it is quite erroneous to deduce from that that their functions cannot be kept perfectly distinct.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONindicated dissent.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My hon. friend the Member for the Leith Burghs shakes his head. He is quite entitled to his own opinion, but I would remind him that the work of the Congested Districts Board has been perfectly separate from that of the Crofters Commission, and there has never been any criticism in Scotland as to the quasi-judicial position which the Crofters Commission has held during the last twenty years. Exactly the same principle holds good in the arrangement proposed in this Bill, and if the Bill is read carefully it will be seen that the function of the Land Court is a rent-fixing function. They have to decide between the parties as to rent, and the other portions of the Bill with relation to administration are under the Agricultural Commissioners. Clause 4 says that it shall be lawful to "appoint not more than three persons" as Agricultural Commissioners. It falls to the Agricultural Commissioners to take up, in the first place, the work of preparing schemes for the creation of small holdings. That is one section of their work. The second section is to take up the work which is presently done by the Congested Districts Commissioners—work of the character of that done by the Department of Agriculture. The third function of the Agricultural Commissioners is to take up for Scotland the work which is now done by the Board of Agriculture
  1260
  and Fisheries. Very fanciful estimates have been given to the Committee this afternoon as the cost of the new Department. Let me ask Members to look at Clause 4, which deals with the matter. Sub-section (2) provides—
  "The Agricultural Commissioners shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries in Scotland, and shall also exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred on or transferred to them under the provisions of this Act. In the discharge of their duties they shall comply with such instructions or regulations as may from time to time be issued by the Secretary for Scotland, and they shall submit an annual report of their proceedings to him, which Report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament."
  That is one of the functions to which I have alluded. Sub-section (4) which indicates the second branch of their work is as follows—
  "Without prejudice to the provision of the immediately preceding subsections such one of the Agricultural Commissioners as the Secretary for Scotland shall from time to time appoint shall be designated the Commissioner for small holdings and shall be specially charged with the duties hereinafter committed to him."
  Subsection (7) of Clause 4 indicates the further powers that are to be transferred to the Agricultural Commissioners.
  *MR. COCHRANE: Will you give a sketch of what their work is to be?
  MR. SINCLAIR: We are dealing now with the expenditure of these Commissioners. If the hon. Gentleman will give me his attention I think I shall be able to satisfy him on that point. This Department is intended to be a Department of the Civil Service, and the administrative expenses of the Department will be charged on the Estimates, and will come under the control of Parliament every year. The Committee need not be under any apprehension that Parliament will not have as full an opportunity of criticising the expenditure of this Department as that of any other Department of the State. Everything must have a beginning, and it is intended in regard to the appointment of the Agricultural Commissioners to build up gradually, and when the Bill becomes law it need not be at once that the powers should be transferred from the present Board of Agriculture to these Commissioners. The third branch of the

  1261
  powers of the Commissioners will fall to them at once, namely, the powers with respect to the work done by the Congested Districts Board. The intention of the Government is that this Department shall ultimately, when fully developed, constitute a Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I have yet to learn, even from the criticisms which have been made on the proposals to-day, whether it is the opinion of hon. Members that at present we spend too little or too much in developing agriculture in Scotland. The proposals embodied in the Bill are perfectly simple. First of all, there is to be the Land Court which will succeed the Crofters Commission, and exercise over the whole of Scotland powers exactly similar to those now exercised by the Crofters Commission in one portion of Scotland. The next step is the appointment of Agricultural Commissioners who shall, to use the phrase which I have already used in the House, be the nucleus of a Department of Agriculture for Scotland, take over the powers of the Congested Districts Board, and further exercise the powers under the Bill in respect of small holdings, and also in respect of the general supervision of agriculture, afforestation, and other matters affecting the agricultural interests of Scotland. It is impossible, at this stage, to give the information that has been asked for with respect to smaller details by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire. The whole purpose of the Bill is to put the people of Scotland in the position of thinking out and working out for themselves the problems of the country, and things must be left to develop. The hon. Member has complained as to the want of information in regard to the future; but the hon. Gentleman must know that a great public department can grow, and as it developes it requires further support in the way of money, and has to come to Parliament for that money. As for the financial part of the Bill dealt with in the Resolution, £100,000 is provided for its working, made up of £15,000, under the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896, £20,000 which is at present provided by Parliament, and an additional £65,000 which is to be voted in future. Of this sum £35,000 is to be devoted to the congested districts and £65,000 to the remainder of Scotland. Some criticism has been passed to-day on
  1262
  the amount available for the creation of new holdings, it being contended that it will be entirely insufficient. I do not enter into that point now further than to say that the experience of the Congested Districts Board, which I give for what it is worth, is entirely at variance with the suggestion that the cost of the new Board will be so great as in some quarters seems to be anticipated. I submit with great respect to the Committee that the provisions of the Bill are perfectly clear and simple.
  *MR. COCHRANE: What about the compensation to be given to the members of the Crolters Commission?
  *MR. SINCLAIR: The new Board will be a Civil Service Department, and consequently the salaries and retiring allowances of its officials will be fixed in consultation with the Treasury. Subsection 8 of Clause 3 is inserted so that no damage may be done by the arrangements made after the Bill is passed into law to the interests of the Crofters Commission, and that subsection was inserted with the sanction of the Treasury. As to the new Commissioners, it does not seem to me to be a wise move to appoint them before Parliament has passed the Bill into law.
  *MR. COCHRANEthought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him What he wanted to know was whether the right hon. Gentleman could furnish the Committee with information as to the sum he had in his mind for providing compensation to the existing members of the Crofters Commission.
  MR. SINCLAIR: That is a matter for future deliberation; but I can say that the public interest, as well as those interested, will be amply protected.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that he would be the last man to vote against the £85,000 being spent for the improvement of agriculture in Scotland, if he thought the money was going to be spent to good purpose; but after listening to the speech of the Secretary for Scotland he thought anyone would be very sanguine if they imagined that would be the case. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the cost of

  1263
  the Land Court was not likely to be very excessive; but it must be remembered that it would deal with all the counties in Scotland, which would necessarily involve large travelling expenses for the inspection of the differences of soil and cultivation in the various parts of the country. He thought the £65,000 for the creation of small holdings would be much better spent in providing houses for labourers on the land. To spend it on small holdings would be but to fritter it away to a great extent, and it would not be the means of getting many people on the land. The Secretary for Scotland had suggested that the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities was wrong in his estimate as to the cost of providing equipment for small holdings, and that £500 was a low estimate of the cost of the creation of a small holding. He had had a little experience with the land question, and he could state that decent cottages in mountainous districts, where there were plenty of stones, could not be provided for less than £250. In addition to that, there was the drainage and equipment to be provided for. He complained of the unsatisfactory answer of the Secretary for Scotland, who had by no means made it clear that large sums of money would not be squandered, or unnecessarily frittered away, in salaries to highly paid officials.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid that the Secretary for Scotland had given the Committee uncommonly little information in regard to the scope of the Bill. He was sorry that the Prime Minister had left the House, for as he had not given them his assistance in the Scottish Grand Committee, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have vouchsafed them a little information as to the real meaning of the Bill. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was present, would do so. The Secretary for Scotland had spoken as to the expense of the Congested Districts Board and the Crofters Commission; but this Bill was meant to deal, not only with the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, but with the whole of Scotland. If the expense which would arise under the Bill was anything like the expense incurred by the Crofters Commission and the Congested Districts Board the operation of the Bill would be very
  1264
  restricted indeed. If the right hon. Gentleman sought to create in Scotland a great Department of Agriculture which would have an important effect on the improvement of agriculture in the rural districts, he must admit that that would involve a very large expenditure—infinitely greater than the £65,000 mentioned in the Bill. By the Bill it was sought to establish an entirely novel system in Scotland; yet the Government had never attempted to show that all the proposed machinery was necessary in order to extend small holdings in Scotland.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks have nothing whatever to do with the financial Resolution.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid that the money was to be used in setting up a Land Court, the appointment of an Agricultural Commissioner, and a Board of Agriculture, and he thought that they were entitled to say that that was unnecessary.
  *THE CHAIRMANI have told the hon. Member that he is discussing the merits of the Bill, and he must not reflect upon the decision of the House in regard to that.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid that, while submitting to the ruling of the Chairman, he thought they were entitled to have some estimate from the Government as to what the expense of this new Department was likely to be. He must protest against the action of the Secretary for Scotland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. RAWLINSON (speaking sitting and with his hat on)inquired, as a point of order, whether the Motion would not affect the Amendment notice of which had been given and which he bad moved and handed in.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that as a matter of fact he had not seen any Amendment. Of course, the Closure Motion would affect any Amendment, because the Question was "that the Question be now put."
  MR. RAWLINSONinsisted that his Amendment had been moved and handed in.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that even if that had been the case, which it was not, he, on looking at the Amendment which had now been passed to him, saw that it was to the Bill and not to the Financial Resolution before the Committee.

  AYES.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Bertram, Julius

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Bright, J. A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Jones, William; Carnarvonshire

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sears, J. E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lambert, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Summerbell, T.

  Cornwall Sir Edwin A.

  Lough, Thomas

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Toulmin, George

  Cowan, W. H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Cox, Harold

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Duckworth, James

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Waring, Walter

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Maddison, Frederick

  Watt, Henry A.

  Elibank, Master of

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Everett, H. Lacey

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Weir, James Galloway

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Gilhooly, James

  Norton, Copt. Cecil William

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Grady, J;

  Williams Llewelyn (Carmarth'u

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr.

  Halpin, J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Pease.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fell, Arthur

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fletcher, J. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rawlinson and Mr. Abel

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Smith.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  MR. RAWLINSONremarked that he thought it was headed "Financial Resolution."
  *THE CHAIRMANreplied that if that was so the Amendment was not correctly drawn. As it was, it appeared to be on the Bill.
  MR. RAWLINSONcontended it was to the Resolution.
  *THE CHAIRMANread the Amendment and said it apparently related to Clause 3 of the Bill.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 173.)
  Question put accordingly.
  SIR F. BANBUKY (speaking seated and with his hat on), on a point of Order, said the Chairman had omitted to put the first Resolution, which had reference to £15 000.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  *THE CHAIRMANreplied that he really did not know what the hon. Baronet meant. He had put the Resolution to the House and read the whole of it.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 17. (Division List No. 174.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had no intention of opposing the Bill, because he believed that upon the whole it was as good a measure as this Government

  1269
  could be expected to bring in. The Bill was a very short one and possibly a very good one, but it was quite impossible for them to understand it without an explanation. There was not even the memorandum which had been usual in the case of Bills of this class. He asked for a short explanation of the measure.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said it would be within the recollection of those interested in the Merchant Shipping Bill of last year that Members representing constituencies in which there were docks complained of the system of measurements of ships, and said that the ingenuity of naval architects had been exercised in such a way as to deprive pilots of their legitimate earnings. This Bill was brought in to remedy that state of things. He promised last year that if a private Bill on the subject was introduced, as Bills had been introduced in previous years, the Government would at any rate do what they could to see that the subject was investigated by a Committee. Several Bills were brought in, including that of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and there was a general feeling expressed by shipowners that it was not a question for private Bill legislation, but that it ought to be dealt with by the Government. He agreed with that view, and the present Bill was introduced. It went upon the principle that the maximum deduction that could be made for propelling power in fixing the net register tonnage should be 60 per cent. of the gross tonnage. There was no interference in regard to crew space. It was very important that every inducement should be given to shipowners to afford as much accommodation as possible for the crews, and, therefore, they decided that there should be no charge by dock owners, pilots, or anyone else in respect of legitimate deductions made in respect of the sleeping, messing, and other accommodation for the crew. The deductions dealt with in the Bill were purely in respect of propelling power. After the measure was introduced, a good deal of feeling arose on both sides. The shipowners thought that it went too far; the dock authorities that it did not go far enough. He invited representatives of both parties to a conference at which all
  1270
  interests were represented—the liners, the dockowners, the trampowners, pilots and others. They held two or three meetings, and eventually arrived at an arrangement which gave satisfaction to everybody, except Mr. Beesley of Penarth, who was very difficult to persuade. It was agreed that 55 per cent. instead of 60 per cent. should be fixed as the maximum, and that to avoid making immediately a change in the law of so considerable a character the Bill should apply to all ships constructed after 1st May, 1907, and to existing ships on 1st June, 1914. In regard to Mr. Beesley's opposition, he proposed that the Bill, if it received a Second Reading, should go before a Hybrid Committee, when Mr. Beesley and the interests he represented would have an opportunity of appearing by counsel and of calling witnesses. The Government would support the compromise by counsel, for he thought it would not be fair to put to the expense the shipowners and dockowners who had agreed.
  *MR. MORTONsaid that although the right hon. Gentleman had said that he had consulted everybody, as a matter of fact he had not consulted the Thames Conservancy at all. The suggested alteration from 60 per cent. to 55 per cent. was of great importance to the Port of London. The question of tonnage was a very serious one to the Port of London because it was almost their only source of income. They were obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in the Bill in accordance with his promise last year, and if they got the 55 per cent. which was suggested they would be fairly content, but he (Mr. Morton) was not quite certain as to the fairness of waiting till 1914 for existing ships.
  *SIR J. RANDLESasked whether the advantages promised by the right hon. Gentleman at the Shipping Conference on the Bill, which applied to ships now being built under contract, would be extended to ships under construction at the same date but not under contract.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the hon. Member put the point before him the other day and he promised that if the words in the Bill did not cover the case

  1271
  the hon. Member put to him he would see that words were introduced for the purpose.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of nine Members, five to be nominated by the House, and four by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented four clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

  VACCINATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR JOHN BATTY TUKE, who was indistinctly heard, moved the rejection of the Bill. He had, he said, many object to the Bill, not the least of them being that it was neither one thing nor another. It would meet the views neither of the vaccinators nor of the anti-vaccinators, and would afford increased opportunities for evading the law, thus constituting a danger to the public health. While not wishing to discuss the methods by which the controversy as it affected the conscientious objector had been conducted, he might be permitted to say that, if it had been conducted on the high level adopted by the hon. Member for West St. Pancras, the whole position would have been much better than it was to-day. He contended that the Bill, if passed, would have the effect of increasing the agitation and the number of the extremists. He believed it would not affect the honest objector to vaccination, for he was at present willing to sacrifice himself and to take some trouble
  1272
  to vindicate his opinions. The really honest conscientious objector was not numerically dangerous. But unluckily, even the honest conscientious objector dragged in his train a large number of persons who had no settled convictions on the subject, such as ignorant or careless parents and guardians; and that was the class that was really dangerous and for which this Bill was devised. The result of such persons merely making a declaration before a Commissioner of Oaths, without giving reasons for belief, would be that in a short time the Vaccination Acts would become useless as a public health measure. The 85 or 90 per cent. of vaccinations which took place under the present law would be reduced to 50 per cent. or even lower. The anti-vaccination societies would spread it abroad that the Acts were practically dead, and literature would be scattered over the country. Possibly those societies might retain the services of Commissioners of Oaths for the express purpose of arranging times and places where the declarations might be made, and it was possible they might arrange for domiciliary visits from door to door for the purpose of getting people to make the declarations. It might become an actual business, as the Commissioner of Oaths would receive from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. for merely signing his name. He objected to the proposal to put it into the power of the registrars of births and deaths to supplement their incomes by handing, along with the certificate of birth, a leaflet indicating that vaccination might be overrated. Other means might be adopted, but such as he suggested would render the whole thing a farce, and the work of the last thirty or forty years would be thrown away, along with the experience gained by the investigation of a strong Commission, and the results of observation gained in this and other countries. Then we should stand alone among civilised nations. As a humanitarian he could not let the Bill pass, for, as had been well said, it would result in infanticide by omission. There were mysterious influences governing epidemics of infectious diseases. They thought they were done with the plague in Europe, but they had been disillusioned by the epidemic of 1900. The same might be said of spotted fever, and typhoid and diphtheria startled them from time to time. It was true to say that at the present time smallpox was

  1273
  in abeyance, but as surely as the sun would rise to morrow, smallpox would reappear in our midst to work its deadly power amongst us. If the Bill passed, it would find us not only unprotected, but a community unprepared to cope with the pest. A large section of the community would be unvaccinated, and when an epidemic arose there would be a rush of persons to be vaccinated, and then it would be found that the local authorities were not able to meet the demand. Within the last few years, in areas in which smallpox had broken out, people had been seen standing at the doors of vaccination establishment much in the same way as people were accustomed to take up positions outside the doors of a theatre. He often wondered whether the anti-vaccinists had ever seen an epidemic of smallpox among an unprotected community. If they had gone through that experience, as he had on more than one occasion, he thought they could not fail to realise the horrible condition of things that ensued from the outbreak of smallpox. It was also urged against the practice of vaccination that sanitation was a more effective preventive against the disease of smallpox. No one was more willing than he to grant local authorities greater powers in the enforcement of sanitary precautions, but at the same time hon. Members should look at the experience of other countries. Of all European countries, Germany presented the most valuable series of object-lessons. Sanitation there was still very inferior to our own system and practice. In certain large cities in Prussia there had been, no doubt, a great improvement in that respect, but in the small towns the state of affairs was bad indeed. In Germany smallpox could not be said to exist, for the death rate was represented by a small decimal. At the same time occasional oases did arise. Those were almost invariably on the eastern frontier where people from unvaccinated Countries came in. But when the disease did cross the frontier it did not spread. The cases were only sporadic. There was now an epidemic at Metz; but the Conditions were not yet known and could not be cited on either side. But he was told that around Metz there were thousands of labourers from Italy, Rumania, and Russia; and, if he were a betting man, he would readily wager
  1274
  that the people whom the epidemic had touched belonged to that unprotected class. With few exceptions, all civilized countries adopted vaccination with great advantage; and in those circumstances were the Government justified in bringing forward this Bill, which sapped the very foundations of the Vaccination Acts? At the instance of a small section of the community, the President of the Local Government Board was throwing the responsibility on to the shoulders of the illiterate; but in the long run the responsibility must be his. But it must be admitted that the time had come for a revision of the working of the Act; and he would suggest that the Bill should be abandoned and a small representative Committee appointed. Such a Committee might arrive at a modus vivendi which would be the foundation of a Bill acceptable to all sides. But if this Bill were passed all consideration of the subject would be in abeyance for many years. He begged to move.
  *MR. CAVE: seconded the Motion. He regretted that a matter of such grave importance should be discussed in so thin a House. This Bill would settle nothing. It was regarded by the anti-vaccinists as an instalment leading up to the larger policy of the abolition of the Vaccination Law. He wished to know whether the Government accepted that policy or not. He was quite sure the President of the Local Government Board would not say that he was opposed to compulsory vaccination.
  *MR. LUPTON: He says there is no such thing as compulsory vaccination.
  *MR. CAVEsaid he could not agree with the hon. Member. He could not conceive that anyone who had looked at the figures would willingly do anything to diminish the efficacy of the Vaccination Acts. The figures relating to the London epidemic of 1901 were conclusive. It was beyond dispute that, whereas the great majority of the people of this country were vaccinated in 1901, the great majority of those attacked in the epidemic of that year were among the unvaccinated; and the death rate was very much higher among the unvaccinated

  1275
  cases than among the vaccinated. It was beyond controversy from those figures that vaccination was a real protection against attack, and against a fatal termination to attack when it did occur. The overwhelming opinion of this country and elsewhere was in favour of vaccination. But, assuming that it ought to remain compulsory, was this Bill necessary or desirable? Was the present system satisfactorily administered? There had been cases in which magistrates exceeded their powers, but he believed that those cases were very rare indeed, and the cases which had occurred were repeatedly brought forward and, as he thought, magnified by those who were wholly opposed to vaccination. Admitting that there were a few such cases, he thought that an easy remedy might be provided by giving to the applicant a right of appeal, either to the Local Government Board or to some other authority; and also that the certificate of exemption should have effect, not throughout the child's life as at present, but only for a certain number of years. The effect of the Bill was to make it much easier to obtain exemption. He quite admitted that the persons who now claimed exemption came within the category of conscientious objectors; but, if they made the process as much easier as the Bill proposed, they would have persons in all classes, either from mere carelessness or from unwillingness to; undergo the trouble incident to vaccination, signing the declaration, and the number of exemptions would be very seriously increased. If that were so, the President of the Local Government Board was taking upon himself a grave responsibility. He believed that, by the Bill, they were running a risk of exposing the people to a serious increase of the very dangerous and loathsome disease of smallpox.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'" (Sir John Batty Tuke.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN-BURNS,): On a previous
  1276
  occasion, on 25th April, 1906, the House will remember that I promised, on behalf of the Government, four or five points with regard to the question of vaccination, both with regard to certificates of exemption and the administration of the Act, and I believe it will simplify the proceedings this afternoon and lead to brevity in debate if I recapitulate what was promised and what the Government intend to do. The first thing we promised was a reduction in the cost of vaccination, which, it is generally agreed, has, in recent years, been unduly inflated. Only the day before yesterday I issued a Vaccination Order that carries out to the full the pledge I gave on 25th April. Then we promised some form of statutory declaration in lieu of the existing exemption certificate; and this Bill gives effect to that promise. Then we promised that we would do our best to secure uniformity of action by the magistrates pending the adoption of the other measures promised, and in May of last year the Home Secretary issued a circular advising magistrates not only to be more discreet, but more reasonable and uniform in the practice of administering the Act. I then said that we would do our best to consider the advisability of transferring the administration of vaccination from the boards of guardians, who, in my judgment ought never to have had this duty, to the public health authorities, in whose purview I think that this duty more reasonably comes. Personally I am strongly favourable to that being done as soon as circumstances will allow. Everyone sees that the Poor Law system is now in the melting pot. The Poor Law Commission is sitting, and until that Commission has reported I cannot carry out what I would like to do, that is, transferring the administration of this Act, with cognate functions and duties, from the boards of guardians to public health authorities so soon as it can be done. I believe that the general opinion of medical men is, whatever their view with regard to vaccination, that the sooner we codify the public health functions and duties which are now distributed over a large number of bodies, some of which in my opinion are not qualified to discharge them, the better it will be. Then I promised that I would consider the suspending of vaccination from early infancy to some sensibly later period. On this point I have the

  1277
  approval of the hon. Member for Sleaford and the Homeric yet approving nod of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities, but until those two sides of opinion reconcile themselves more amicably on other phases of the vaccination question than they do on this particular point, I cannot see my way at this moment to redeem my promise, although I am considering the question of suspending vaccination to a later period, and I am personally in favour of it. I am pleased to see that even the Jenner Society recommend suspension and postponement with some unanimity, and I see no reason why we should not trend in that direction. The Government has done its best to keep faith and to fulfil the promises that were made on 25th April of last year. Before I deal with the Bill may I say that it is a subject of congratulation to everybody that the terrible scourge of smallpox is growing smaller by degrees and beautifully less. It is cheering to know that in 1906 in England and Wales there were only twenty-one deaths from this particular disease, while in the great City of London, with nearly 5,000,000 people, there were only twenty-seven admissions and not a single death last year. That, of course, we can all be pleased about, but the rival advocates of different theories will interpret it variously. I do not intend this afternoon, however, to indulge in any medical controversy with the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities. My promises do not pledge me to rake over the ashes of either the statistical or argumentative controversies with hon. and learned Members who on the medical side are better qualified than I am to take their several parts. I am here to justify the Bill which is before us, and as briefly as I can to say what it is. Its object is to effect an alteration in the system of obtaining exemption from the penalties for neglecting to have a child vaccinated. The Bill is intended to secure that object by substituting a statutory declaration for the certificate of conscientious objec-
  1278
  tion as required by Section 2 of the Act of 1898. It is interesting and important at this moment that the House should realise what happened when the Act of 1898 was passed. The Government of that day had to meet the general opinion of the House, and they decided that some provision should be made for the conscientious objector. Under Section 29 of the Act of 1867 there was a penalty of 20s. for neglecting to have a child vaccinated, and there was another penalty of 20s. for disobedience to a justices' order under Section 31. The Government in 1898 proposed to limit the penalties to one prosecution. The House then said that they did not go far enough, and the right hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division proposed a clause for the conscientious objector which he had good reason for subsequently withdrawing in favour of a new clause brought in by the Government itself. That clause became Section 2 of the Act of 1898, and it is not material at this moment that I should read it. Discussion arose as to the precise form of the clause, especially as to the word "satisfies." It seems to me that those who are responsible for the insertion of the word "satisfies" are, from different points of view, more or less responsible for the necessity of amending the Act as this Bill seeks to do. Since 1898 in regard to the administration of that clause, all that was predicted at the time as to its operation has come to pass, and the right hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division, and the hon. Members for Bethnal Green, and Northampton can claim that they were more prescient than were the framers of the Act of 1898. What has come to pass? Owing to the presence of the word "satisfies" we have a state of things which I venture to say is not respectful to the law, is a nuisance, and should be abated as soon as possible. Even the hon. Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey admits that some of the magistrates have exceeded their powers. In my judgment, they have not

  1279
  only exceeded their powers, but they have gone far beyond that description of the misuse of their powers, and of their exalted position, by doing things which were not contemplated by those who framed the Act of 1898. Let me give one simple illustration of what I mean. Here we have a case in April, 1906, of a refusal of three applications for exemption, at Dorchester Police Court. The Chairman dismissed a fourth application with the remark that he knew the benefits of vaccination, for he had seen them all over the world, and he would never grant a certificate of exemption from vaccination. That admirable weekly paper, Truth, makes it a practice to pillory nearly every week the magistrates who indulge in this extra judicial function of misinterpreting the word "satisfies," and provoking resistance to the Vaccination Act, which, if it had been more reasonably and more fairly administered, would not have received the amount of abuse which it now gets. But we go from the action of the magistrates, of which this is a typical example, to the sober and responsible periodical The British Medical Journal. In March, of 1907, they said—
  "We have for some considerable time held the view that, the methods adopted by some magistrates towards those applying for certificates are vexatious and likely to foster opposition."
  That confirms the general view of the Government that this sort of thing cannot be allowed to go on much longer. It became so intolerable that the Home Office had to quote in two consecutive circulars which the Department issued some words, wisely and weightily addressed to the magistrates by the present Lord Chief Justice, asking the magistrates to do their duty in a way that would not give offence to applicants who wanted to be exempted. The first complaint is that parents are compelled to attend the Court in order to obtain a certificate of exemption, and are more or less placed in a quasi-criminal position. Many people object to go to Court, in regard to what, after all, is more
  1280
  or less a matter of opinion. Secondly, they say that they ought not to be subjected to the necessity of going before the magistrates as they now are; and that, thirdly, they ought not to be asked, as they frequently are, after they have satisfied other conditions, to produce the certificate of birth of the child, a proceeding which costs 2s. 7d. These are the three chief objections to the Act as it stands; and this Bill substitutes a statutory declaration of objection by the objector before a Commissioner for Oaths, or before a Justice of the Peace or before a stipendiary magistrate. This declaration is in a simple form, and is embodied in the schedule to the Bill. I do not think that anybody can say that it is not sufficiently clear. Here is the form of the declaration—
  " I, A. B., in the parish of so-and-so, in the county of so-and-so, being the parent or person having the custody of the child named C. D., who was born on such a date of such a year, hereby do solemnly and sincerely declare that I conscientiously believe that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child, and I make this solemn declaration, believing the same to be true, by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act of 1835. Dated this day, declared before me," etc.—
  —a Commissioner for Oaths, or Justice of the Peace, or other officer authorised to receive a statutory declaration. On delivery of this, within seven days after making the declaration, to the vaccination officer, the applicant becomes, entitled to exemption from penalties without going before the Court. He is, moreover, exempt from the stamp duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will generously waive, and then so far as the applicant is concerned, the matter is at an end. He will have to pay the small fee which is necessary under the Statutory Declarations Act of 1835, which fee varies from 1s. to 2s. It may be objected that the Bill will make the way of conscientious objectors too easy. That is a point which has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities, but, if he looks up the literature of

  1281
  the subject, he will find that his predictions to-day are a kind of replica of those which were made in 1898. On reference to the figures, we find that the percentage of objections since 1898 has been practically the same. In 1898 they were nearly 5 per cent. of the total vaccinations, that is to say, they went from 3 to 4, and to 4·8 per cent., so that the predictions which were made have not been verified to the extent that it had been thought they would be. I can only add that this Bill is the logical consequence of the illogical findings of the Royal Commission itself, of the Act of1898, and of the illogical character of the original Act of 1867. It may well be said that we ought to build on a logical basis. But the English people are not a logical people, and I sincerely trust that they will never become so theoretically logical as some would like them to become, and that they will never codify their action to such an extent that they will deprive themselves of that power of initiation and that liberty and capacity for experiment of which this Act is one of the most illuminating illustrations. I can only say that the Royal Commission itself contemplated a statutory declaration of some kind, and in the alternative they wished to call the parent before the local authority. I venture to say that to ask the father to go before the local authority is, from the point of view of the parent, more inconvenient and, perhaps, more irritating to him, than to go before the Magistrate or the Commissioner for Oaths. If you cannot satisfy the modern justice of the peace you will not satisfy the local authority, which might be acting through a single officer, or through a Committee, or through the full body. In my judgment, the local authorities for this purpose would be more unsatisfactory than the magistrates. The hon. Member for the Kingston Division suggested that if the magistrates exceeded their powers, a limited form of appeal should be allowed; but I think he will find it very difficult to invent any tribunal to
  1282
  whom such an appeal could be made. If we decided that it should be a committee of either the parish, urban, or county council, it would at times be more inaccessible to the parent than would the Commissioner for Oaths, the justice of the peace, or the stipendiary magistrate, and, personally, it appears to me that the hon. Member for Kingston by his suggestion has contributed in no way to showing us a road out of our difficulty. Rather, he has shown us how complicated this particular matter is. Then the point arises, who shall be the person who shall be entitled to take the statutory declaration? I have given great consideration to this, and I am satisfied that in the big towns it may be the stipendiary, in the country it must be the justice of the peace, and everywhere it must be the Commissioner for Oaths. It has been suggested that we should have the registrars instead of the Commissioners for Oaths and the magistrates. Personally, I see no reason for this. The registrar in no sense or form is connected with vaccination, and it is undesirable, in my opinion, to create any more vested interests in connection with vaccination. The point with me is what will lead to the most harmonious administration of the Act—which means, who are the largest body of people who should be called upon to carry out this work. There are about 2,000 registrars in England and Wales, and there are from 10,000 to 12,000 solicitors who are commissioners for oaths, and, if hon. Members are in favour of this Bill, or of something that goes beyond it, then they will find it infinitely more convenient to have 10,000 or 12,000 commissioners for oaths, who are five times more numerous than the registrars, and, therefore, to that extent, are more accessible to those intending to apply for exemption. I rule the registrar out altogether; I prefer the 10,000 or 12,000 commissioners for oaths, who will get the fee of 1s. 6d. Then I add to the commissioners for oaths the 17,000 or 18,000 magistrates; and, in my opinion, for the successful working of this

  1283
  Act, it is necessary to take the line of least resistance, and I therefore think that it will be much better to have 30,000 centres for applicants than to have only 2,000. For this reason I rule out the registrars. In all cases where the magistrates or the justices of the peace receive a fee, they will not receive it personally, neither will the clerk, but it will go into the county fund and be used for some public purpose. The registrar has now the duty of registering the child for another purpose, and that is my strongest objection to his coming in. He has to register the child within six weeks of its birth, and, if he is allowed to do it for another purpose, he will be anxious to register the child for both purposes within six weeks. Anti-vaccinators, as well as those who are in favour of vaccination, I think agree that it would be better to have the child vaccinated near the expiration of four months rather than within the expiration of six weeks. Therefore, that point weighs with me. Another point which weighs with me in the administration of this Act is that we ought not to have any officer, however important his functions may be, to whom the granting of a statutory declaration would mean an increase of his professional business. It is exceedingly important to satisfy all sections in this controversy, and I think that the commissioners for oaths, the magistrates, and the justices of the peace should be regarded as neutral persons who will impartially carry out the Statutory Declarations Act of 1835, and receive their fees for the statutory declaration and for no other purpose. If the registrar wore to be called in for fees, then it would be to his interest to discourage or persuade an applicant. The Bill gives the parent a free choice and a simple way of exercising it. I prefer to take the broader and better view that the magistrates, justices of the peace, and the commissioners for oaths are twelve times more numerous than the registrars and, therefore, proportionately more accessible, which is a
  1284
  very important point in the administration of this Act. I have decided, therefore, that the statutory declaration is better in the hands of the magistrates, justices of the peace, and commissioners for oaths, than it would be in the hands of the registrars of births, deaths, and marriages. I sincerely trust that there will not be said of this Bill three or four years hence what was said and predicted of the Bill of 1898. I believe that the nuisance which has grown up under the Act of 1898 is intolerable and cannot be allowed to continue. The conscientious objector resents being insulted in court, and he asks a more convenient way of claiming exemption. I consider that this is a simple and useful Bill for the achievment of that object, and I commend it to the House in the hope that it will be received with hearty sympathy and be read a second time.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he welcomed this Bill as being better than nothing, and he regretted that the Government had not seen their way to abolish the penalties altogether. The present position of matters was really very anomalous and absurd. Parliament was induced to pass the Vaccination Acts by the solemn declaration of the medical faculty that vaccination would be an absolute protection against smallpox, but nobody put forward that contention now. He was sorry that the Government had not been bold enough to go so far as to remove the neglect of vaccination altogether from the purview of the criminal law. Taking the Bill for what it professed to be, he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would be prepared to accept Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman had on a former occasion promised that a statutory declaration by either parent should be sufficient, but that was not the effect of the Bill. With regard to the persons before whom the declaration was to be made, it was not suggested that the registrar should be introduced in substitution for the other persons

  1285
  named, but in addition. He thought it would be a great convenience to a parent if, when he went to register the birth of his child, he could at the same time make the statutory declaration. He noticed that the Bill provided that the statutory declaration was to be made within four months. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing, at any rate, to extend that period, if not to strike the limit out altogether.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he was sure the House was very thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the very clear explanation he had given of the objects of the Bill. Although he spoke with no professional knowledge, he felt it impossible to remain silent on this question, in view of the fact that such a large proportion of his constituents were interested in medical science. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had given many reasons why the Bill should be considered as an extremely moderate one, but in view of certain utterances which had come from the opposite side of the House, and from hon. Members below the gangway, he felt that there were considerable dangers to be apprehended beyond those which the right hon. Gentleman had indicated as the limitations of the Bill. He felt that this Bill was a concession to prejudice and ignorance. As it was now drafted, it left no discretion whatever to the commissioner for oaths or justice of the peace, and, therefore, it seemed to him a matter of very little importance in whose hands the duty was placed. He objected to the substitution of a secret signature to a declaration before a commissioner for oaths for a statement of conscientious objection in the light of publicity with the aid that publicity gave to distinguish between ignorance, carelessness, or prejudice and a conscientious belief. How far was concession to go? Granting that there were conscientious beliefs having real and solid foundations, he feared that mere wantonness, idle-
  1286
  ness, carelessness, and prejudice would largely enter into the action of many for whose good this legislation was devised. Let the really conscientious objector have the courage of his opinions, and not place himself in the hands of agents of anti-vaccination societies, who knew how to work up adherents to their cause. The signature before a commissioner would save some little trouble, and he feared there would be a very serious diminution in the percentage of vaccination, and a serious increase in the number of those who conceived themselves to be conscientious objectors. Should not the investigations of science have some weight in the sanitary administration of the country? Surely it was not too much to say that it was unwise to yield to the pressure of those who were in opposition to the fixed conclusions of the great mass of scientific medical opinion.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he shared the feeling that was expressed very strongly in 1898, that the Act of that year went too far in concession to prejudices against vaccination. Amongst a large number of the inhabitants of these islands there was a strong feeling that smallpox was such a very serious disease, and vaccination had been so thoroughly proved to be a preventive to that disease, that the Government were not doing their duty when they allowed a loophole—although it was very carefully fenced round—here provided for. He had expected to hear a few words in defence of the Bill from the anti-vaccination minority, but presumed that, in the face of the great majority of the House, including the President of the Local Government Board, who believed in the full efficacy of vaccination ["No, no"], they feared to advance opinions where they could be thoroughly sifted and dealt with. He challenged the statement of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that the theory that vaccination and re-vaccination was a protection against smallpox had been given up, and he

  1287
  conscientiously believed that vaccination was necessary for the health of the community. It was with regret and surprise he found the right hon. Gentleman yielding to the pressure of the hon. Member for Sleaford and his friends, and warned him that this concession would only be made the jumping ground for further demands. The chief reason advanced in support of the Bill was that certain magistrates had administered the Act in a manner which was not right. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted an instance where the chairman of a bench of magistrates had said that vaccination was necessary, and under no circumstances would he grant an exemption. He did not know what the other magistrates on that bench could have been thinking about, and he ventured to think that the chairman of no other bench of magistrates in the country would have made such a statement. In the vast number of cases all that magistrates required was that the applicant should go into the witness-box, take the oath, and then state that he had a conscientious objection to vaccination because he believed it would be prejudicial to the health of his child. Speaking from the point of view of one who thoroughly believed in the efficacy of vaccination, he admitted that the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, on the face of it, did not seem to be a very great innovation. There appeared to be some reason in the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman that going to the police court savoured somewhat a criminal procedure regard to what was, after all, a civil matter. Vaccination cases were taken before the ordinary police business began. The applicants for exemption orders were not detained for more than a few minutes, and it seemed to him that there was a very great protection in compelling the
  1288
  conscientious objector to go before a public court. If the conscientious objector believed in the failure of vaccination, he should not be ashamed to say so in open court, or to have his name in the papers. But if these proceedings had not to be gone through, there might be a great number of people who, to save a little expense and trouble, and for a variety of other reasons, would avail themselves of the hole and corner procedure provided for by the Bill. He did not wish to cast any aspersion on the machinery provided by the right hon. Gentleman, but there could be no question that it would be more or less a hole and corner procedure. Doubtless a considerable amount of trouble was entailed on the mother by the vaccination of the child, and it might be expected that a great number of people would evade that trouble by availing themselves of the procedure under the Bill. An hon. Member had expressed dissatisfaction that the mother could not obtain an exemption order without the consent of the father. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not give way on that point, because the father was the proper person to decide whether or not his child should be vaccinated. He was not saying that the mother had not the interest of the child at heart. [An HON. MEMBER: What is to be done where there is no father?] The living parent or guardian would get the exemption order. That was already provided for under the Bill. When a child was vaccinated it suffered a certain amount of pain, and the mother had to do the nursing, and, that being so, it should not be forgotten that there would be a great temptation on the part of the mother to say "Oh, I don't want to be troubled with this. I fancy it will be all right. I know a case where the children

  1289
  have not been vaccinated and there has been no evil result." When the hon. Member for Sleaford and his friends came along with their delusion the prejudices of the parents were intensified. He felt strongly against the Bill, because he looked upon it as merely the thin end of the wedge, and feared that the result would be the abolition of compulsory vaccination. He would, therefore, vote in favour of the Amendment. He might point out that the only man of science in the House was strongly

  AYES.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barnes, G. N.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln;

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rowlands, J.

  Bright, J. A.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Kitson, Rt. Hn. Sir James

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sears, J. E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Rt. Hon, T. (Hawick B.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Cherry, Rt. Hn. R. R.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Straehey, Sir Edward

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras W

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Summerbell, T.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Thorne, William

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Lupton, Arnold

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Duckworth, James

  Maddison, Frederick

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds. S.)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Waring, Walter

  Elibank, Master of

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Grady, J.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Glover, Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Price, C. E (Edinb"rgh,Centra1)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Radford, G. H.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Pease.

  NOES

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  against the Bill. The right hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division, who was also an expert on the matter, had not been able to get up and say a word in favour of the Bill. When one expert was against the measure, and another could not say anything in its favour, the House had, he thought, strong reason for throwing it out.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 1 2, Noes, 14. (Division List No. 175.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  John Batty Tuke and Mr.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rawlinson, John Frederieck Peel

  Cave.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  RELEASED PERSONS (POOR LAW RELIEF) BILL.
  *THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,), in moving the Second Reading, said that this Bill was not of a controversial character. It dealt with the case of persons discharged from prisons, reformatories, industrial schools and inebriate homes, who, owing to ill health or other causes, had to be sent to the workhouse. At present, when their place of settlement was unknown, they were sent to the workhouse of the union in which the prison or institution from which they were discharged was situated. The effect was that some unions became chargeable with many persons whom they ought not to be made to maintain. The Home Office had received representations on the subject in respect of persons released from the prisons at Parkhurst and Lin coin and many other places. The Wands-worth Union had had to supply relief last year to seventy-nine persons released from Wands worth Prison. The Bill proposed that, where the place of settlement of the discharged person was unknown, the union where he lived when the offence was committed should be charged with his relief; and, if that was not known, then the union in which the offence was committed. Where persons were too ill to be moved to the union chargeable, they were to be discharged to the nearest workhouse, but the expenses of their maintenance would
  1292
  be borne by the union chargeable under the Bill. It was now twenty-two years since the principle of this measure had been admitted to be sound by the Home Office. On more than one occasion Bills had been drafted to provide a remedy for the grievance. They had been sometimes introduced by priate Members, but had never made any progress. He hoped that Parliament would now pass this measure in order to remedy a grievance which was admitted on all hands.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid a Bill similar to this was before the Home Office during, the last Unionist Administration, and, while it was regarded with benevolent feelings, no opportunity occurred for translating those feelings into definite action. He entirely agreed with what the hon. Gentleman had said. It was an intolerable hardship that persons who were discharged invalided from prisons should become chargeable on the local rates of the districts in which the prisons were situated.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now Adjourn,"—(Mr. Whiteley,)—put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at nine minutes before Five o'clock till Monday next.