Sitting of 27 May 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.: Southport, Birkdale and West Lancashire Water Board Bill. [Lords.]
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERE TO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders(No. 12) Bill. Local Government Provisional Order (No. 13) Bill.>
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  King's Norton and Northfield Urban District Council Bill,—read the third time and passed.
  London and North Western Railway Bill,—read the third time and passed. [New Title.]
  London United Tramways Bill,—read the third time, and passed.
  Newquay and District Water Bill [Lords] (Prince of Wales' consent signified),—Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Penrith Urban District Council Bill,— read the third time, and passed.
  Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords],—as amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Oregon Mortgage Company, Limited, Order Confirmation Bill,—read the third time, and passed.

PETITIONS.
  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: From Chichester, and London; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Additional Estimate of the Cost of the Territorial Force [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1906 (INDUSTRIAL DISEASES).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 22nd May, 1907, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 8 (6) of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, extending the provisions of the Act to certain Industrial Diseases [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Banking and Railway Statistics of Ireland for the half year ended 31st

  1295
  December, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BANN AND LOUGH NEAGH DRAINAGE.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Lord-Lieutenant, by Mr. J. D. Bell, Land Valuer, appointed by the Government to make certain valuations in connection with Sir Alexander Binnie's Report on the Bann and Lough Neagh Drainage [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 month of November, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-fourth Report of the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, with Appendices, for the year 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 164.]
  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  Copy presented, of Fiftieth Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1906–7 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (SPECIAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of Special Reports on Educational Subjects, Vol. 17, Schools, Public and Private, in the North of Europe [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Summary of Figures relating to State-aided Secondary Schools in England (excluding Wales and Monmouthshire), together with a Memorandum on the Management and Character of those Schools, in respect of Public Control and freedom from Denominational Restrictions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Wilts), Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 165.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Meetings of Land Tax Commissioners for Brixton Division.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any meetings of land tax commissioners have been held in the Brixton division of Lambeth during the present year; if so, on what date such meetings were held; whether all duly appointed commissioners were summoned to them; and, if not, will he state why certain commissioners were summoned and other commissioners were not.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that meetings for the two Brixton divisions of Lambeth were held on the 8th and 9th April, respectively. In each case all the commissioners were summoned to attend.

  Claims of Fowler & Company, of Cienfuegos, against Spanish Government.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the claims of Fowler & Company, British subjects, of Cienfuegos, against the Spanish Government have yet been settled; and, if not, will he ascertain why settlement has been deferred for over ten years, and secure some assurance from the Spanish Government that the matter will now receive their attention.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) In my reply to the hon. Member's Question on this subject of 26th March last,†I explained that the settlement of the claim in question, in common with that of other Colonial claims against the Spanish Government, is delayed by the provisions of the law of 30th July, 1904. Until the Report of the Committee appointed to examine the claims has been presented payment cannot, I fear, be expected. His Majesty's Embassy at Madrid are continuing to urge upon the Spanish Government the necessity of hastening the labours of the Committee in question.

  Poor Law Children—Mullers Orphanage, Bristol.
  SIR A. SPICER: To ask the President of the Local
  † See (4) Debates, clxxi., 1626.

  1297
  Government Board if he will state the number of children who have been handed over by the Bristol Board of Guardians to Muller's Orphanage in that city; what sum is paid per head by the guardians to the manager of the orphanage; what control the guardians have over children so handed over; and by what means they are inspected.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am informed that the guardians have not themselves applied for the admission of any children to Muller's Orphanages. It has occasionally happened that relatives who have made application for admission of children to the orphanages have, pending the consideration of the application or the occurrence of vacancies, had to seek Poor Law relief for the children. In such circumstances the children have been discharged from the guardians' institutions, on the application of the relatives, in order that they may be admitted into the orphanage; but after such discharge the guardians have not exercised any control over the children or visited them. Nor have they made any payments in respect of their maintenance in the orphanages.

  Liverpool Bonded Warehouses.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many bonded warehouses under the Customs' supervision approved for the bonding of wines and spirits were open in Liverpool on the 10th instant; whether they were all in charge of second-class examining officers, and what was the maximum number of warehouses for wines and spirits under the charge of one examining officer at the same time; what is the number of excise warehouses approved for the bonding of wines and spirits in Liverpool; whether they are all in charge of first-

  Number of Hours.

  Paid by Merchants.

  Paid by Crown.

  Total.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  115,864*

  2,522

  0

  0

  1,274

  12

  0

  3,796

  12

  0

  * These figures include 3, 591 hours overtime allowed under the regulations for disturbance when the hour for commencing work fell between midnight and 5 a.m. inclusive.

  class officers of excise; and what was the maximum number of warehouses for wines and spirits open under the charge of one first-class officer at the same time, the 10th instant.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that there were seventy-two bonded warehouses approved for the deposit of wines and spirits under the supervision of the Customs Department in Liverpool open on the 10th instant during the whole or portion of the official day. All these warehouses were under the charge of examining officers, second-class, assisted by watchers as found necessary. The maximum number of warehouses under the charge of one examining officer was six. As regards the second part of the Question, I learn that there are only two excise general duty warehouses in Liverpool for wines and spirits. When open, each warehouse is in charge of a first-class officer of excise. Only one was open on the 10th instant, and it was in charge of a first-class officer.

  Overtime of London Customs Watchers.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the number of hours' overtime worked by the Customs watchers in the Port of London during the year ended 31st December, 1906; the amount of money paid to them for such overtime attendances during that period; and what portion of the money was paid by merchants and by the Crown respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The overtime remuneration paid to Customs watchers in the port of London (459 on establishment) during the year ended 31st December, 1906, was, I understand, as follows:—

  Registered Parcels Post to China.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether under present arrangements for sending parcels by parcel post to China from England, they can only be insured as far as Shanghai unless forwarded by a German boat; and, if so, whether he will take steps for securing for British trade the advantage possessed by other nations.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Parcels from this country for China sent by British packet can be insured as far; as any place at which there is a British postal agency. Such agencies are maintained at Amoy, Canton, Chefoo, Foochow, Hangkow, Hoihow, Ningpo, Shanghai, Swatow, Tientsin, and Wei-hai-wei. The only insured parcels sent by the German service are those addressed to places at which there are German agencies but no British agencies, namely, Its hang, Nanking, Peking, Tschinkiang, Tsinanfu, and Weihsien, as well as the Kiantschou Protectorate. Negotiations have already been begun with a view to the extension of the British Parcel Post arrangements with China.

  Compulsory Registration of Title—Working of the Act in London.
  SIRHENRY KIMBER: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, having regard to the fact that the experiment of compulsory registration of title in the county of London for the past eight years, under the Land Transfer Act, 1897, is practically a failure and very adversely affects the marketability of property in London by adding greatly to the expense, difficulty, and delay in dealings with property, the Government have considered, or will consider, whether the Privy Council Order applying the experiment to London should be revoked; and whether any other county in the United Kingdom has applied for the application ofthe Act.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) The Government have no intention of recommending that the Order in Council should be revoked, but have it in contemplation to inquire into the working of the Land Transfer Acts with a view to the removal of any alleged objections. No other county has applied to be brought under the Act.

  Customs and Inland Revenue Irregularities in Ireland.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a settlement has been arrived at in connection with the recent irregularities in distilleries in Ireland; and in how many cases the Board of Inland Revenue and the Board of Customs, respectively, have during the past twenty years imposed fines of £50 or over on the sureties for bonded warehouses or distilleries for irregularities discovered thereat; and what were the amounts of the penalties imposed.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The case arising out of the recent irregularities at Tullamore is not yet settled. Neither of the Revenue Boards has any record of the imposition of a fine of £50 or over on the sureties for a bonded warehouse during the period stated. It is not the practice to require sureties for a distillery to which no warehouse is attached.

  Price of Opium at Calcutta Sales.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India what was the price realised per chest of opium at the Calcutta sales held in March, April, and May, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The average price realised in March was Rs.1,511 a chest, and in April, Rs.1,454 a chest. The May figures have not yet been received.

  Improvement of Irish Harbours.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the names of the harbours on the Irish coast in respect to proposals for the improvement of which the Board of Works have reported to the Irish Government within the past five years.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)—
  County Antrim—Ballycastle Harbour,
  Ballywillan Pier, Portmuck Pier.
  County Clare—Liscannor Harbour.
  County Cork—Union Hall Pier.
  County Donegal—Ballyness Pier, Buncrana Pier, Bundoran Pier, Cladnageragh Pier, Downies Bay Pier, Falcorrib Slip, Gortnasate Harbour, Malinbeg Boatslip, Newbridge Pier, Portnoo Pier, Rathmullen Pier.
  County Down—Portavogie Pier.
  County Dublin —Balbriggan Harbour, Rush Pier.
  County Galway—Cleggan Pier, Clifden Pier, Kilmurvey Breakwater, Arran Island, Kinvarra Harbour, Mason Island Pier, Roundstone Pier.
  County Kerry—Dingle Pier, Renard Point Pier, Rineen Pier.
  County Londonderry—Magilligan Point Pier, Portstewart Harbour.
  County Louth—Drogheda Harbour.
  County Sligo—Sligo Harbour.
  County Waterfowl—Ardmore Slip and Breakwater, Ballynagaul Harbour, Passage East Pier.

  Irish Ancient Monuments.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the names of the ancient monuments situated on estates being sold under the Act of 1903, communicated by the Estates Commissioners to the Board of Works.
  Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have, in pursuance of Section 14 of the Irish Land Act of 1903, communicated to the Board of Works particulars of the fifty-two ancient monuments named below which they considered might be worthy of preservation:—
  Carbery Church—County Kildare.
  Carbery Castle—County Kildare.
  Lismateige Castle—County Kilkenny.
  Ola Castle—County Limerick.
  Sinners Stone—County Cork.
  Bremore Castle—County Dublin.
  Leac-an-scail—County Kilkenny.
  Augustinian Friary—County Kilkenny.
  Ballycowan Castle—King's County.
  Srah Castle—King's County.
  Heathstown Castle—County Westmeath.
  Cranoge—County Westmeath.
  Tomdeely Castle—County Limerick.
  Tomdeely Church—.County Limerick.
  Mahee Castle—County Down.
  Mahee Round Tower—County Down.
  Mahee Church—County Down.
  Templeaveigh Church—County Meath.
  Ballyboggan Abbey—County Meath.
  Mulrankin Castle—County Wexford.
  Rathronan Castle—County Wexford.
  Neigham Castle.—County Kilkenny.
  Wonderful Barn—County Kildare.
  ? Castle—County Westmeath.
  ? Castle—County Westmeath.
  Giant's Grave—County Dublin.
  Puck's Castle—County Dublin.
  Shankhill Castle—County Dublin.
  Cromlechs—County Dublin.
  Carrig Castle—County Tipperary.
  Kells Abbey—County Kilkenny.
  Mylerstown Castle—County Kildare.
  Gortnaclea Castle—Queen's County.
  Clonburren Castle—Queen's County.
  Colbally Church and Raths— Queen's County.
  Chair of Kyle—Queen's County.
  Cornaveigh Castle—County Cork.
  Troy Castle—County Limerick.
  Moymet Castle—County Meath.
  Dungall Port—County Antrim.
  Drumfane Moate—County Antrim.
  M'Quillan's Castle—County Antrim.
  Caherbewly Rath—County Tipperary.
  Round Tower—County Down.
  Seahorse Memorial—County Waterford.
  Cragg Castle—County Tipperary.
  Giant's Graves—County Tyrone.
  Kilconnell Castle—County Tipperary.
  Newcastle Castle—County Limerick.
  Ballycatteen Rath—County Cork.
  Downmacpatrick Castle—County Cork.
  Giant's Grave—County Donegal.

  Application of Surplus Income of Irish Church Temporalities Fund.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will call the attention of the Irish Land Commission (Church Property Department) to the desirability of snowing in future reports how the surplus income of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund is applied in detail and not merely saying it is applied in payment of debts.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) If the hon. and learned Member will refer to the Report of the Church Temporalities Commissioners, 1869–80 [C. 2773 of 1881], the Annual Reports of the Land Commission since 1881, and the Appendices to the latter Reports under the head of "Financial Temporalities of late Established Church," he will find full particulars of the application of the revenues of the late Established Church, as regards both the discharge of the annual charges imposed by Parliament and the application of any available surplus to the payment of capital debts.

  Maintenance of Supreme Courts of Judicature in Ireland.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state to whom it is proposed to transfer the power and

  1303
  duty of lighting, heating, arid maintaining the courts and offices of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland as from the 31st March, 1909; whether the cost of doing so is at present defrayed out of the moneys voted by Parliament to the Board of Public Works; and has this cost been considered in estimating the the future liabilities of the Irish Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The cost of lighting, heating, and maintaining the courts and offices referred to is at present defrayed out of the Vote for Public Works and Buildings, Ireland. Under the Irish Council Bill this cost will not-fall upon the Irish Fund. As to the arrangements to be made for the future performance of this work, I would refer to Clause 21 (3) of the Bill.

  Deductions from Death Duty Grant to County Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state in respect of what were the deductions made from the death duty grant, payable to the County Council of Wexford, in the years 1900 to 1907, inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The net deductions from the death duty grant payable to county Wexford in the years 1900 to 1907, inclusive, were as follows:—

  Year ending 31st March.

  Land commismission. Under Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891.

  National Debt Commissioners. Under Irish Land Act, 1903

  £

  £

  1900

  738

  —

  1901

  972

  —

  1902

  996

  —

  1903

  153

  —

  1904

  590

  —

  1905

  500

  35

  1906–7

  346

  2,427

  4,295

  2,462

  The transactions under the Act of 1891, were in respect of advance dividend and arrears of annuities, the respective amounts being approximately £3,113 and £1,182. The transactions under the Act of 1903 are apportionable as follows:—

  £

  Arrears of Annuities

  200

  Unearned dividend on issues of stock

  868

  Advance dividend

  499

  Interest due but not received

  567

  Unproductive balance

  328

  2,462

  Cost of Irish Departments.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return of Irish Departments (Costs, Income, and Expenditure) of which notice stands on the Order Paper.†
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I propose to lay upon the Table in the course of a few days a Return which will include the bulk of the information asked for by the hon. Member, and I would therefore ask him to await the appearance of that Return.

  Sale of the Estate of Mr. Westley, High Park, Kiltegan.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR,: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to a deadlock in the negotiations for the purchase by the tenants of the estate of Mr. Westley, High Park, Kiltegan, County Wicklow, the Estates Commissioners were appealed to by the tenants to intervene as arbitrators, and that the landlord declined
  † Irish Departments (Cost, Income, and Expenditure.) Return showing, for the latest financial year, the cost, income from all sources, and expenditure of each of the eight Irish Departments proposed to be placid under the control of the Irish Council, and the total; the cost, income from all sources, and expenditure of each of all the Irish Departments not proposed to be placed under that control, and the total; the total payments and expenditure for and in connection with land by the Congested Districts Board, the Land Commission, and the Estates Commissioners, respectively, with monetary return or set-off, if any; the total amount paid as bonus under the Land Act of 1903; and the total net loss incurred under each heading of loss under that Act from the 1st day of November, 1903, to the latest date for which the figures are available.

  1305
  to agree to arbitration; will he say whether the landlord stated to the Commissioners the grounds of his refusal, and whether the Commissioners propose to take any stops towards effecting a sale of this estate to the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) At the request of the tenants the Estates Commissioners approached the owner of the estate, offering their services as conciliators under the Lord-Lieutenant's regulations. In reply they were informed that the owner did not at present desire their intervention, but no reasons were given. In the circumstances the Commissioners cannot take any further action in the matter at present.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Blue Jackets' Free Kits.
  MR. BROOKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is considering the advisability of granting to blue-jackets the same advantages with regard to a free kit as are now given to soldiers and marines; and, if so, when he will announce the Admiralty's decision on the matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The, Admiralty have considered this question, and decided that it is not feasible to introduce the change at the present time.

  Midshipmen's Instruction Fees.
  MR. BROOKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that it is proposed to substitute lieutenants as naval instructors in the place of the present holders of that office, midshipmen will still be required to pay 3d. a day out of their pay of 1s. 9d. a day for their naval instruction.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This question is now under consideration.

  Naval Gunnery.
  PARTINGTON (: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, owing to the publication of figures of merit, it has lately become the rule in the Navy to carry out firing
  1306
  exercises only under the most favourable conditions of wind and weather.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There has been no change in the Regulations, but it is obvious that firing exercises at sea can, as a rule, only be carried out when the weather is sufficiently favourable to permit of boats approaching the target to repair or replace the canvas.
  MR. STANGER: Is there any truth in the report that appeared in the papers this morning that the Admiralty intend considerably to reduce the staff of the gunnery training establishment at Portsmouth?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: My hon. friend, no doubt, alludes to the statement in the Standard this morning. I am astonished that such a statement should appear in any newspaper. It is an absolute lie.

  Destroyers' Armaments.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether forty 12 pounder guns, fitted in our ships to enable them to resist the attacks of torpedo craft, have been removed in order to provide an improved armament for the river class of destroyers; and, if so, what steps are being taken to replace this important section of this armament; and, whether he can state why the guns were not ordered in the usual way.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The guns which are being fitted in the torpedo boat destroyers do not form part of the anti torpedo boat armament of ships.

  Lance-Corporals.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can yet say whether lance-corporals will be appointed in the Territorial Army or not.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR. (Mr. Haldane,): No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this point.
  MR. ASHLEY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say?
  MR. HALDANE: I hope before long.

  Soldiers' Kits.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if lie can yet say whether the Territorial soldier on joining will receive a free issue of underclothing and necessaries, and on whom the annual cost of maintenance of these articles will fall.
  MR. HALDANE: It is not intended to give a free issue of underclothing to the Territorial Force; the question of whether any articles included in the term "necessaries" should be given is under consideration.

  Cost of Army Walking-out Dress.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the cost, in excess of the approximate estimate of the Territorial Force contained in Cd. 3296, entailed by providing walking-out dress for the Territorial soldiers.
  MR. HALDANE: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to Cd. 3369 recently presented, wherein he will find the figures he requires. The estimate for the second suit amounts to £113,000.

  Territorial Artillery.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the whole establishment of guns of the proposed Territorial artillery, and what will be their dates and patterns.
  MR. HALDANE: It is proposed to organise the Territorial divisions on lines similar to those of the Regular Army with, in addition, a few batteries of mountain artillery and possibly some siege artillery. The exact detail of numbers has not yet been settled. The field gun will be the 15-pounder recently in the possession of the Royal Field Artillery; the heavy gun will be the 4·7-inch quick firing gun already in the hands of some Volunteer corps.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it intended to convert the field guns?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, Sir.

  Yeomanry Arms.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
  1308
  for War whether, in view of the fact that no decision has been arrived at respecting the armament of the Yeomanry, he will leave it to the discretion of individual commanding officers as to whether their men should carry bayonets, which are most uncomfortable for men to wear when on horseback.
  MR. HALDANE: I am not at this period in a position to make any statement on this subject.

  Yeomanry Equipment.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the consideration of all questions affecting the equipment of the Volunteers has been postponed, and, if so, from what cause.
  MR. HALDANE: Pending the formation of the Territorial Army, it would be premature to decide on changes in the dress or equipment of Volunteers.
  MR. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will happen in cases whore the county associations are not formed for two or three years?

  Enlistment Minimum Age.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the minimum age for enlistment into the infantry; and whether there is any intention of changing the age at present fixed.
  MR. HALDANE: The minimum age for enlistment into the Regular infantry is eighteen years. There is no present intention of changing this limit.
  *MR. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider seventeen a sufficient age for a youth to enter the first class of the Army Reserve, when the Regular Infantry cannot be enlisted in till eighteen?
  MR. HALDANE: was understood to reply that it was a convenient arrangement to enlist a certain number of men into the Militia at seventeen with a view to their subsequently passing into Regular Army.

  Rand Mine Strikes—Employment of Imperial Forces.
  MR. WEDGWOOD (): I beg to ask the Secretary of

  1309
  State for War whether the cost of sending British troops from Pretoria to Johannesburg to keep down the British miners on strike and of maintaining these troops at Johannesburg will be borne by the Colonial or by the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. HALDANE: If any extra expenditure is involved by the employment of the troops to aid the civil power in this Colony a claim for such extra cost will be made upon the Colonial Government.
  MR. LEA: Who made the application to the general officer commanding in Pretoria or Johannesburg for these troops, and what was the alleged reason for their being sent to the Rand?
  MR. HALDANE: That is a Question which should be addressed to the Undersecretary for the Colonies.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of troops sent to the Rand?
  MR. HALDANE: I think there is rather a misapprehension as to the position of a soldier in relation to an unlawful assembly. He is under no special military liability his liability arises out of the fact that as a civilian he is, like other civilians, liable to be called upon to assist the Crown in putting down riot. He exists upon a more handy footing, in a more handy position, than the ordinary civilian, and therefore he is more often called in.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Why were the Volunteers in the Transvaal not called out, or was it suspected that they would decline?
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill,): The responsible Minister of the Transvaal made an application to the High Commissioner for the assistance of the Imperial troops in maintaining order, and High Commissioner, acting upon his authority and responsibility, directed that such necessary assistance should be afforded by the Imperial troops. I
  1310
  believe that about 800 soldiers have been sent from Pretoria to Johannesburg.
  MR. J. WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that when the news was circulated on the Stock Exchange in London that Imperial troops had been employed to ride down Britishers working on the Rand, it was received with acclamation, and the price of shares went up?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member has no authority over the London Stock Exchange.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Are we to take it that when civilians are called upon to assist the police they are entitled to use firearms?
  MR. HALDANE: I did not say that. The law is that anybody who calls for assistance in putting down, say, a riot or unlawful assembly does so at his peril. If he calls for more assistance than necessary he is guilty of man-slaughter, and it may be of murder. He calls for just so much force as is necessary to put down what he has to cope with. That may be, as in the case of Feather-stone, an extremely serious riot, or it may be something very slight.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the soldier who was called upon went as a soldier or as a civilian, and in what capacity he took his bayonet and rifle.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that he went as a citizen and was personally amenable to the civil law. lie was liable as a citizen to be called on to give assistance to the Crown in redressing disorder, and if he took his bayonet, he only did so in view of the extreme seriousness of the situation. Anybody calling upon a soldier might find himself in trouble.
  MR. LEAasked whether it was not a fact that the chief ground for sending the troops from Pretoria to Johannesburg was to overawe the Chinese rather than to guard against any dangers from the strike of the workmen.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that this was a very complicated matter, indeed the most complicated that he had ever anything to do with. He did not feel it to be possible to discuss the question of the strike in Johannesburg by mere interpellations; but he did think that the presence of 50,000 Chinese on the Rand was an element which added to the general insecurity of the country and which justified the High Commissioner in affording additional assistance.
  MR. ASHLEYasked whether the soldier was not liable to be tried by court martial if he did not go to the aid of the civil power.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that this subject was one of the most obscure questions that could be discussed in jurisprudence. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen took one view of it, and other eminent authorities took a different view; but if the hon. Member wished to find the fullest statement of the law he knew, it would be found in the Report of Lord Bowen's Committee on the Featherstone disturbances. It contained an exhaustive statement as far as the law was ascertained on the whole subject
  MR. HAROLD COXasked whether the Government's intention was that troops should be permanently maintained in the Transvaal at the cost of this country.
  MR. HALDANE: No.
  MR. J. WARDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had more recent information than was contained in the newspapers with regard to the proceedings connected with the dispute in Johannesburg. Was any effort being made by the Government to bring about a settlement?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that at present he was not very fully informed as to the details of this dispute; but the policy the Government were at present pursuing was to give what aid was thought to be necessary to the new Government in dealing with this matter—a Government, it should be remembered, which had been largely supported by many of the men now on strike.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Transvaal Government have asked for the help of Imperial troops to suppress a labour strike; and whether he will withdraw at least a portion of the military forces of the Crown from South Africa, and in this way discourage the employment of the Regular Army on police duty.
  MR. HALDANE: The duty of the Regular troops, wherever stationed, is to assist in the maintenance of order whenever called upon by the civil authorities. The question of the garrison of South Africa does not arise.
  *MR. MACKARNESS: Are we to understand that the Transvaal Government asked for 800 troops to be used solely against white miners?
  MR. HALDANEsaid he would inquire as to that.
  MR. BYLES: If the troops had been withdrawn from South Africa these "bayonetted civilians" would not have been so handy.
  MR. HALDANE: They happened to be there, and being there we used them.

  Flogging in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any reply from the Government of India in reply to the despatch he addressed to that Government about a year ago regarding public floggings as a judicial punishment in India; and whether he is prepared to take any steps towards the elimination of this form of punishment from the criminal code of the country, except incases where the offender is guilty of gross and violent crime against the person.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): A reply has been received and is now under my consideration. I am not prepared to make any statement on the subject at present, but I hope there will be no long delay.

  St. Paul's School, Darjeeling.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is now in a position to give any information regarding special grants to St. Paul's School at Darjeeling, about which he sent inquiries to India in December last.
  MR. MORLEY: Special financial aid has for the last five years been given to St. Paul's School, as it is considered essential that a school of a good standard should be maintained in the hills for European boys in Bengal. The rules for European schools provide for such grants being given, and also that no grants shall be given for instruction in religious subjects. Such aid is available to other denominational schools if they apply for it and are willing to submit to the conditions.

  Education in British Central Africa.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has decided to make any grant in aid of education in British Central Africa Protectorate.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A sum of £1,000 has been provided for the current financial year for this purpose, and the Commissioner has been asked to frame a scheme to be submitted to the Secretary of State, for the appropriation of the money in the best interests of native education.

  Canadian Mail Steamers.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are at present five steamship lines which convey passengers to Canada; and whether it is proposed, in the event of a subsidised fast mail service to Canada being initiated, to grant any compensation to the lines now competing for this trade.
  MR. CHURCHILL: My hon. friend's Question is premature. His Majesty's Government have promised to examine very carefully the proposals which have been submitted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the Imperial Conference, and which have been in general principle, apart from all questions of cost and detail, approved by
  1314
  that body. Such an examination must necessarily take some time, and until it is completed I do not perceive the advantage of the official promulgation of detached and partial facts elicited by Question and Answer, and designed by the questioner to point a particular moral in this direction or in that. If my hon. friend will wait until the proceedings of the Conference are published—I hope at the end of this week—he will be able to see exactly where and how we stand in this matter. But meanwhile His Majesty's Government cannot admit the principle that if one line of steamers is subsidised by the Government the other lines running on the same route should be compensated.

  Indian Natives in Nigeria.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that six natives of the Punjab, who recently resigned Government service in Nigeria, are returning to India with a sense that they have been harshly treated; and whether he will inquire into the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is the case that six natives of the Punjab, who have recently resigned their appointments in Northern Nigeria are at present in this country on their way back to India. They have submitted to the Secretary of State a statement of their case, and the hon. Member may rest assured that it will receive attention.

  Murder of Mr. Veal in Natal.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House information of the judicial proceedings in Natal relating to the murder of Mr. Veal during the recent rebellion; whether nineteen natives have been charged with this one murder; whether seven of them have already been found guilty and sentenced to death; whether they were tried by civil court or by court martial; and whether, the rebellion being over and order restored in Natal, the Colonial Office will advise the Governor to intervene and, if possible, prevent a repetition of the events which last year necessitated intervention, when a number of natives were executed for the murder of a single white man.
  MR. CHURCHILL: This murder took place during the rebellion, but the victim was an unarmed civilian, travelling alone on a bicycle. The circumstances are recorded in the Governor's despatch of 5th July, 1906 (p. 12 Cd. 3247) which shows clearly that a large number of persons were participants in the crime. Nineteen men were originally charged, but the Crown withdrew the case against twelve of the accused, the remaining seven prisoners were found guilty and sentenced to death. All the proceedings were conducted in the ordinary civil courts of the Colony, martial law having ceased. The power of pardon in capital cases in these Courts is regulated in the Governor's instructions, and the Governor will, no doubt, carefully follow the procedure therein laid down. The Secretary of State is therefore of opinion that he is not in a position to intervene as suggested by the hon. Member.

  Anti-Opium Remedies.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statement by Mr. L. Wray, Director of Museums of the Federated Malay States, in regard to the new anti-opium remedy and to the results obtained from its use in Selangor; also to the statement that at the Weld Road establishment of the Selangor Anti-Opium Society, in Kualo Lumpur, from 16th to 23rd November last, about 400 patients had reported that they were completely cured of the habit of opium smoking; and whether, under these circumstances, His Majesty's Government will appoint a Committee to investigate the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers, but the High Commissioner for the Federated Malay States reports that there is considerable conflict of opinion with regard to the alleged cure. The Government Analyst of the Straits Settlements has been unable to find any special constituent in the plant or plants from which the decoction is prepared, and it is said that the same effects have been produced by a strong infusion of tea. A further analysis is now being conducted at the Imperial Institute, and pending a report on the results it would be premature to consider the question of appointing a Committee

  Chinese Anti-Opium Movement.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received Reports of the progress of the anti-opium movement in China from the local consuls, missionaries, and other sources; and, if so, whether these Reports will be collated and Papers laid upon the Table at an early date.
  MR. CHURCHILL (for Sir EDWARD GREY): Reports have been received tending to show that practical stops are being taken in many parts of China to give effect to the anti-opium regulations issued by the Chinese Government. But in view of the short time that these regulations have been in force—only since February last—the information is, as might be expected, hardly sufficiently definite and authoritative to lay before the House. The question of laying Papers will be considered as soon as the particulars received are likely to be of assistance in enabling a definite opinion to be formed as to the effectiveness of the regulations.

  Indian Opium in China.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any despatch has been sent to the Government of China in reply to the proposals presented to the British Government on the 29th November last regarding the traffic of Indian opium to China; and, if so, whether Papers on the subject will now be laid upon the Table.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The views of the Government of India are still under consideration, but His Majesty's Government hope to be in a position very shortly to reply respecting the proposals of the Chinese Government.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORasked if it were not the case that in Pekin Chinese opium shops had already been suppressed?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Shanghai Municipal Gaol.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the scene witnessed in the mixed court at Shanghai on 18th May, when the thirteen ringleaders in the outbreak at

  1317
  the municipal gaol a year ago were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, and all begged to be sent to the city gaol, declaring that decapitation would be preferable to imprisonment in the municipal gaol, and all had to be removed by force; and whether inquiry is being made into the circumstances and character of imprisonment in the Shanghai municipal gaol.
  MR. CHURCHILL: My right hon. friend's attention has been called to the Press report of the scene referred to by the hon. Member, but he has no official information on the subject. It is probable that the objection of the prisoners to the municipal gaol was due to the superior discipline of the latter. A report has been asked for, and it may be added that in November last the Mixed Court Magistrate visited the gaol and expressed his appreciation of the system upon which it is governed, and his satisfaction at the treatment accorded to the prisoners.

  Smyrna Brigandage—Mr. Abbott's Ransom.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any reply has been received from the Turkish Government to the request made for the repayment of the ransom paid by the British Government for the release of Mr. Abbott; and whether there is any connection between this payment and the fresh capture by brigands in the neighbourhood of Smyrna.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No reply has yet been received from the Turkish Government. With regard to the second part of the Question, we have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, as to the alleged fresh capture by brigands near Smyrna, which is not that of a British subject.
  In answer to a further Question by Mr. Fell,
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was no great authority on the varying methods of paying ransoms to brigands.

  Consols.
  STEAUS (Mile End): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that only
  1318
  £1,876,069 14s. 7d. nominal value of 2½per cent. Consols were purchased by the Government during the last year between 14th May, 1906, and 13th May, 1907, for redemption purposes, he will consider the desirability of using a much larger proportion of the amount set aside for the induction of debt this year for purchasing Consols, owing to the present low value.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I do not think it would be to the public interest for me to tie my hands by any declaration as to the particular securities to the cancellation of which I propose to devote the Sinking Fund during the present year, but my hon. friend may rest assured that the comparative advantages of the various securities to which the Sinking Fund can be applied (in estimating which the price at which they can be purchased is, of course, an important element) will be very carefully considered on each occasion.

  Motor Accidents in the Metropolis.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a Return of the accidents caused by motors in the Metropolitan area has been furnished by the police; and if he can state the number during the last six months.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The number of accidents in the Metropolis known to the Police to have been caused in the streets by motor cars, motor cycles and motor omnibuses during the six months ended the 30th April last is 4,451. Of these accidents personal injury resulted in 1,175 cases, and fatal injury in forty-one cases.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a similar Return as to accidents caused by vehicles drawn by horses?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already done that, and if the hon. Member wishes the figures can be brought up to date.

  Motor Fatalities.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many fatal accidents have been caused by motors since the 1st May, 1907.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I cannot give this information.

  Russian Social Democrats.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Russian delegates who are now holding a conference in London are being shadowed and their photographs taken by private detectives and police from Scotland Yard; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter.
  *MR. CREMER: At the same time I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state whether the police have been and still are engaged in watching and following from their place of meeting to their residences the Russians who describe themselves as Social Democrats, and are now holding a Conference in London; whether he is aware that these men have repudiated any connection with Anarchists; if he will state at whose instigation and by whose authority the police are watching and following these men; and whether the information obtained by the police will be given to the Russian police or Russian Government.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Russian Social Democrats at present holding a Conference in London are not being and have not been shadowed by the Metropolitan police, nor have their photographs been taken by the police. His Majesty's Government never interferes with political freedom and is not doing so. The police have standing instructions to take all steps which may be necessary, without distinction of nationality, to prevent crimes of violence being prepared or carried out in this country or elsewhere.
  MR. THORNEasked why so many private detectives were hanging round the place all day.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have absolutely no knowledge of it.
  *MR. CREMERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the most important part of his Question, namely, at whose instigation and by whose authority these men were being watched, and whether the information obtained by them would be given to the Russian police or Government.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid that he had already stated that the Russian Social Democrats now holding a Conference in London were not being shadowed by the Metropolitan Police, nor had their photographs been taken by the police.
  MR. CROOKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no foreign detectives are following these men, who are entitled to the protection of the British flag?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: They are Russian subjects.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I know nothing of foreign detectives.

  Licensed Premises.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state what was the number of premises licensed by justices for the sale of intoxicating liquors on the premises, and the number of such premises for off sale, respectively, existing on the 1st of January, 1907.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not in possession of the actual figures desired by the hon. Member; but the information contained in the volume of Licensing Statistics for 1906 enables an estimate to be made, according to which it would appear that on-licences numbered about 97,700 on 1st January last, and off-licences about 25,100. The actual figures will be given in due course in the Licensing Statistics for 1907.

  Betting by the Working Class
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY (, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact

  1321
  that, since the passing of the Street Betting Act, a system has sprung up whereby men and women employed in factories are offered special facilities for betting, by means of bookmakers' agents employed in the works; whether his attention has been called to a recent statement by the Rev. B. Gregory, preaching at the Salford Mission, to the effect that in one factory the foreman acted as bookmaker with the girls as clients; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will consider the desirableness of amending or repealing the Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information as to the particular case mentioned beyond that contained in the newspaper report which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me. The Home Office has occasionally received complaints about betting in factories, but these were before and not after the passing of the Street Betting Act. If it is the case that the practice has increased, that fact may point to the necessity of further strengthening the law, but can afford no reason for repealing the useful Act of last session.

  Statement showing the number of passengers carried by British and German Vessels from British and Irish Ports to the United States, in each of the years 1904, 1905 and 1906, distinguishing Cabin and Steerage passengers:—

  Year.

  By British Vessels.

  By German Vessels.

  Cabin.

  Steerage.

  Total.

  Cabin.

  Steerage.

  Total.

  1904

  29,797

  221,987

  251,784

  6,366

  42

  6,408

  1905

  33,817

  201,434

  235,251

  6,161

  316

  6,477

  1906

  33,258

  260,780

  294,038

  7,382

  553

  7,935

  Shipping Classification.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the ships sailing under the names of the White Star Line, the Red Star Line, the American Line, the Leyland Line, the Atlantic Transport Line, and the Dominion Line, are classed among English shipping in the Board of Trade Returns.

  Passenger Traffic to America.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of passengers who travelled to the United States by the German passenger lines and by the English passenger lines, respectively, during each of the years 1904, 1905, and 1006, distinguishing the classes by which they travelled.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD- GEORGE,): The number of passengers travelling from this country to the United States by British vessels and German vessels, respectively, were as follows: In 1904, 251,784 by British vessels and 6,408 by German vessels; in 1905, 235, 251 by British vessels and 6,477 by German vessels; in 1906, 294,038 by British vessels and 7,935 by German vessels. With regard to the classes by which the passengers travelled, it is only possible to distinguish between cabin and steerage passengers. I will give these particulars in the Votes.
  [The following were the particulars given in the Votes:]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In the compilation of the Shipping Returns, all vessels registered as British are classed as such. I understand that, speaking generally, the vessels of the White Star Line, Leyland Line, Atlantic Transport Line, and Dominion Line are registered as British, whilst the vessels of the Red Star Line are Belgian, and those of the

  1323
  American Line partly American and partly British.
  MR. FELL: Then the Returns are erroneous lo this extent, as these lines are owned by Americans?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly not.

  Dalmuir Level Crossing Fatality.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the character of a level crossing on the North British Railway at Dalmuir, Dumbartonshire, where an express train recently killed a child and a young man who was making a gallant attempt to rescue the child; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure the erection of a bridge there, so as to avert further accidents.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The level crossing in question is not one at which the Board of Trade can require the erection of a bridge. I am, however, in communication with the company as to any precautions that can be taken to guard against accidents in the future.

  Butter Imports.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the quantity of butter imported into this country from Denmark which is not produced in that country, but imported there from Siberia; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter with a view to preventing the contravention of the Merchandise Marks Act.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: A small quantity of butter is consigned to this country from Russia via Danish ports. I am informed that a certain quantity of Siberian butter is also consigned from Denmark by Danish merchants, but I have no information as to the quantity which reaches the country in this way. If any evidence can be furnished that any such butter is imported here as Danish I shall be ready to give it consideration.

  Motor Speed Tests.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the president of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the Frome's Hill Climb, the speed at
  1324
  which some of the motors were driven, and the consequent injury to a spectator; and if the Government will see to it that, in future competitions on public roads, due regard will be paid to the provisions of the law and the safety of the public.
  The PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN-BURNS,): My attention has been called to this case. The administration of the law relating to the use of the highway by motor cars is practically in the hands of the local police. From accounts in my possession I gather that the police were present on the occasion referred to, and that they took precautions to safeguard from danger the spectators, who were, moreover, aware that a competition was taking place. I am not myself in a position to take action in cases of this kind.
  MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether, in view of the facts, the right hon. Gentleman would not consider with the Home Secretary the desirableness of stopping these trials altogether.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will communicate with my right hon. friend. My own personal view is that, except under very special conditions, and in the early morning, no speed or test trials should take place on a public thoroughfare.

  Eastern Mail Service.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a new contract has been concluded with the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the mail service with India, China, and Australia for a period of seven years from 1st February, 1908; and, if so, will he state what are the terms of speed, and the amount of subsidy as compared with the present contract.
  MR. LAIDLAW: I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General what subsidy the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company are to receive for carrying the Indian mails under the new three years contract; what are the conditions regarding speed; if, when arranging the time-table for the Indian mails under the new contract, he will bear in mind the importance of providing for the arrival of the incoming mail before the departure of the

  1325
  outgoing; and if he will consult the chambers of commerce and trades associations in India regarding the most convenient time of departure from Bombay before concluding any arrangements.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): No now Eastern Mail Packet contract has been concluded, but, after prolonged consultations with the Secretaries of State for India and the Colonies in regard to Indian and Colonial interests, I have decided to accept provisionally a tender of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company offering to make a contract for seven years from 1st February, 1908, under which, in return for an annual subsidy of £305,000, as against the present subsidy of £340,000 a year, an accelerated service will be provided. If, as I hope, the details of the contract can be satisfactorily settled, the duration of the voyage between Brindisi and Bombay is to be reduced to eleven days six hours in each direction, between Brindisi and Shanghai to twenty-eight days six hours outwards and twenty-eight days twenty-two hours homewards, and between Brindisi and Adelaide to twenty-six days fourteen hours outwards and twenty-seven days two hours homewards. The saving of time thus to be secured is:—Between Brindisi and Bombay, eight hours both outward and homeward; between Brindisi and Shanghai, thirty-four hours outward and twenty-four home ward; between Brindisi and Adelaide, thirty-six hours outward and twenty-four homeward. The time-table of the new service will be arranged to the best advantage which circumstances permit; and the hour of departure from Bombay will of course be fixed with the concurrence of the Indian Government as the proper representative of Indian interests in the matter.

  Land Registration.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether in view of the Report of the Registrar of the Land Registry for the years 1903 to 1906, containing suggestions for the improvement of the system of land registration, by providing for the establishment of a general register of all land in England and Wales with absolute title at an early date and at a moderate cost, the Government propose to intro-
  1326
  duce legislation in order to carry such recommendations into effect.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to a similar Question on the 6th March.† The subject is still receiving consideration.

  King's Bench Division.
  MR. RAWLINSON: On behalf ofthe right hon. Member for Dublin University, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he can state the number of cases now standing for trial or hearing in the King's Bench Division; how many Judges will be available in London for the trial of such cases, having regard to the summer circuits; and whether any arrangements have been or will be made by which such cases, or the greater portion of them, may be disposed of before the long vacation.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: The number of cases in the King's Bench Division now standing for trial is as follows:—Special juries, 192; common juries, 208; non-juries, 139; commercial cases, 20; Order XIV., 10; assigned actions, 3—total, 572. This is in addition to Crown Paper, Revenue Paper, and Railway Commission. The number of Judges available for the trial of these cases is as follows:—Provided none are absent from illness or otherwise, for the first fortnight, ten; the third and fourth week, nine; the fifth week, six; the sixth week, from five to seven; the seventh week, five; the eighth week, seven; the ninth week, six; and the last three days, seven. In other words, not counting Saturdays, which are devoted almost exclusively to cases under Order XIV., Rule 8, and omitting the Judge dealing with the commercial list, it would be as if there were one Judge taking special juries for seventy-eight days, one taking common juries for eighty days, and one taking non-juries for forty-seven days. The Government have fully realised the importance of taking steps to ensure that these cases shall be tried before the long vacation. Some weeks ago I communicated to the Lord Chief Justice the desire that this should be done, and informed him, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the
  † See (4) Debates, clxx,, 793.

  1327
  Exchequer, that a sufficient number of Commissioners would be appointed to go on circuit, so as to allow of such a staff of Judges relinquishing their summer circuits and remaining in town as might be adequate to the hearing and disposal of all these cases before the adjournment of the Court for the autumn recess. I have the permission of the Lord Chief Justice to say—and I read from his letter—that "in the event of an additional Judge of the King's Bench Division being appointed promptly, and a second Commissioner nominated to take a circuit, I have no doubt that, unless anything unforeseen occurs, we shall be able to dispose by the end of July of all the cases entered for trial to the middle of the present month" (May). A second Commissioner has been appointed accordingly, and more Commissioners would have been appointed if it had been desired. The creation, with the sanction of Parliament, of an additional Judge is receiving the consideration—I think I may add the favourable consideration—of the Lord Chancellor. I have before mea forecast made in an official quarter, from which it would appear that the estimate of the Lord Chief Justice with regard to the disposal of the business of the King's Bench Division may be unduly sanguine, and that one-half only of the cases can be tried between now and 1st August unless some of the Judges give up their circuits and remain in town. Whether this be so or not, I wish it to be understood that His Majesty's Government are willing to relieve the Judges of the obligation to go on circuit, and to provide the necessary expense involved in their remaining in London in order that the London lists shall be disposed of. The Government have done, and they are prepared to do, what they can to bring about the most desirable object of ensuring the trial of the causes which stand for hearing in the King's Bench Division before the long vacation, and they feel that there will be cause for much disappointment if this cannot be done. I may add, with regard to the future regulation of the business of this division and of the Court of Appeal, that the Lord Chancellor expects in a few days to announce the appointment of a Committee to consider and report upon the subject, including the question of appointing more Judges, so as to provide for the rapid despatch of
  1328
  business. It is not likely that there will be much delay in reporting, as the Committee will consist of persons who are familiar with this subject.
  MR. RAWLINSON: What form will the Committee take?
  SIR. JOHN WALTON: It will be composed of gentlemen thorougly familiar with King's Bench business, who will be invited to act by the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the hon, and learned Gentleman, consider the desirability of employing three or four of the Irish Judges who now have nothing to do?
  MR. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Government, having regard to the additional duties thrown upon the High Court by the Criminal Appeal Bill, intend to appoint any, and, if so, how many, additional Judges to the King's Bench Division of that Court.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid this Question was to be considered by the-Committee which the Lord Chancellor expected to appoint in a few days.

  Criminal Appeal Bill.—Staff of Director of Public Prosecutions.
  MR. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Government propose, having regard to Clause 12 of the Criminal Appeal Bill, to increase to any, and what, extent the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and, if so, what estimate has been made of the cost of such increase.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: The clause itself provides for such increase in the staff as may prove to be necessary. It is impossible to forecast the consequent cost to the Department until experience has shown the extent to which convicted persons avail themselves of the right to appeal.
  MR. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether any, and what, estimate has been made of the expenditure likely to be incurred under Clauses 12 and 13 of the Criminal Appeal Bill.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: No estimate of the expenditure has been or can be made for the reason stated in the last Answer. An estimate at this stage is doubly difficult, because not only is the number of applications for leave to appeal largely speculative, but the proportion of cases in which leave will be given is uncertain. In my opinion, the pro portion will be small, and the cost of consequent appeals not great.
  MR. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General what is the estimated expenditure necessary for carrying out the provisions of Clause 16 (2) of the Criminal Appeal Bill, differentiating between the cost of taking shorthand notes and the cost of transcribing the same respectively.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: The cost of taking down in shorthand the Report of every criminal trial has not yet been estimated, but I will ascertain whether there is any difficulty in this being done. The expense cannot be large. The more important item of obtaining transcripts of the portions of such Reports which the Court may desire to see cannot be estimated at this stage for the reasons already given.

  Shetland Trawling Prosecutions.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the recent trawling prosecutions and convictions in Shetland, and to the fact that fishermen have to leave home for indeterminate periods in order to give evidence; and if, under the circumstances, the Fishery Board will for the future make small grants out of any fines that might be imposed in respect of breaches of the Law to recoup the fishermen for some of their lost time.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Under existing circumstances a witness is entitled to receive 4s. 6d. for his day's attendance at court, and 3s. for every other day upon which he is prevented from following his ordinary occupation. The Fishery Board do not receive the fines imposed on the masters of trawl vessels, and, therefore, they are not in a position to consider the question of
  1330
  I making grants from those fines to fishermen who act as witnesses.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill are intended by the Government to ensure that every existing small holding in Scotland should fall automatically, in the case of yearly tenancies on the passage of the Bill and in the case of leaseholds on the expiration of the lease, within the operation of the Bill: or whether it is intended that the tenant of any such holding should be free, if he so desires, to continue in his holding after the passage of the Bill on such terms as he may be able, without reference to the Bill, to arrange with his landlord.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The operation of the Bill is intended to be as interpreted in the first portion of the hon. Member's Question; any landholder, however, is entitled upon one year's notice to his landlord to renounce his holding; and it should be borne in mind further, that Section 5 of the Crofters Holdings Act which will apply generally provides for alteration of rent by agreement between landlord and landholder.

  Crofters Holdings.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, what are the number of holdings within the crofting area to which the Crofters Acts apply; the number of crofters who have had fair rents fixed; the number of crofters who have not availed themselves of the Acts; and the number of crofters who, after having had their rents fixed for a term of years, have subsequently preferred to return to ordinary relations with their landlords.
  MR. SINCLAIR: (1) The exact number of holdings to which the Crofters' Holdings Acts apply cannot be stated, but according to the latest return (No. 127 of 1907) the number of occupiers of farms in the crofting counties entered at a rental of not exceeding £30 is 28,577. (2) The number of crofters who have had fair rents fixed is 15,156, exclusive of cases of re-valuation of holdings. (3) There is no information available as to

  1331
  the number of crofters who, while enjoying the statutory tenure conferred by the Act, have not thought it necessary to apply to have a fair rent fixed by the Crofters Commission; (4) There are no statistics available as to the number of crofters who have renounced the statutory tenure; it is understood that there are some instances where crofters have done so on removing to more suitable holdings, or on receiving favourable treatment at the hands of the landlord: but these cases are believed to be few in number.

  Illegal Trawling.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the number of cases of illegal trawling around the coasts of Scotland, will he consider the expediency of imposing more drastic penalties for infringments of the law.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The administration of the existing law is under close observation, and the suggestion of my hon. friend's Question will be noted.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to make the existing law applicable to foreigners?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Culloden Estate Evictions.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the evictions of certain tenants on the Culloden estate, Ferintosh, Ross-shire, and of the fact that the factor or estate agent has given notice to other tenants; and will he consider the expediency of arranging in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, now before Parliament, for crofter leaseholders to obtain the benefits of the Act directly it becomes law.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My information may not be complete, but I am aware of the incidents to which my hon. friend now draws attention, and the policy of the Government in regard to leaseholders, which was adopted after careful consideration, is contained in the Bill as now before the Scottish Grand Committee.

  Dublin and Belfast Magistracy.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
  1332
  tenant of Ireland if he can state the head of population within the Dublin Metropolitan and Belfast magistrates jurisdiction respectively, the number of magistrates in the two areas, and their salaries.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The estimated population of the Dublin Metropolitan Police district in the middle of 1906 was 405,000, and that of Belfast City was 366,220. There are four divisional magistrates in Dublin, of whom the chief magistrate receives a salary of £1,200 per annum, and the three others £1,000 each. There are two resident magistrates in Belfast, of whom one receives a salary of £675 with a commuted forage allowance of £100, and the other a salary of £550, with a similar allowance.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the disparity between the Dublin and Belfast payments, the populations being practically the same?
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir. England and Ireland are full of disparities. I can give no explanation.

  Irish Land Purchase Instalments.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland the total annual amount payable by way of instalments in respect of purchases already completed under Land Purchase Acts in Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: The total amount of annuities payable under the Land Purchase Acts is £1,354,089, and the amount of annuities under the Bright Clauses of the Act of 1870 is £11,269.

  Dublin Revaluation.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any progress has been made in the re-valuation of Dublin; and when the Commissioner of Valuation anticipates that it will be completed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,; for Mr. RUNCIMAN): I understand that considerable progress has been made in the revaluation of the city, but the work is not sufficiently advanced

  1333
  to enable the Commissioners of Valuation to fix a date for its completion.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in calculating for the purpose of the Finance Act, 1894, Section 16, the value of holdings purchased under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, the standard is fixed at twenty-five years purchase of the Poor Law Valuation, and no regard is had to the terminable annuity payable to the Land Commission; and, seeing that the effect of this practice has been to make many small holdings liable for Estate Duty which would have paid no duty had they not been purchased under the Land Acts, and in view of the necessity of affording every legal protection and immunity to the rapidly multiplying small estates in Ireland, whether he will take steps to amend the practice in question.
  MR. MCKENNA (for Mr. RUNCIMAN): The standard of twenty-five years purchase of the Poor Law Valuation is only used where it is less than the market value of the holding. A deduction is always allowed for the terminable annuity where the duty is calculated on the net value of the property. Under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1894, however, the duty has to be calculated by reference to the gross value. In cases falling under this section, the deduction can, therefore, only be allowed where the estate was purchased and the charge created by some person other than the deceased. Where the purchase has been made by the deceased himself, the annuity constitutes an encumbrance which he has himself created, and its redemption value is included in the gross value of the property. Recourse to Section 16 is however only optional.

  Government Bills.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to proceed with the Irish Council Bill; if so, will he state the dates on which it is intended to take the Second Reading; and whether he will grant at least a clear week for the Second Reading.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMP- BELL-BANNERMAN,): This is the first of several Questions relating to various Government Bills, and I would ask that all of these should be put off for a week, when I can answer them all together.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Cannot the Prime Minister give an answer, at all events in regard to the Irish Council Bill, within a shorter period than a week? There is very great public interest taken in the matter.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it is more convenient to answer all together. It is an invidious thing to pick and choose.
  The following Questions were covered by the foregoing Answer:—
  MR. MITCHELL THOMSON: To ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Irish Council Bill.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to pass through this House the English Valuation Bill during the present session; and when it is proposed to introduce the Bill.
  MR. CLOUGH: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can mention the date upon which the Second Reading of the Education (Special Religious Instruction) Bill will be the first Order of the Day.
  SIR J. RANDLES: To ask the Prime Minister in what order the Government propose to take the Second Reading of the Irish Council Bill, the Resolutions respecting the House of Lords, and the introduction of the promised temperance legislation; and can he also indicate the approximate dates.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: To ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state what course will be taken as to the Licensing Bill, promised in the Speech from the Throne.

  The Indian Budget.
  SIR HENRY COTTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister on what date the Indian Budget will be taken.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On Thursday, June 6th.

  Business of the House.
  MR. WALTER LONGinquired from the Prime Minister whether he proposed to ask the House, supposing there was a desire to continue the discussion on the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill, to sit to a late hour, and what business it was proposed to take this week.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the business to-morrow and Wednesday would be the Army Bill, on Thursday Scottish Supply, and Friday the Criminal Appeal Bill. As to that night, they hoped to be able to take the First Heading stage of the Bill without sitting up to a very late hour.
  MR. WALTER LONG: pointed out that there was a private Bill down for that evening, which, there was every reason to believe, would occupy a con-
  siderable time, and he inquired whether it was quite reasonable to ask the House to conclude that night the debate on so important a measure as the Small Holdings Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: replied that the interposed Bill had been discussed already at great length, and he did not imagine that the further discussion would be very prolonged. It was very desirable to take the First Reading of the Small Holdings Bill so that Members might see the measure in print and judge of its contents.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the introduction of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill, if under discussion when the Business is postponed, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 64. (Division List No. 176.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Burns, Rt. Hno. John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Duckworth, James

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cairns, Thomas

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Elibank, Master of

  Astbury, John Meir

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Essex, R. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barker, John

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rset

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barnard, E. B.

  Clough, William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Beauchamp, E.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gilhooly, James

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Collins, Sir W m. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Ginnell, L.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Cooper, J. G.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Grant, Corrie

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Billson, Alfred

  Cox, Harold

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cremer, William Randal

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Boland, John

  Crooks, William

  Halpin, J.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

  Branch, James

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shackleton, David James

  Henry, Charles S.

  Mond, A.

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

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Murray, James

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Myer, Horatio

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Napier, T. B.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nicholls, George

  Stewart-Smith, D, (Kendal)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Jenkins, J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thorne, William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Partington, Oswald

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Paul, Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Philipps, J. Wnyford (Pembroke

  Verney, F. W.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lamont, Norman

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lay land-Barratt, Francis

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wardle, George J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Waring, Walter

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richardson, A.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Maclean, Donald

  Robinson, S.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  MaoVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Winfrey, R.

  M'Crae, George

  Rowlands, J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sohwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Pease.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sears, J. E.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seaverns, J. H.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm's)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  1338

  1339

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Starkey, John R.

  Younger, George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sic

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Lord Balcarres.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES].
  Resolution reported: "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 £85,000 for the use of the Agricultural Commissioners; (c) compensation in certain cases to members and officers of the Crofters Commission."
  Resolution read a second time.
  MR. RAWLINSONmoved an Amendment to limit the expenses in respect of the Agricultural Commissioners to £3,000 a year. He said that under Section 3 of the Bill a Land Court was proposed to be set up and under Section 4 a tribunal was created called the Agricultural Commission for Scotland. The object of his Amendment was not in any way to deal with the merits of the Bill; indeed, for the purpose of his Amendment, the Bill might be assumed to be a highly desirable measure, although he did not say for one moment that that was his view, nor that it was the view of any; Scottish landlord or tenant. On Friday they had been asked to draw three blank cheques for the use of the Secretary for Scotland, with possibly the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was thoroughly unsound finance, and Members of that House, who were supposed to be looking after the expenditure of the country, had no right to pass any orders of such a nature, no matter how desirable they
  1340
  might be. Under the Bill no limit was-put upon the expenses of the Land Court at all. The Secretary for Scotland was questioned very closely on Friday as to what his estimate was of the expenditure likely to be incurred under that section of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs made out the estimated expenditure to be a large sum; he (Mr. Rawlinson) was not concerned whether that was right or wrong, but the Secretary for Scotland entirely dissented from the hon. Member's figures and said, in reply to a request for his own, that he had something better than an estimate, he had a figure to guide him which was based on experience, and that amount was £5,000. That figure was challenged by a large number of Members, but he was quite prepared to accept it, and he had, therefore, put upon the Paper an Amendment restricting the expenses under that sub-section of the Bill to £6,000 a year, thus leaving a substantial margin beyond the figure quoted by the Secretary for Scotland. Then there was the question of the expenses of the Agricultural Commissioners. There were the salaries of the three Commissioners and the expenses the Commission might incur. In the case of the Land Court the salaries of the Judges were estimated at a sum amounting to £0,000 a year, but in the case of the Agricultural Commissioners there was no estimate at all as to the sum they were to receive. The Secretary for Scotland had been repeatedly asked what was the estimated amount for the remuneration of those three gentlemen, but he was either unable or unwilling to reply. In order, therefore, to obtain information upon this point he had put down in his Amendment that those salaries should be limited to £3,000 a year. If that was not a proper figure he would be prepared to accept any figure the-Secretary of Scotland might name, but he objected to power being given to the right hon. Gentleman to appoint those officials at a cost to be borne by public funds without any control from that House over their remuneration.

  1341
  The right hon. Gentleman on Friday had used words to the effect, "Oh, the House can safely give power to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because these salaries will come up on the Estimates on some other occasion." He protested most strongly against that answer. If the House passed the Financial Resolution, and gave the Secretary for Scotland power to appoint the three Commissioners at such salaries as the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought right, the House would have practically no control over the salaries. It was one thing for the House to resolve that three people should be appointed at such and such a salary—whatever the figure might be—and another thing to give authority to certain members of the Government to make the appointments, and not to take the trouble to restrict the remuneration. It should be remembered also that there was unlimited power given as to the amount of the expenses of the Commission itself. That was estimated by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs at £100,000, an estimate which was rejected by the Secretary for Scotland. Some limit should be put on the amount. In protesting against the course which the Government were now taking, he and his friends were following the excellent precedent set by many of those who now sat on the Treasury Bench when discussing the Aliens Bill. When he found arguments marked by sound sense emanating even from hon. Members on the other side of the House he was perfectly ready to adopt them. In the case of the Aliens Bill various Members of the then Opposition argued that an estimate of the cost should be given, and the late Government did give an estimate on the authority of the Home Secretary at the time. It might or might not have been a correct one, but it was criticised. In view of the position taken up on the Aliens Bill, it was rather the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist the Opposition than to assist the right hon. Gentleman who sat beside him on that present occasion. He submitted the there was a principle involved in the Resolution against which the House ought to protest. It was a question involving the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at every turn. On Friday the Secretary for Scotland, at the end of his interesting speech,
  1342
  naÏvely said that he did not know that he had given any information except what appeared in the Bill at the present time. It was a perfectly frank admission, and it was about correct. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came in, and, after he had been in the House for a. short time, moved the closure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith,): Half an hour.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that if the House passed the Resolution as it stood it would create a thoroughly bad precedent. There ought to be some limit to the cost. The new bodies to be constituted under the Bill were only to have the administration of £65,000, and as large sums had been indicated by hon. Members on both sides of the House as the possible cost, it was desirable as a matter of principle that some limit should be put on the expenditure which would be involved in the working of the measure. He begged to move.
  SIR F. BANBURYin seconding the Amendment, said he failed to understand why the Government did not accept it. The Bill provided that the chairman of the Land Court should receive a salary not exceeding £2,000 a year, and that each of the other members should receive a salary not exceeding £1,000 a year. In the case of the Agricultural Commissioners the Bill mentioned no salary. If it was possible to fix the salary for the members of the Land Court, he failed to see why it should not be done also in the case of the Agricultural Commissioners. The work of the Land Court would be far more important than that of the Agricultural Commissioners, and if £1,000 a year was sufficient for a member of that Court, why should it not be sufficient for a commissioner? His hon. and learned friend had referred to speeches which were delivered some two years ago in Opposition by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench; and he understood the Prime Minister to say in an interruption, "Your Government did the same thing." He was glad to hear that the example of the late Government was going to be followed by the present Government. If he could

  1343
  believe that the Prime Minister was going to follow the example of the late Government he could prophesy for the right hon. Gentleman an easy time, but up to the present he had not done that. He himself was in the House during the debates on the Aliens Bill, and a question exactly similar to that now before the House came up. He was very much struck by the arguments used then by hon. Gentlemen who now occupied places in the Government. He admitted that he voted with his Party, but he was not quite sure that his Party were right on that occasion. He would point out that the circumstances were very different on the two occasions. The sum of money to be applied to the purposes of this measure was very much larger than the amount applied under the Aliens Act. It was to be devoted to matters involving a greater amount of detail, and the administrative charges would, therefore, be larger. A fortiori it was right that the Resolution should say what sum of money should be spent on the salaries of the Agricultural Commissioners. He asked the Prime Minister whether he remembered the claims of his Party that the financial control of the House of Commons should be reestablished. On that side of the House they were endeavouring to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of fulfilling his electoral pledges. They were asking for nothing unreasonable, but only that the Secretary for Scotland should tell the House what salaries he proposed to give to the gentlemen whom he appointed as Agricultural Commissioners.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Paragraph 2 (a), line 7, after the word Commissioners,' to insert the words 'not exceeding three thousand pounds."' (Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said that this was the report of a Resolution adopted by the Committee of the Whole House on Friday last. It was merely an enabling resolution to empower the Committee upstairs to discuss the clauses relating to the amount of money to be spent on, and by, the Agricultural Commissioners. The House did not part
  1344
  with its control over expenditure when the Resolution went upstairs. The Bill would have to pass through two stages in the House before it was sent up to another place. The salaries of the members of the Land Court, which was a judicial body, were put on the Consolidated Fund, and for that reason they were not in the same position as the salaries of the Agricultural Commissioners, who would be simply a department of the Civil Service, whose salaries would be fixed in consultation with the Treasury. Therefore, those salaries would come under the review of the House on the Estimates. In adopting that course the Government were simply following the course pursued by all Governments.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: understood that the Amendment was in the direction of defining what was to be the general expenditure under the Bill. He had been much struck by the proposed financial arrangements. He did not believe that the machinery of the Bill could be carried out at a less expense than £10,000 per annum, and that was to administer an expenditure of £100,000. He thought that that was extravagant in the highest degree and a bad precedent to set up. The salaries for the members of the Land Court were £2,000 for the chairman and £4,000 for the other members. But that was not all—
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that the Amendment did not refer to the Land Court at all, but to the Agricultural Commissioners.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that what he wanted to know was, what were the actual salaries to be paid to the Agricultural Commissioners.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not followed the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONthought that before the House passed the Resolution they should understand what the position really was. They were being asked to vote a certain

  1345
  sum of money for the salaries of the three gentlemen who were to constitute the Agricultural Commission. The Secretary for Scotland had said that these Commissioners were to be ordinary civil servants, and that the ordinary Civil Service procedure would be followed in regard to them. But the right hon. Gentleman had not pointed out that these Commissioners were not ordinary civil servants; they were to be appointed for an extraordinary purpose—to administer what was nothing short of a revolution in the land system of Scotland. What the people of Scotland wanted was to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman
  some estimate of the total cost of the Bill and what the salaries of the Agricultural Commissioners were to be. Those Agricultural Commissioners were to be responsible for preparing and creating small holdings, to take over the powers and duties of the Congested Districts Board, to have some of the powers of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and so on. They could not expect any man to do those duties for £1,000 a year. He supported the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 256. (Division List No. 177.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hervey, F. W. F (Bury S. Edm'ds)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Starkey, John R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W m.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebons, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A(Wore)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Younger, George

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Sir Frederick Banbury and

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Black, Arthur W.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras, W.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Boland, John

  Cooper, G. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bottomley, Horatio

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Branch, James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Baxar, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Crooks, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Barker, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rs't)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dickinson, W. H (St. Pancras, N.)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duckworth, James

  Bertram, Julius

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Clough, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robinson, S.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lough, Thomas

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lundon, W.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rose, Charles Day

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rowlands, J.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maclean, Donald

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Crae, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Maddison, Frederick

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Grant, Corrie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Steadman, W. C.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Halpin, J.

  Mond, A.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mooney, J. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Murray, James

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Myer, Horatio

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nicholls, George

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r)

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thorne, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tillett, Louis John

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nut-tall, Harry

  Toulmin, George

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Verney, F. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  Wardle, George J.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Waring, Walter

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Paul, Herbert

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Weir, James Galloway

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Whitbread, Howard

  Jowett, F. W.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Radford, G. H.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Richardson, A.

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Winfrey, R.

  Layland-Barrett, Francis

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Pease.

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Mr. RAWLINSONsaid the Amendment he now proposed to move had reference to the expenses of the Land Court. That Court, as the House was aware, was dealt with in two clauses; the first was concerned with the salaries of the judges, amounting to £6,000a year. The
  1348
  second clause had reference to the salaries and expenses of the other officials and the other expenses of the Land Court, and did not propose any limitation. The Amendment he proposed placed upon those expenses a limit of £6,000 a year. He had nothing upon which to base

  1349
  that estimate except the statements made by the Secretary for Scotland in regard to the cost of the Crofters Commission. If he was told that that was not the correct figure, as he had said in the case of the last Amendment, he would be perfectly prepared to accept any reasonable sum. The Secretary for Scotland seemed to indicate that the sum they ought to keep in their minds was some £4,500 or £5,000 as the extra cost of the Land Court, and for that reason he had fixed £6,000 in order to allow a small margin. The Government ought to have some sort of idea of the expenditure of the suggested Land Court, and the House ought not to give a blank cheque to the right hon. Gentleman to create any number of Commissioners that he thought proper.
  SIR HENEY CRAIKin seconding the Amendment, wished to point out one or two considerations which should serve to guide them as to the expenditure which should be incurred. He thought that the moment the Secretary for Scotland looked at the figures which he wished to bring forward he would sec that his estimate of last Friday was inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of the Crofters Commission as a guide. That body dealt with a very small portion of Scotland, and therefore with but a very small fragment of the question with which the Land Court would have to deal. The questions entrusted to the Crofters Commission did not call for such prolonged consideration as would be necessary in regard to cases brought before the Land Court. What precedent could they get to guide them to some extent as to the total cost of the Land Court? The Land Court in Scotland would do work in about the same area as the Land Commission in Ireland, and the latter cost £146,000 a year. Was there any reason why they should distinguish between the Scottish Land Court and the Irish Commissioners and come to the conclusion that what cost £146,000 a year in Ireland was to be carried out for £6,000 or £7,000 in Scotland? If there was any reason for doing so, surely the right hon. Gentleman might state it to the House. The expenditure now proposed was, in his judgment, totally inadequate.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In paragraph 2 (a), line 10, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that the expense in connection with the Land Court shall not exceed £6,000 in any one year, and.'" (Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not accuse him of any desire to withhold information in regard to any part of the Bill, but he earnestly hoped that when they reconsidered the very unprecedented proposition which they were making they would not insist on dividing the House upon it. The hon. Members who moved and seconded had alluded to an estimate which he was said to have made in debate; but he had made no estimate whatever of the probable expenditure upon the Land Court, although he did mention in the course of debate what the Crofters Commission had cost annually, and added that an estimate founded upon that would be more likely to be correct than any founded on the expenditure of the Irish Land Commission. At present, however, any estimate on the subject was likely to be incorrect, because they had not defined the powers and duties of the body to be set up. It would therefore at that stage be most improper to attempt to define the cost, and it would be a waste of the time of the House to endeavour to do so. It was impossible to define the cost of any system of administration until one had defined the way in which that administration was to be carried out. All the expenses of the Land Court, except those placed upon the Consolidated Fund, would come on the Votes, and be submitted annually to Parliament, and there would be the strictest financial control that the rules of Parliament allowed. He asked the House, therefore, to consider whether it was necessary to continue the discussion on this trivial point.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the fact that the Bill was to be considered upstairs, and had expressed the opinion that the procedure adopted by his hon. friend in moving the Amendment was quite unusual. It was not the procedure but the character of

  1351
  the Bill that was unusual. The right hon. Gentleman, when making that remark, had quite forgotten that the discussion upstairs would be a discussion of which neither those interested nor the public would have any record or know what was being done. With regard to the Bill itself, the right hon. Gentleman had made statements which were simply amazing. He had said it was impossible to make any estimate, because until the Bill had been discussed upstairs the functions of the proposed body were undefined. Surely the Government had arrived at some idea as to what the functions of that body would be, and in that case they must have some idea of what expense would be involved. The right hon. Gentleman objected to what he termed narrowing down the issues in this manner, but his hon. friend who moved the Amendment would adopt any reasonable suggestion the Government might make. As the matter at present stood, they were going to discuss the Bill in Committee without knowing anything of the Government's intentions with regard to it, and they would debate these questions under conditions which would not permit of those in the country who were interested — and they were many, and they were not all interested in the manner the Government thought they were—knowing what took place. That there was a very general interest in the question was shown by the fact that, although he was not a Scottish Member, as a member of the Committee he had received numerous letters showing a very lively interest in the Bill. It was simply amazing that the Government should come forward with revolutionary proposals of this kind, and then say they could not form any estimate of what the cost would be. It would only add enormously to the difficulties under which they were to discuss the Bill in Committee upstairs, and he did not think the Government were taking the right steps to facilitate the passage of their Bill.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Secretary for Scotland in his reply to the Amendment had said, first, that the expense would be discussed in Committee of Supply, and, secondly, that it was quite unusual for a Member of the House to move an Amendment of the kind now proposed. With regard to the latter statement, he might point
  1352
  out that the supporters of the Government in 1904 made an exactly similar proposal, as the President of the Board of Trade moved to add the words "in any one year not to exceed £5,000;" whilst in 1905the hon. Member for Halifax moved a precisely similar Amendment. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first answer, he might say that there would be no Committee of Supply until May or June, 1908, and in the meantime the Government were asking the House to vote money for an expenditure as to the extent of which they had no idea. He believed he was right in saying that unless that Resolution was passed no money could be spent under the Bill. If by its being discussed upstairs the right hon. Gentleman meant that he was going to inform the Committee what money was to be spent, why could he not inform the House now? If the right hon. Gentleman knew what was going to be spent, there was no reason for his silence. The veal truth was that the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment because he had not the vaguest idea of what amount he was going to spend.
  *MR. YOUNGER: expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman was himself largely responsible for the Amendment, because he had intimated that the expenditure upon the Land Court would be analogous to the expenditure on the administration of the Crofters Commission. Anything more ludicrous it was impossible to conceive. The expenditure of the Croftera Commission in its earlier years varied between £8,800 and £9,900 a year, and the variety and complexity of the duties the Land Court would have to perform were not comparable to the comparatively restricted work of the Crofters Commission. It almost convinced him that those behind this Bill knew very little about the subject. A short time ago they were told at Edinburgh that the Government had most carefully considered every detail connected with the Bill. If that was the case it was surely possible for the right hon. Gentleman, without binding himself to any specific estimate, to give the House some idea of what he thought would be the cost of carrying out the Bill. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs put it at £20,000 a year, but they did not know

  1353
  if that was so, and he himself would put it at a higher figure. The present was the only opportunity they would have of showing the people of Scotland that they would have to pay for something they did not want. He would vote for the Amendment as a protest against the failure to give the information asked for.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid the expense of the machinery of the Bill seemed to him to be out of all proportion to the work to be performed. Apparently the machinery was going to cost 20 per cent of the whole of the money expended. The amount of money to be expended was sufficient to set up about 100 small holders a year, and the work involved in that was so small that the cost of administration seemed to be out of all proportion. The whole sum at the disposal of the Commissioners was so small as practically to make the Bill, if it passed, inoperative. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were now about 38,000 crofters who came under the Crofters Acts, and at the rate of 100 small holdings a year they might hope, with luck, to double the number of small holders in Scotland in 285 years. Under these circumstances he could not help thinking that the Government were offering to the people of Scotland a phantom and nothing more. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had already given one estimate, for he had pointed out that the £20,000 suggested by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs was too much, and that in his opinion the estimate of £5,000 based upon the expenditure of the Crofters Commission was nearer the mark. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered that the expenditure on the Land Court would range between the wide margin of £5,000 to £20,000? In arriving at the estimate of about £5,000, did the right hon. Gentleman include the work done by the Land Court in fixing the compensation to be paid, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, where the landlords incurred a loss? In the second place, was the cost included of fixing fair rents for crofters and small holders who were not in the original Bill, and to whose case, he understood, the right hon. Gentleman
  1354
  was going to give favourable consideration?
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he would call attention to an answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given. He had pointed out to him the other day the cost of a similar Land Commission set up in Ireland in 1881 —a Commission very similar to the Crofters Commission under the Crofters Act of 1886, except that the power of free sale was included. He had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the cost of the Land Commission in Ireland in 1883 rose as high as £92,000, and he had asked him what particular items should be cut off from that cost in framing the estimate of the cost of the Land Court under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had replied that in his view that sum of £92,000 could not be reached by the proposed Land Court. He had thereupon reminded the Secretary for Scotland that if the cost were halved it would be £46,000, or, if quartered, about £22,000. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the annual expenditure of the Crofters Commission was about £5,000, and that that would probably be about the expenditure of the Land Court. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered what the Crofters Commission had cost? It had been in operation for some years, and it was only during recent years, that the annual expenditure had been about £5,000. In 1889–90 the cost of the Crofters Commission rose to nearly £10,000 a year. There were some 28,000 crofters holdings in Scotland, of which 15,000 had had their rents fixed. It was not merely crofters holdings but small holdings with which the present Bill would deal. There were 62,000 small holdings in Scotland paying a rent of under £50 a year, and he submitted that the figures under the Crofters Act would be doubled, especially when they remembered that in fixing 15,000 rents the expenditure had risen to £10,000 a year. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman was not treating the House with that confidence which ought to be reposed in it. Why could he not give a clear estimate? Either he did Dot know or he would not say. Had not the right hon. Gentleman had a consultation on the documents which had passed between him and the

  1355
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to form some kind of estimate as to what was to be the cost of the Land Court? That was the only opportunity they had of discussing the financial question. It had been said that they could discuss it in Committee upstairs, but the Chairman of the Committee might very naturally say that they should have discussed it downstairs on the financial Resolution and rule them out of order. Therefore, he urged that now was the time for the right hon. Gentleman to give them an estimate. It was not only Members for Scottish constituencies who were interested, but also Members who represented English constituencies, who had a right to know to what they were committing themselves. They at any rate would get no benefit from the expenditure; indeed, they were in a batter position, because there would not be that detriment to agriculture in England which would be experienced in Scotland if this Bill were passed. Could not the right hon. Gentleman now, even at the last moment, take the House more into his confidence, and give them a statement less vague and unintelligible than that which he had put before them on Friday?
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he had hesitated to rise, in the hope that they would receive an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. The Members of that House would not all be on the Committee upstairs, and they desired to know what would be the amount of expenditure under the provisions of the Bill. They had already heard that the Land Court was to cost£6,000 for the remuneration of its chairman and four members; but did the House understand that the Land Court was to have power, with the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland, to appoint assessors, surveyors, land agents, valuers, principal clerks, clerks, messengers and other officers? He did not know on what scale the salaries of those officials were to be paid, but common sense told them that they would be fairly high; and when they added the amount of those salaries to the £6,000 for the Commissioners, the sum would be a very large percentage of the total amount provided under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had made an almost piteous
  1356
  appeal to them to leave these matters to be discussed until they saw what was put upon the Votes; but by far the better way would be for the right hon. Gentleman to take a maximum sum—after consultation with those who advised him—and put that upon the Vote. If it was found not to be sufficient, they would not be hard upon him when the discussion came on in Committee of Supply; they would be perfectly ready to understand that the cost of assessors, surveyors, valuers, principal clerks, and messengers was larger than had been expected, and that, therefore, the estimate required to be enlarged. That would be a fair way of treating the House. Would any hon. Gentleman dealing privately with an estate, and entering upon negotiations of this character, be content to leave the question of cost open in the manner here proposed? If assessors, surveyors, and valuers were to be appointed, any hon. Member of the House acting privately would form, at all events, a rough estimate of what he was going to pay. Why should not the Government follow the same course? Instead of that, however, the House were met with a blank refusal, and told that they must wait and then pay. It seemed to him that there was very little interest taken in the Bill in Scotland, except among a number of people who hoped to be assessors, valuers, surveyors, or clerks, and he would like to see the expenditure on that class limited. He desired to see a fair and reasonable maximum put down.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there were two questions of great importance raised by the Amendment before the House. One was whether any limit should be put on the expenditure to be incurred under the Bill. The second was whether the limit proposed by his hon. and learned friend was a satisfactory one as regarded the particular portion of the Bill to which he had allocated it. He regretted that owing, he presumed, to public business, it had not been possible for either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be present during any part of the discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in an especial sense the guardian of the public purse, and the right hon. Gentleman was, also in an especial sense, the

  1357
  father, godfather, and sponsor of the new Rules of procedure. The House would observe the way in which the new procedure Rule was being worked. He took a good deal of interest in the discussion on that Rule, and did his best to ascertain the reason which lay behind its adoption by the Government. In that discussion the Government asserted that they attached great importance to the financial regulations, which they said would preserve the control of the House over financial matters even in the case of Bills which were sent upstairs. His hon. friends had asked for some reasonable estimate of the expenditure involved by the measure to which the Resolution under discussion referred, and the Secretary for Scotland had informed the House that he was unable to give any estimate because he did not know what the Committee upstairs would do. Where did the control of the House come in? Under those circumstances what a farce was that discussion of the Resolution. What became of the alleged safeguard against extravagance or malversation of public money? Already, almost in the case of their first Bill, the Government were deliberately breaking down the practice which they advocated and defended when they induced the House to pass the now procedure Rules. The Government were deliberately refusing the information without which the discussion of the Resolution must be futile, and they were doing so on the plea that the new Committee upstairs put it out of their power to give any estimate. They had a right to know from the Secretary for Scotland or the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the Government's estimate of the cost of working the Bill as it stood. There mast be such an estimate in existence, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury would not have concurred in the Bill without having an estimate before them. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer give to the House the estimate given to him by the Scottish Office, and if not, would he defend his refusal? One of his hon. friends had referred to the discussion on the Aliens Bill in 1905, when a similar Amendment was moved. It was true that the late Government refused to accept that Motion which proposed to limit the expenditure under the Act to £10,000, but they
  1358
  did give an estimate of what the cost of the working of the Act was likely to be. In spite of that the Opposition pressed their Amendment to define and limit the sum mentioned in the Resolution, and conspicuous amongst those who voted for that Amendment were the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary for Scotland. If the Government had no regard to the appeal of the Opposition, or to what they themselves had stated on the procedure Resolution, they might have some regard for consistency in regard to their votes.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made some reference to his absence from the debate. He was inclined to think that he had attended more of the debates than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Woreestershire himself. He had never in the whole of his Parliamentary experience hoard so much made of such a very small matter. What was the Amendment? The Resolution did not refer to the general expenses under the Bill or the expenses of the Land Commission. It did not refer to the salaries of the Land Commissioners or the Agricultural Commissioners, but simply to the subordinate officials of the Land Court. To say that a great constitutional question was involved because they were not prepared to say how many hundreds of pounds they were likely to spend upon subordinate officials was absurd. He was not ashamed to admit that he was not in a position to say what those expenses would be. All the Resolution did was to empower the Committee upstairs to allow such expenses. Never in the experience of the House had any such Amendment as that before the House been adopted to any financial Resolution. He challenged the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce one single instance in which a limiting Amendment of the kind had been allowed to control the discretion of a Committee upstairs and ultimately the House to assign to a body of the kind here proposed an adequate staff. He was still more surprised when he heard the right hon. Gentleman quote as a precedent the Aliens Bill. It was true the Opposition of that day voted in favour of an Amendment, but they also voted to negative the Resolution, because they believed that the

  1359
  policy of the whole Bill was bad. On that occasion the right hon. Member for Dundee pressed for an estimate of the cost and the number of additional officers who would be required in London to look after the importation of these aliens, but the late Home Secretary replied that it was quite impossible to give any detailed estimate of the expenditure until the Bill had passed through Committee and had assumed its final shape, and until they knew what they would have to provide for.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid they had asked for an estimate, and he would be perfectly satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman gave the House that information, and he would not press for the details. He intended to vote for the Amendment if they got no estimate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted to inform the House that in the debate on the Aliens Bill the late Home Secretary gave the kind of estimate for which the Opposition were now asking.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, he did not give such an estimate at all.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid they were all very anxious to see small holders prosperous, and therefore they ought to take care that their proportion of the expense of the working of the Act would not make the measure a delusion and a fraud. They had had experience of a similar nature on other Boards, and if £20,000 was going to the Crofters Commission it seemed to him that they should take some step to see that the whole of the balance was not swallowed up by judges and assessors and so on. He thought the Labourers
  Act in Ireland was a very fair parallel, and in that instance, from the very beginning, the expenses of carrying out the Act had been out of all proportion to the benefit that had accrued to the labourers. He hoped that under this Bill they would not fall into the same mistakes as they had done in Ireland. Over and over again it had been urged that something should be done to limit the expenses connected with small holdings. Here they were erecting costly machinery, and those in charge of the Bill could give no estimate whatever of what the cost would be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should give an assurance that a certain proportion of the money voted each year would go to the actual working of the Act, and that the money would not be swallowed up by excessive salaries, which, in the case of Ireland, had been intolerably unjust for years past. The experience of hon. Members from Ireland was much larger in this matter than that of the Secretary for Scotland, and if the right hon. Gentleman would only communicate with the officials of the Irish Office—not the newly imported officials, but those who had been at work there for some time—he would be able to take a reasonable view of the Bill. The position of the right hon. Gentleman would be much stronger in the Committee upstairs if he could show that the Government were most anxious that the expenses in connection with the officials should not be excessive and that the class they desired to help by small holdings should concerned in benefit to the greatest possible extent.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 274. (Division List No. 178).

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex F.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Ashley, W. W.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. T. H. M.

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

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fletcher. J. S.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.

  Forster, Henry William

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Gardner. Ernest (Berks, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh' m)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Bowles. G. Stewart

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bovle, Sir Edward

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hills, J. W.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Starkey, John R.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Mason. James F (Windsor)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Nield, Herbert

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Percy, Earl

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Remnant. James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Younger and Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Craik.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Collins, Sir W m. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cooper, G. J.

  Herbert. T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd

  Higham, John Sharp

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Cowan, W. H.

  Holden. E. Hopkinson

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset. N.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crooks, William

  Howard, John Geoffrey

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Isaacs. Rufus Daniel

  Barker, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Barlow. Percy (Bedford)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Duckworth, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Belloc Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Elibank, Master of

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bertram, Julius

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Bilson, Afred

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Black, Arthur W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E

  Boland, John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon Sir Henry

  Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  Levy, Maurice

  Branch, James

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gilhooly, James

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brooke, Stopford

  Ginnell, L.

  Lough, Thomas

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lundon, W.

  Bryee, J. Annan

  Glover, Thomas

  Lupton, Arnold

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Grant, Corrie

  Luttrell, Hush Fownes

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Richard Charles

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Maclean, Donald

  Cairns, Thomas

  Halpin, J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal. E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

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

  M'Crae, George

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hart-Davies. T.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cheetham. John Frederick

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cheery, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Massie, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cough, William

  Henderson-Arthur (Durham)

  Micklem, Nathanel

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henry, Charles S.

  Mond, A.

  1362

  1363

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thorne, William

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Toulmin, George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, John H. (Den bighs)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Murray, James

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Verney, F. W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Napier, T. B.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Nicholls, George

  Robinson, S.

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

  Nicholson, Charles N(Done aster

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsleyy)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Rowlands, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Nattall, Harry

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Waring, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sears, J. E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Mara, James

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whit bread, Howard

  Partington, Oswald

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Paul, Herbert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Piekersgill, Edward Hare

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Stewart-Smith, D (Kendal)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Winfrey, R.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnou

  Rea, Walter Resell (Scarboro'

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Rees. J. D.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Pease.

  Richardson, A.

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E

  MR. RAWLINSONmoved to insert in paragraph 2 (a), line 10, the words, "Provided that the expenses in connection with the Agricultural Commissioners shall not exceed £5,000." The expenditure under the Bill might be £85,000, but he would assume that it would be only £65,000 a year. Under the Amendment he had allowed £20,000 for working expenses, and he submitted that that would be an ample margin to allow for the purpose, He was doubtful whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer under stood the previous Amendment. It was a question not merely of the salaries of the subordinate officials, but of the whole of the salaries to be paid under the powers given by the Bill. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it was an unusual course to move such an Amendment, he would point out that that was the only way of raising effectively a discussion on the financial clauses. There were precedents in 1904 and 1905. In the discussion on the Aliens Bill [Expenses] Resolution on 8th June, 1904, the hon. Member for Halifax
  "objected to the Resolution being passed without some explanation. The Committee had a
  1364
  bank cheque presented to them which they were to sign without the least indication of the expense that would attend the working of the Aliens Bill. A good deal depended upon the cost of working the measure. There ought to be an estimate of the number of officials to be appointed. After what had happened in recent years the Committee could put no faith in Treasury supervision. Treasury control had become quite a myth in latter days."
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. and learned Member was going over the whole ground again and repeating exactly the same arguments. The only thing permissible to the hon. and learned Member was to show in what respect the Amendment he now proposed to move differed from the last.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he bowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling; but was sorry that he had not the opportunity of reading on the last Amendment the extract which he now quoted. They were dealing on this particular Amendment, not with the salaries of the members of the Land Court, but with the general expenses of the Agricultural Commissioners; and the same arguments which

  1365
  he laid before the House in regard to the Land Court applied with redoubled force in regard to the general expenses of the Agricultural Commissioners. The power of expenditure by the Agricultural Commissioners ought to be limited most carefully, because their operations covered a wider field. He submitted that there was nothing in the circumstances to justify them in delegating the powers of the House to the Commissioners or in trusting to the control of the Treasury. He begged to move.
  SIR F. BANBURY: seconded the Amendment. No argument had come from the Front Treasury Bench against the Amendment, and the Opposition were only doing their duty in pressing it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the last Amendment dealt only with the salaries of a few clerks; but this Amendment dealt with all the expenses connected with the Agricultural Commissioners, and they were entitled to ask that a sum should be named in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In paragraph 2 (a), line 10, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that the expenses
  in connection with the Agricultural Commissioners shall not exceed live thousand pounds.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that the Amendment proposed to limit the expenditure of the Agricultural Commission. But the Agricultural Commission would be simply a Department of the Civil Service; and it was quite unusual to put any sum in such a Resolution as was now before the House limiting the expenditure of an administrative Department. He repeated that Parliament retained the whole control over that expenditure through the Estimates.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,)rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 273; Noes, 80. (Division List No. 179.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Acland, Fraucis Dyke

  Brooke, Stopford

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dewar. John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Burke. E. Haviland-

  Dickinson, W. H. (St, Pancras N.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson-Povnder, Sir John P.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duckworth, James

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Barker, John

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Essex, R. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beauchamp, E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Clough, William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  Bertram, Julius

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd

  Collins, Sir W m. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Gilhooly, James

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Billson, Alfred

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Glover, Thomas

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cox, Harold

  Grant, Corrie

  Boland, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Crooks, William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Branch, James

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Halpin, J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Maddison, Frederick

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

  Massie, J.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Shackleton, David James

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mond, A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Morrell, Philip"

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Lleophas

  Steadman, W. C.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Murray, James

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Myer, Horatio

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendall

  Higham, John Sharp

  Napier, T. B.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nicholls, George

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, William

  Jacoby, Sir James Aflred

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Toulmin, George

  Johnson, W. (Nuncaton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Verney, F. W.

  Tones, Leif (Appleby)

  Partington, Oswald

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Paul, Herbert

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wardle, George J.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

  Waring, Walter

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Price, Robert, John (Norfolk, E.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lambert, George

  Radford, G. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lamont, Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Weii1, James Galloway

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Rees, J. D.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Richardson, A.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, Charles H. (Linclon)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robertson, Sir G. Scolt (Bradf'rd

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Macdonald, J M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Robinson, S.

  Winfrey, R.

  Mackarness, Frederic C

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rowlands, J.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  M'Crae, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Pease.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore.

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

  1368

  1369

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Fell, Arthur

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sulter, Arthur Clavell

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Forster, Henry William

  Londsale, John Brownlee

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool. Walton)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Starkey, John R.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S Edm'ds

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hills, J. W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hornby, Sir William Wenry

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert, Torrens

  Younger, George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col W.

  Percy, Earl

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Sir

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Viscount Valentia.

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 83; Noes, 275. (Division List No. 180.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nield, Herbert

  Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Ban bury, Sir Fredrick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquaharson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hervey, F. W. F (Bury S. Edm'ds

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

  Horndy, Sir William Henry

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W m.

  Valentia, Vicount

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, E. Fcetham (Lewisham)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOR The A YES—Major

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Major Anstruther-Gray and

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.

  Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Branch, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Brodie, H. C.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R,

  Brooke, Stopford

  Astbury, John Meir

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bertram, Julius

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Baker, Toseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd

  Burns, Pvt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bethell, T. E. (Essex, Maldon)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Billson, Alfred

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Barker, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Byles, William Pollard

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Boland, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Paul, Herbert

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Charming, Sir Francis Allston

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Clough, William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Collins, Sir W m. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Jones, Williams(Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richardson, A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Crooks, William

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamont, Norman

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan]

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Robinson, S.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Rowlands, J.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Duckworth, James

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lough, Thomas

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sears, J. E.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Shackleton, David James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'C'rae, George

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Gardner, Co. IAlan-Hereford, S.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gilhooly, James

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Stewart-Smith D. (Kendal)

  Ginnell, L.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Massie, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Glover, Thomas

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Grant, Corrie

  Micklem, percy Alport

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Mond, A.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mooney, J. J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Halpin, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Thorne, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Murray, James

  Toulmin, George

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Napier, T. B.

  Verney, F. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nicholls, George

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hazel, Dr. A. K.

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Hazleton, Richard

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Waring, Walter

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Wraterlow, D. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Partington, Oswald

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  1372

  1373

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

  Winfrey, R.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, J. H. (.Middlesbrough)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pease.

  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: claimed "That the main Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 275; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 181.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, W m. (Cork, N. E.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Sir W m. J. (S. Pancras, W.

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstd

  Henry, Charles S.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cowan, W. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cox, Harold

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crooks, William

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barker, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Duckworth, James

  Jowett, F. W.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Kekewich, Sir George f;

  Bertram, Julius

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Elibank, Master of

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Billson, Alfred

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lambert, George

  Black, Arthur W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamont, Norman

  Boland, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Branch, James

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Ginnell, L.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lough, Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Glover, Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grant, Corrie

  Lupton, Arnold

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Byles, William Pollard

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Halpin, J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

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

  M'Crae, George

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Pechkam)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Mallet, Charles K

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hazelton, Richard

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Clough, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Massie, J.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Richardson, A.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Mond, A.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thorne, William

  Mooney, J. J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Toulmin, George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Murray, James

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Verney, F. W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Napier, T. B.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Robinson, S.

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

  Nicholls, George

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rowlands, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Waring, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sears, J. E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shackleton, David James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Partington, Oswald

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

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Paul, Herbert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pearce, Robert (Stalls, Leek)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Price, Robot. John (Norfolk, E.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kcnial)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Radford, G. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Winfrey, R.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

  Sutherland, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Rees, J. D.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nield, Herbert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. Hornsey)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  O'Neill, hon. Robert Torrens

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Percy, Earl

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Kim her, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Colligs, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Long, Col. Chas W. (Evesham)

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W.

  Viscount Valentia.

  Question put, and agreed to.

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

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. HARCOURT,),in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to small holdings and allotments, said: Last year I received my baptism of fire— a kindly fire, I admit—in the introduction and conduct of a small but, as it subsequently appeared, highly contentious measure. I trust that on this occasion I shall be more fortunate, because the Bill which I ask the leave of the House to introduce is one from which I cannot think there will be any serious dissent. As to the main object and intention of the Bill, and even as to the method and machinery adopted, I hope there will be no acute differences; or that, if they do arise, they will not develop along the ordinary lines of Party cleavage. The Bill is mainly an extension, cheapening, and acceleration of the machinery for providing small holdings and allotments in England and Wales. It is drafted in the form of an Amendment to our existing law. I am quite aware that legislation by amendment and reference is not the most convenient method for those who have to consult and administer the law, but it is a method which, by common consent, every Government has been driven to adopt in recent years, and it is a method which has a supporter and defender in the Leader of the Opposition on grounds of convenience, though not, perhaps, on grounds of style. But when this Bill passes into law, I see no reason why it should not be immediately followed by a codifying Bill which will gather up all the remnants of past legislation on this subject, and set them out in as intelligible a form as an Act of Parliament can ever assume to the lay mind. The consideration of the principle of the Bill, as illustrated by its method, is rightly deferred till the Second Reading stage, and all that is required on introduction is such a sketch of the intention and the machinery as will assure the House that they may safely consider it at a later stage. I will give that sketch in the simplest terms, shorn of all legal and technical phraseology, which will convey an intelligible impression of the measure as a whole. I recollect that in regard to many measures which I have heard introduced into this House the mover has sometimes thought
  1378
  it necessary, as a preliminary, to establish the argumentative necessity for his proposals. I hardly think that such a course can be necessary on this occasion and on this subject. The provision of small holdings and allotments has been for many years an aspiration common to both Parties in the State, and on that ground there ought to be no political differences between us, unless it is a happy rivalry between these Benches and those as to who can contribute most to the success of the matter. Neither is it necessary for me to discuss the reason for the partial failure of former Bills on this subject. Some will think that it is due to absence of demand for the land. Others will think that the failure has arisen from the timidity and insufficiency of the proposals hitherto put forward. But neither of those parties would say that the object at which we aim is undesirable; and therefore we may set out with that amount of initial and valuable unanimity. That there has been a grave depopulation of our country districts no one will for a moment attempt to deny. Again, there may be differences as to the causes of that depopulation. Whether the music hall and the evening paper have been the magnet of the towns, or whether the lack of opportunity for advancement and independence has been the expulsive force from the villages, I will not now discuss, and perhaps I am not qualified to determine. But that depopulation has been bad for the country and that over-population has been bad for the towns no one will attempt to dispute. The physical degeneration which accompanies and which, in my opinion, is caused by urban poverty is too sadly patent to us not only in the pages of Blue-books, but in every experience of our daily life. If this or any other measure can stay the town ward stream of humanity, it is worth trying at any cost. I am not so sanguine myself as to believe that Parliamentary interference will turn back to the villages any great proportion of those who have tasted or acquired a taste for the excitements of the towns. But if we can fix upon the land those who are now living on it or near it, and if we can provide an opening, a career, for those about to be born on the land, we can have no cause to regret any labour devoted to such an end. In framing this Bill we derived great guidance

  1379
  and advantage from the Report of the Committee of 1905, which is known as Lord Onslow's Committee, and we have derived still more advantage from the valuable evidence which that Committee received and recorded. But we have not felt ourselves bound or able to follow precisely the methods they recommended. Our Bill leaves the Small Holdings Act of 1892 untouched as regards the sale of land to the small holder. We leave those provisions for what they are worth, unless, in some cases, and I think in the future they will be rarer, there is a real or a reasonable demand for the absolute ownership of the small holdings by the occupiers; but we do nothing to facilitate that Act. We do not wish and we do not think it necessary absolutely to prohibit it. We have no desire ourselves to set up in England and Wales a class of small owners who are indebted for their ownership to the State and to the intervention of the credit of the State. If the state desires, as I think it rightly desires, a further intensive cultivation of agricultural land, it is obviously unsound that you should allow those whom you have assisted to sell their newly-acquired property, the moment they have secured the fee-simple, for a profit which, in my opinion, is not rightly theirs, and possibly for commercial and other uses, far removed from those of agriculture, to which it was intended to be devoted. Nor do we think it desirable, in a part of the kingdom where nothing of the kind exists, to create a class of limited, freeholders. We have decided that the class which we aim at creating is that of occupying, cultivating tenants, but tenants of a public authority, and, by the very terms of their tenancy, deriving the sufficient security of tenure which arises or accrues from the absence of the caprice of treatment which is sometimes associated with the action of individual landlords. But, speaking of security of tenure, I want it to be clearly understood that we do not set up in England, where it has hitherto been unknown, any system of dual ownership, nor do we create such a statutory security of tenure as would confer on the occupiers any saleable tenant-right. We proceed upon the assumption that the existing local authorities, the borough and county councils, are the most convenient bodies to provide and to manage small holdings where they are willing or can
  1380
  be induced to do so. In the event of their default, action will be taken to this end by Commissioners appointed under the Board of Agriculture. We do not set up an outside and independent Commission, but we take powers to appoint two or more Commissioners, with Sub-Commissioners and other officers, who will be subject to the review and control of Parliament, by which their salaries will be voted, and the Government of the day, through the Minister of Agriculture, will be directly responsible for their proceedings. These Commissioners will have wide powers of inquiry as to the demand for, and the practicability of, small holdings and allotments, in any and every county in England and Wales. They will consider any schemes put forward by the local authority. In default of such schemes, they will provide them themselves. If no scheme is carried out by the local authority, the Commissioners will have power to act proprio motu for the acquisition of land for small holdings. They may set up independent advisory and managing committees in any district they choose, and they will charge any expenses so incurred against the defaulting county councils. Where a scheme has been prepared by the Commissioners or by the local authority, a local inquiry will be held at which all those who are concerned may be heard; and after these and other preliminaries, and after the scheme has been approved by the Board of Agriculture, the county council will proceed to acquire the necessary land. Hereafter I will speak only of the county council; but the House will remember when I do so that every act authorised to be done by a county council may be done by the Commissioners under the Board of Agriculture where a county council is in default. The county council will be empowered by the Board to acquire land for small holdings either by purchase or on lease, either by agreement or by compulsion. When the land is taken on lease it must be taken for a period of not less than fourteen years and not more than thirty-five years, but that lease can be renewed on expiration, not necessarily at the same rent, but without any increase of rent arising solely from the improvements which have been made during that lease by the county council or their tenants. In fixing the price of land purchased, or the rent of land hired, an arbitrator will

  1381
  be appointed by the Board of Agriculture. He will be instructed to make no addition to the price on the ground that the land has been taken compulsorily. Under the provisions for leasing the landlord will be given powers to resume possession of all or any part of the land leased at any time that he may require it for industrial or building purposes other than those of agriculture. This provision is of considerable importance in regard to land adjacent to towns. It will enable such lands to be hired, for a period at all events, at its fair, present agricultural rent, without any addition for prospective value. It is specially provided in the Bill that, in fixing the rent, no allowance is to be made for prospective use being a use for which the landlord is entitled to resume possession. Powers are given in the Bill to limited owners and tenants-for-life to dispose of their land for these purposes as if they were the absolute owners in fee simple, and I hope that this may free a certain amount of land which is not now available, or, if it is, only with a good deal of cost and difficulty. There is, of course, a saving clause for the immunity of parks, gardens, and pleasure grounds, and for the amenity and convenience of dwelling-houses; and there is a special instruction inserted that regard should be had, in taking land compulsorily, to the quantity of land owned or held by the landlord or tenant, to the convenience of other properties occupied by them, and to the avoidance, so far as practicable, of taking any undue or inconvenient amount of land from any one owner or tenant. Small holdings are defined in the Bill as holdings which exceed five acres, but which do not exceed fifty acres, or, if they do exceed fifty acres, do not exceed the annual value of £50. Up to the moment at which the county council is in a position to complete the purchase or hiring of land as if from a willing seller by agreement, the Board of Agriculture will have power, where in their discretion they think it desirable, to pay ail or part of the preliminary cost of the scheme—by preliminary cost I mean the inquiry, the report, and the arbitration—in order that the rent which will fall subsequently on the tenant may not be overburdened by these charges. We who regard the provision of small holdings as a great national service think it is only reasonable and just, where the necessity may arise,
  1382
  that the State should contribute this amount to the cost of the machinery by which they are to be obtained. But let the House clearly understand that there is nothing in this proposal in the nature of a charity rent, nor is there going to be any contribution to rent out of local rates. From the moment that the county council is in a position to complete the purchase or the hiring, all the expense of purchase, of equipment, and of management must be treated as a whole in assessing the new rent. The county council is to be permitted to raise the necessary funds for purchase by a loan or loans, and the term of repayment for such loans is to be extended to eighty years. But the whole of the interest and sinking fund of the moneys so expended must be met by the tenants out of their rent, and, owing to the cheapness of money arising from State credit and local security, I am convinced that the rent so charged will be as low as any which could otherwise have been obtained. I pass for one moment from small holdings to tell the House the modifications and amendments which we propose in various Acts dealing with allotments. In large parts of the country where allotments do not at present exist, or, if they do exist, only in quite insufficient quantities, I have no doubt my self that the gradual development of small holdings will most easily and most economically take place through the initial medium of allotments. For this purpose we raise the definition of an allotment from one to five acres. Some hon. Members may ask why keep the distinction between the two classes of holdings at all? I think there is a very sufficient and a very real reason for maintaining it. It has always been assumed that the provision of allotments was the duty of some smaller local body than the council for the whole county. In the Act of 1887 the sanitary authority was selected. Later on the rural district council and the parish council were given different powers to that end. We now propose to substitute as the active allotment authority the parish council only, or, where there is no parish council, the chairman of the parish meeting with the overseers. We give to the parish council, subject, of course, to the consent of the county council, which is the rating authority, compulsory powers for the acquisition, by purchase

  1383
  or by hiring, of land for these allotments, and we transfer to the parish council all the allotments—they are not a very large number—at present held by the rural district council.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To the parish council?
  MR. HARCOURT: Yes. They have already compulsory powers, but we give them the power to hire. By this amendment we shall enlarge the power of initiative and of management of the body which above all others has the most detailed and accurate knowledge of the wants of the village, the capabilities of the land, and the industry and fitness of the applicants. I have now stated the main lines of the Bill with regard to small holdings and allotments, but there are certain general provisions on which it is right the House should be informed. Permission is given to two county councils to combine in a scheme which will be of value in districts contiguous to the county boundary. A county council is permitted to acquire grazing and sheep walks for attachment to small holdings in common. The county council are empowered to transfer land they have acquired to associations formed for the promotion of small holdings, subject, of course, to their constitution and their rules being approved by the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture itself is permitted, if it thinks wise, in any district to set up some experimental small holdings in order to demonstrate their feasibility. That is a recommendation of Lord Onslow's Committee. But in doing so the Board of Agriculture must acquire the land by agreement and not by compulsion, and it must pay any expense which it incurs in that direction out of its own fund. The Board of Agriculture will open a small holdings account at the Bank of England, and for the first year the Treasury will contribute to that fund £100,000. The small holdings account of the Board will be audited in the usual way, and be submitted annually to Parliament. But what is more important, I think, an annual report will be made, not only by the Board of Agriculture and their Commissioners, but by all the local authorities as to what is being done in regard to small holdings and allotments. We shall, therefore, be able in this House
  1384
  to judge of their activity or their inaction. The county council are empowered to sell or to lease surplus land for purposes other than those of small holdings. This is done to enable them, if they think it wise, to take a whole farm, even where the acreage is in excess of that immediately required for small holdings, and so to avoid the payment of compensation for severance which would otherwise have to be provided. Small holders themselves are given a statutory right to compensation for their improvements on the market gardens scale, except, of course, where specific improvements are in direct violation of the express prohibition of the county council in the lease; and all these details and general conditions of tenancy are to be settled by rules to be made by the county council with the approval of the Board of Agriculture. The clause of the Act of 1887 which forbids the erection upon allotments of any except a few specified buildings will be repealed. The county council are instructed to appoint a committee and subcommittees to deal with small holdings. The sub committees need not consist wholly or mainly of county councillors; and it is suggested in the Bill that in appointing these sub-committees special regard should be had to the desirability of adding to them parish councillors and other persons with local knowledge of the district in which they are likely to operate. Finally, the Board and the county council are enabled to promote the formation of co-operative societies and credit banks for the furtherance of small holdings, and they are permitted to give guarantees, or to make advances to credit banks, under the direction, and with the consent, of the Treasury or the Local Government Board. I have now described, as fully as is necessary at this stage, the provisions of this Bill. I apologise to the House for the time I have occupied, but him. Members who at other times have had to perform this duty know the difficulty of an oral description of the legal and practical effect of clauses which are not textually before the House. Looking again for one moment at the Report of Lord Onslow's Committee, the House wil realise that, though we have adopted and adapted many of their suggestions, we have departed from their recommendations in three main particulars. We have given to the local authorities compulsory powers, which we

  1385
  think are essential, but which that Committee was too timorous to recommend; we have declined to facilitate the absolute sale of small holdings to the occupier; and we have made no provision for loans to landlords for their creation. I do not imagine that any of these decisions will require justification in the present House, certainly not at this stage of the Bill. I do not know how far I shall carry with me the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, who was a dissentient from the Report of that Committee. I hope we may travel a long way on the road which leads to our common goal. I had the privilege, now, I am afraid, twenty-three years ago, of being one of his very humble assistants in the early days of the agitation for small holdings—days when he had the honour to be the bogey of the bench which he now adorns. There are probably not many Members in the present House of Commons who realise how much we owe on this subject to his earnest conviction and unfailing energy; and I hope he will not think it presumptuous of me if I tender to him the grateful homage of a humble disciple. I am acquainted with the contents of his dissentient Report to that Committee, and on many points we shall find ourselves in complete accord. He regards the conclusions at which that Committee arrived for the provision of small holdings as altogether inadequate. I agree. He objects, if I remember aright, to loans to landlords, on the ground that the increment of the tenant's improvements would ultimately find its way into the landlord's pocket. There again I agree. I think I go even further, and say that these loans are difficult to devise, and complicated to secure, and undesirable, certainly from my point of view, for this purpose. I am afraid he and I may part company on the question of ownership, but I hope that the proposals I have made for the tenancy under a public body, or a local authority, at all events supply some of that reasonable security of tenure which he so rightly thinks that the small holder should possess. I suppose, from some indications I have seen, that we may expect opposition, or, at all events, disapproval of the compulsion which we propose; but I hope we shall hear as little as may be of that loose but very cheap declamation about confiscation. Compulsion has been authorised by Parlia-
  1386
  ment times out of number for public purposes, sometimes with, sometimes without, compensation. But the difference between morality and immorality, between confiscation and justice, is something more than a matter of 10 per cent. on the price. I do not believe myself that the compulsion in this Bill will have often to be enforced, because I think that its more existence will be a stimulus to voluntary action. I have not thought it necessary or desirable to make any charges in the matter of English small holdings against landlords as a class. We all know the bad landlord, and we all regret that the odium which he so rightly incurs should too often react upon the good landlord, whom we also know—men whose single object has been throughout their lives to do justice to the responsibilities they have inherited. But I know the vis inertae of human nature, and I know the disinclination and hostility in many cases to small holdings of those who are the landlords' natural advisors and necessary agents. I realise, too, the disinclination of individuals to incur what they think are risks without power to ensure their successors against liabilities that may be incurred. But as a landlord myself, I welcome the compulsion which is comprised in this Bill; and, if the House will forgive a personal allusion, I will tell them why. I stand in a position very common to many of my class—a position of considerable difficulty and limitation. I am tenant for life of what the law calls my estate—a tenant for life under a very strict settlement and entail. I have no son. I am therefore compelled, at all events I am morally bound, and so are my trustees, without whom I cannot act, to have regard, in the treatment of my estate, to the interests of the ultimate remainder man, who may be a distant relative, and at all events to exercise strictness of administration, with absence of social and political bias, which I should not feel myself compelled to exercise if I had a son, or if I were the owner of the fee simple. Therefore, I say I welcome this compulsion. Not that it will be necessary to put it into operation actively against myself, but because it will enable me and my trustees to act voluntarily and by agreement in a way which nothing else could have done. I am told, Sir —I cannot believe it — that

  1387
  farmers as a class may see some objection to this measure. Well, it has been my good fortune to know the farmer class most of my life, and from my experience I think I am well assured they are not so blind to their own interests as such a suggestion would imply. I can imagine no proposal more advantageous than this to the farmer who finds himself short of labourers, not all the year round, but in those periods of pressure which are the necessary events of agriculture. Sir, the seasons do not distribute their seed time and their harvests in order to suit the capacity of a depopulated village; and even Ireland under happier conditions might cease to make her annual but casual contribution to our shortage of agricultural labourers. What then could be more economically sound, what could be more financially satisfactory, than to fix upon the soil in close contiguity to the crops a prosperous and contented peasantry—a peasantry who will be able to offer the farmer in the time of emergency that labour which he so greatly needs, and who at other times will be able to support themselves in comparative comfort upon holdings which Parliament alone can enable them to secure? One word I should like to say to all my friends who are equally interested with myself in the question of' land values. This Bill has been drafted, and I think rightly drafted, so that if necessary it may stand alone. At all events, I hope that no collateral consideration will be allowed to hinder its immediate passage into law. But it is based upon the assumption that proposals for land valuation will accompany or will succeed it. Therefore it has been constructed so that the application of these proposals will be easy both in principle and in effect. But I will beg those who are really and deeply interested in land reform not to allow their adherence or their loyalty to any one branch of it to cool their ardour for the attainment of even this portion of a desirable reform. I have felt, Sir, that the cause which I have at heart would be be better served by hard thinking than by high talking, and therefore I have put severe repression to-day upon the enthusiasm which I feel for the share of it which has been entrusted to my care.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Will the right hon. Gentle-
  1388
  man explain how he secures fixity of tenure and fair rents under local authorities, seeing that local authorities are changing bodies and they cannot bind their successors?
  *MR. HARCOURT: I do not think on the introduction stage it is desirable to go into these details; but the county council is perfectly able to enter into contracts for any length of time. When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is a changing body, I think the mere fact that it is an elective body, elected by the people, will give that security of tenure which would be desired by the people themselves. If, as I believe, there is a hunger for the land, and if, as I know, there is a hunger for opportunities of advancement outside the cares of our great cities, surely it is the pathos of rural life that, partly by our laws and partly by our lethargy, men who are the flower of our soil should be condemned either to the trials of the town or the shame of the workhouse. Do not let any hon. Gentlemen think that it is only those of ample means and of great possessions who can afford to dream of a future of secure competence. The humble toiler in our midst soothes the rigour of his present privations with a vision of that poor but honourable subsistence which might be his if you will revise your laws in order to afford him the opportunity. The dreams of the rich are, after all, only the rumination of possession, but the dreams of the poor are the glimpses of that humble paradise of a secure occupation of the common soil which carries with it the power to transmute the labour of their hands into the purest gold of the creation and the maintenance of a home.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave Lie given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Small Holdings and Allotments."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am sure my friends will join with me in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon the clearness of his statement in asking leave to introduce this Bill, and also upon the fact that he has done it in I remarkably short space of time. In concluding his remarks, he indulged in some anticipations as to the results

  1389
  of this legislation. While he is perfectly entitled to say what he and his friends hope, it would have been more to the purpose if he had told us how the machinery proposed to be set up is going to provide a remedy for the evils which he described. The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope, in an earlier part of his remarks, that there would be no controversy as to the extension of small allotments and small holdings. So far as the desirability of extending small holdings goes, there will be no controversy between the two sides of the House. There is not, and there has never been, so far as I know, any objection on the part of anybody in this House to the extension of small holdings, if that extension can be fairly and prudently carried out. But throughout the whole of his speech the right hon. Gentleman lost sight of, or ignored, the facts connected with the establishment of small holdings which are known to everybody who has had practical experience of the work. One of the main objects of the Bill is to enable small holdings to be provided in cases where the local authority has failed to do its duty. The right hon. Gentleman did not say what the causes of the failure had been. Let me remind the House that the county council is elected upon the most popular basis upon which any local authority is elected. It includes the widest franchise there is for any popular election. It is elected for a short period, each election being revised at the end of three years. The local authority having carefully considered the questions and done everything short of providing small holdings, it is provided that a central department, the Board of Agriculture, is to come down and over-ride the local authority and do the work at the expense of the local authority. We are not told whether it would be a reason in the opinion of the framers of the Bill to justify the inaction of the county council if they were able to show that they could not provide these small holdings under the provisions of this Bill. As I understand the measure, it is proposed not only that land should be obtained by methods to which I will refer afterwards, but that the holdings are to be ready for occupation by the tenants who are to occupy them. If anybody looks into the history of the establishment of small holdings, he will find that, if there are not so many of them
  1390
  as some people would desire, the fact is due, not to any reluctance on the part of the landowning class to devote land to that purpose, not to the inability to get land by the various associations, or local bodies, if they so desire, but to the fact, first of all, that the selection of individuals must be made in the most careful way. It is extremely difficult to get men suitable for small holdings. What is the difficulty which has confronted every landowner who has tried to deal with this question? I believe that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred landowners have done their very best to establish small holdings, but the difficulty has been the heavy cost of equipment. How is this to be met? It is proposed to be met under this Bill by laying it on the local authorities in the first instance, and then upon the central authority, the Board of Agriculture, in default of the local authorities. In the second instance, not only the obligation of getting land, but the expense of equipping the farms is to be met in that way. How is the money to be recouped? The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly clear and definite on this point. He told us that the rents of these holdings must recoup the interest and capital. A sinking fund is to be provided out of which the price of the land required for small holdings is repayable in eighty years. That is to make the annual charge as light as possible. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to secure this result? He is not going to do it by standing at this table and telling us that the rents arc going to cover the outlay on the security. He should have told us why he believes that the landlord cannot afford to lay out in small holdings land for which he receives a low rent. Why does the landlord not do that if it can be done with a reasonable prospect of success? You have not made a sudden discovery. You have not found the golden key which is to unlock the difficulty which has been at the foundation of the depopulation question during all these years. Surely you ought to have told us what there is in the Bill to enable the local authority, or the Board of Agriculture in default of the local authority, to do more economically work which the resident landlord with all his local advantages has not been able to do and his inability to do which has prevented the increase of small holdings. If this Bill is going to do all you say it is going to do, it is at this

  1391
  stage, without waiting for the Second Reading, that you should state how you are going to get over this initial and most serious difficulty. There is one feature of this Bill which I confess is of special interest to me. We discussed a short time ago a Resolution connected with the Scottish Landholders Bill. The other day, in the Committee upstairs, I ventured to challenge the Secretary for Scotland and his colleagues representing the Government, to apply to English tenant farmers on the same terms the principles which they are applying to Scottish farmers. I said then, and I repeat now, that there is no distinction whatever which any man can draw between the class of tenants to be set up by this Bill and the class of tenants you are seeking to set up by the Scottish Landholders Bill. Although I do not think that you have found a remedy, and although I think there are some details of the Bill to which the gravest objection must be taken, I do congraulate myself as an English landowner and one interested in the solution of the English land question, that the Government have found it consistent with their duty to deal with English land in a manner totally different from that in which they are dealing with Scottish land. I repeat what I said upstairs that it has often been my lot to envy the Scottish laws, and to wish that the Scottish law and practice obtained in England, but I rejoice on this occasion that the choice is in the opposite direction altogether, and that this Bill, whatever objection it may be open to, is I totally different in its character and principles. It involves a difference in the way in which it has been presented to the House. The object of both Bills is exactly the same, the only difference being that one applies to Scotsmen and the other to Englishmen. It is interesting to observe the different ways in which the same Government deal with precisely the same question. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he and his Government did not desire to set up small owners. Why? If there is tins great land hunger that you believe you are going to meet by the establishment of arrangements for small holdings, if you believe that by the creation of these small holdings you are going to stop rural depopulation and the flow into the towns, why is it you believe men will prefer to be tenants rather than owners of
  1392
  the land on which they are to be placed? The right hon. Gentleman told us that one of the objections was that the tenants might sell the land so acquired, or might turn it to some other purpose. Undoubtedly they might do so. I do not know that there is any great evil in that which should deter you from making the experiment if you really believe the principles which you profess. It is vain to suppose that small holdings can stop rural depopulation. There are scores of cases in which landlords have done their best to create small holdings. I defy the Government to produce any statistics proving that the districts where small holdings have been the rule for generations, where the rents have been low and the conditions satisfactory, show the smallest difference in the matter of depopulation. [Cries of "Oh."] Well, let hon. Gentlemen produce their statistics. In the western counties, for instance, small holdings have been the rule for generations.
  MR. WINFREY: The small holdings in the western counties are not 15 per cent. of the whole total of agricultural land.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that in a great part of the western counties land can only be successfully cultivated if held in large quantities. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that in a great part of Dorset or Gloucestershire men can by this or any other Bill be made to take small holdings and cultivate them successfully out of the class of land there occupied, he is indulging vain hopes. I gather that the local authority is to have power either to buy or lease compulsorily, and I assume that the choice of those methods of acquisition is to rest with the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to this experiment as being worth a great sacrifice.
  *MR. HARCOURT: I never used the word sacrifice or suggested that anybody would have to make one.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Then I make the statement myself, and say that if we can solve the land question and bring the people back to the land it will be worth making a sacrifice; but that sacrifice is one which the

  1393
  nation as a whole should bear, as the nation would secure thy benefit of the change. It we are going deliberately to adopt a system of compulsory hiring, I do not care what we do for securing compensation for the landlord, we shall expose him to the whole of the risks of the experiment. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "No."]. Supposing 300 acres of land are hired in a parish to he lot in small holdings, and in fifteen or twenty years the undertaking turns out a complete failure. How is the landlord to be prevented from being the victim of the experiment? He is to be compensated? But where is that compensation to come from? Is it provided in the Bill that when a man receives compensation out of the rates no acre of land belonging to him shall be subject to the rate levied for that purpose? If that safeguard is not provided — and it is not practicable to provide it—the landlord will be compelled to furnish a great part of the compensation out of his own pocket. What has been the difficulty in the matter of small holdings and allotments and the provision of satisfactory cottages? Anybody who read the articles published in the Daily News, after careful inquiry, will have seen that it is almost invariably the case on the larger estates throughout the country that the provision of cottages is not only sufficient but good; it is insufficient where the ownership is divided among a variety of hands. When there are several owners there is no direct feeling of responsibility. It is a blunder of the most serious kind to lay these duties on authorities such as the district or parish councils, Their rating area is so narrow that the men who do their work properly, and have provided cottages, allotments, and small holdings, will probably have to pay the greater part of the cost of doing the work of others who have failed to their duty. The safeguard which it is suggested will be afforded by having regard to the amount and importance of the land is not worth the paper on which it is written. The Government impose restrictions which will make their Bill fail. I believe the local authorities will appreciate these difficulties. They will be face to face in the first instance with the enormous difficulty of providing these small holdings at a rent which it will be possible for small holders
  1394
  to pay. They will have to undertake the disagreeable work of deciding between the cases of different landowners according to the amount and the character of the land they own. If this matter is to be dealt with, I would rather it were dealt with through the Board of Agriculture than by the county councils. The Government are laying on the county councils an extremely difficult task, which it will be almost impossible for them to perform. I do not envy the Board of Agriculture when, just after the election of a county council at which this question has been discussed, it over-rules the local authority. Such a step may be necessary, but it is astounding that it should be proposed by a party who profess to enjoy a monopoly of safeguarding authorities of this kind. As to the question of purchase, it must be remembered that the land is taken from a man, not because he has failed to do his duty, but because his might be the only piece of land in the place which it is possible to use for the purpose required. Ought we not to consider the full extent of the damage which he suffers? On the ground of "severance," or in some way, probably the land will be purchased at additional cost. Therefore, in my judgment, the local authority will not be able to show greater economy than the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, made an unworthy remark about Lord Onslow's Committee when he said that in regard to compulsion the Government had adopted a line which the Committee were too timorous to adopt. The Committee were not timorous, but believed the recommendations they were making were more prudent and more likely to be successful. I assume that where the local authority fail to do its work and the Board of Agriculture step in, the county council will be called on to make the loan necessary for the purpose. Or will the money be advanced from the Treasury and then be a debt against the local authority? I do not to think it very much matters which procedure is adopted, but I have a shrewd idea that there will be very troublous times in store for the Board of Agriculture if they attempt to compel county councils and local authorities to borrow money for a purpose they believe to be unnecessary. I was a little astonished when the right hon. Gentleman said that there might be compensation for these

  1395
  small holdings on the market garden scale. That scale was intended to apply to a specific kind of cultivation—what is called intensive cultivation, and to open that to the small holding, which ought to be cultivated on the ordinary system, will, I think, impose a liability and obligation not justified by the circumstances, and may impose an unjust and not inconsiderable burden on the rates. I heard the last two announcements of the right hon. Gentleman with satisfaction—namely, that power will be taken to aid the formation of co-operative societies, and that some attempt will be made to start credit banks. I believe that anybody who has examined this question—and conspicuously Mr. Rider Haggard—must come to the conclusion that it is useless to set up small holdings by themselves, and that two most useful steps to take are to establish co-operative societies and credit banks. Therefore, I welcome those two proposals—of course, waiting to hear more as to how they are to be dealt with. In conclusion, I would say that, in the first place, I feel that if the Government believe they are entitled to make this experiment throughout the country, they have no right to make it at the expense of those who are probably least able to bear any risk of the kind; and secondly, that when they have determined to do so, their object ought to be to set up occupying owners rather than tenants, only falling back on the tenant system when for some local reason it is impossible to adopt the other. I doubt whether it will be found that local authorities are better landlords than private individuals; I doubt whether they will be found to be as good. So far as the Opposition are concerned, we object to the use of compulsion unless it is used with a view to buying the ownership out and out. I believe it would be far better to set up these men satisfactorily as owners rather than as occupiers. There are other details which it will be necessary to criticise, and probably oppose. Anything the Opposition can say or do will proceed from a desire to do nothing that will prevent the extension of small holdings in cases in which it can be shown that they are necessary and desirable, and can be established under conditions which are likely to act with justice to the people whose land is dealt with and on lines likely to be successful.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he wished to congratulate his right hon. friend on having brought in a measure which had been anxiously awaited for twenty years. He would not refer in detail to the difficulties they had in their struggle in 1883 in regard to allotments when, in co-operation with his right hon. friend the Member for Bordesley, that effort took place and was followed by a claim for the creation of small holdings. The whole justification for this Bill was that the legislation passed in 1892 was, as regarded small holdings, a very bad failure. It was in order to bring about a success in place of that failure that the present measure had been introduced. When the Small Holdings Bill of 1892 was discussed he moved some Amendments, the object of which was to bring the Bill into the shape which the present Bill had taken. They then asked for compulsory powers of purchase, and powers of leasing land by means of local authorities. They gained nothing of that sort in 1892 and in consequence that Act had been a dismal failure. After ten years of activity, the labourers had obtained some 652 acres of land under the Act, representing but a miserable pittance for those who had asked for land, while thousands of labourers had left the countryside in despair of obtaining any standing on the land. Under the Act of 1892 they hoped to give the agricultural labourer the opportunity of rising m the social scale by becoming an allotment holder, the tenant of a small holding, and finally a small farmer or even a large farmer. That was a laudable ambition for a man to have, and it was in order to satisfy it that this Rill had been drafted upon certain lines which embodied compulsion. He believed that compulsion was the essence and kernel of the Bill, not because they wanted to use compulsion to injure the landowners, but because when compulsion was in the background land would be obtainable under better and cheaper conditions. Let them consider the operation of compulsion under the Allotments Act of 1887. In the first instance, what was the result? In the first seven years they obtained 2,249 acres of land for agricultural labourers. Then they passed the Act of 1894 which gave strong compulsory powers, and they obtained 14,872 acres of land in two and a half

  1397
  years instead of 2,249 in seven years. In addition to that, they gave the local authority under this Bill something beyond the ordinary compulsory powers which they had had in the past, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was wise in letting local authorities do this work in the first instance. He thought they would do the work all the time, but the power given to the central authority to stimulate unwilling local authorities was necessary. Once exercised these powers would not be required to be exercised a second time. The county councils, and all the other I local bodies would take up the work and do it in the end. The county councils and local bodies required that there should be this power behind them. because hitherto they had been found unwilling workers in these fields. For instance, one county council had 349 petitions, and the answer they return d was that they thought if they granted them it would be an expense on the rates. But that was no answer at all, as t ere would be no expense on the rates whatever if the scheme was properly carried out, because the expenditure would be returned ton-fold in local prosperity. As he had stated in 1892, in places where these small holdings were established, poverty decreased, and the population increased. It was, therefore, necessary that the central authority should be able to move the unwilling local authorities in the desired direction. In another case the local authority received fifty-eight applications, and they said they were not enough to justify any action. In such a case as that there should be a central authority behind with power to compel the local authority to carry out the will of Parliament. The object of the Bill was to carry out that purpose, and did not interfere with the operation of the Act of 1892, which enabled such holdings to be sold. The operation of the Act of 1892 had shown there was no great demand for any great increase of small occupying ownerships. They did not introduce legislation for what the people did not want, but for what they did want, and what they asked for was small holdings under the local authority. At the same time small owners could be created under the old Act when there was a demand, he thought that under the Bill they would start small holdings under the
  1398
  conditions which were necessary to success. The local authorities were liable to periodical election, and under the influence of public opinion they would be particularly anxious to see that nothing was done to injure the interests of an honest and good tenant. What was Lord Carrington's experience in connection with this question? His Lordship had had only £12 10s. of bad debts in connection with small holdings during the last twenty years. There were very few estates that could show such a condition of affairs as that.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGS: To whom does he let them?
  *SIR WALTER FOSTER: To the people in the district.
  *Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No; he lets them to a syndicate.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that in many cases he let them through his own agents to people in the district, and they had proved to be the best payers of rent. He congratulated the Government on having introduced the Bill, which he believed was founded on the right lines and would lead to success, because they relied upon the local authorities in the first instance and they only brought in the pressure of the Board of Agriculture when necessary. They had thus a large opportunity of creating small holdings on an experimental basis. He heartily agreed with the right hon. Member for South Dublin as to the advantage of encouraging credit banks and co-operative societies. The right hon. Gentleman had also referred to the burden that would fall upon the rates in the various localities which put the Bill into force. The one great fear they always had to contend with was increased rates. He himself would be very glad if some scheme could be arranged at a future stage of the Bill, by which the fear of increased rates falling upon the locality could be mitigated so as not to deter any locality from taking advantage of the Act. He could quite understand there was a feeling against the rates being made heavier for the purpose of benefiting one section of the community. He could, for instance, in an urban district, understand

  1399
  the town population resenting the imposition of a rate for the benefit of a smaller section of the community outside the town. So far as the other portions of the Bill were concerned an opportunity to discuss them would arise on the Second Reading. He regarded the Bill as a valuable measure and believed it would be the starting point of great prosperity in many districts. It would give an opportunity of placing many people on the land, which would yield in consequence more produce and retain more population. All the agricultural Labourer had asked for in the past was equal opportunity. This Bill would give it, and he would go to his work with a new courage and inspiration now that he saw the day dawn when he might refresh himself with hope.
  *MR. MILDMAYsaid that there was one feature in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill that was most welcome on their side of the House. Putting aside the consideration of the provisions of the Bill, they welcomed the tone of that speech as a great improvement on the sort of thing to which they had been treated of late in this connection, but they expected it of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that if small holdings were to be a success it would be well that he should carry with him those who were connected with the land; it would be well to enlist their sympathies if possible, and most certainly not to assume their antagonism, and above all it would be better not to abuse them up hill and down dale before asking them to agree to the legislation which the Government had in view. One could understand such methods in a politician on. The make, for in these days of halfpenny papers violent declamation paid, noise meant notoriety; but they could not understand such methods in those who were more highly placed, and they had been puzzled at the attitude of the Prime Minister, who, if he might say so without the slightest offence, was too canny as a rule to preface the introduction of an important measure in the House of Commons by flinging minatory rhetoric at those who were chiefly concerned. What were they to think of the assertion that "such common things as pigs and cabbages were offensive to the squire?"
  1400
  Frankly, what were they to think of that? What did the Prime Minister himself think of that assertion by this time? What did those behind him who were conversant with the agricultural position think of it? The Prime Minister knew as well as they did that pigs and cabbages, as evidence of agricultural prosperity, as evidence, to put it no higher, of ability to pay rent, gladdened the heart of the landlord, who had suffered far too many pecuniary losses of recent years to be able to disregard that point of view. Then there was the meeting at Drury Lane. One could only assume that there was something about the atmosphere of Drury Lane which was conducive to exaggerated methods. Experience told them that very often a piece which had been a great success in a small theatre was a dead frost when transferred to the larger stage of Drury Lane. He had often heard it declared by members of the profession that a refined method of acting was impossible at Drury Lane; it did not fill the place, it did not reach the gallery, and a tendency to more robust methods was felt by the actor to be irresistible; the hero must shout, the heroine must shriek and scream. And so he supposed that they must not find fault with hon. Gentlemen if they had to some extent felt the influence of the architectural dimensions of the place and talked big. Unfortunately the Prime Minister, in his speech at Holborn Restaurant, had given the impression, unintentionally no doubt, that he looked upon the small holdings question as a convenient weapon with which to belabour the House of Lords, and the introduction of this Bill as a tactical move in the attack upon the Upper House. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had, on the other hand, shown that he would have nothing to do with that sort of style. He had very rightly recognised that the question of small holdings was far too important to be made a pawn in the game of party politics. He had shown that he wished to enlist the help of men of all parties, and very rightly had he so spoken, for landowners as a rule would welcome with both hands legislative assistance to establish small holdings where they were economically justifiable. It had been elaborately explained in the House of Lords by members

  1401
  of the Government that the words "blank denial" were not intended to apply to landlords as a rule, but to the apathy of county councils. They were glad that that explanation had been given, for the words were certainly inapplicable to landowners in general. Incontestable figures proved it; the Prime Minister himself had said that half the actual farmers of the present day were smallholders, holders of from five to fifty acres. The report of the Commission on the decline of agricultural population stated that only 3·98 per cent. of agricultural holdings in this country were over 300 acres. Lord Lansdowne had most ably expressed in the House of Lords the views of landowners in general. In so expressing himself he had given the views of all those who had knowledge of agricultural conditions. He had stated that what they wished to see was a system of holdings of graduated sizes, which would enable a man to rise from the ranks, to begin with a small holding, and to climb the ladder to bettor things, and he had spoken most truly when he said that the landlords would be most anxious to give facilities for such a policy. All who had been concerned in the management of an agricultural estate would know that by far the most desirable tenant was the small farmer, the hard-working farmer who had risen from the ranks. There were many such in the West of England, men who were not afraid of hard work, men who had brought up their sons to put their backs to their work, and to provide labour upon the holding, men who were prepared to start those same sons as they grew up upon small holdings of their own, where they prospered, having been brought up to the work, and knowing how to make it pay. But he begged the right hon. Gentleman not to think that anybody could make a small holding pay, that a man who was a failure in another capacity could make a living out of a small holding. The agricultural industry was as technical as any other; it required a very special knowledge, and without that special knowledge, however assiduously a man might work, he would come to grief over a small holding. As Lord Lansdowne had said, the policy of consolidated holdings, which prevailed in the middle of the last century, was now acknowledged to have been a mistaken policy. It had had far-reaching
  1402
  consequences, for it had to some extent retarded the provision of small holdings. The process of breaking up large farms was continually going on, but it was the expense to the landlord of the transformation which hindered the process. To begin with, they must scrap existing buildings, which would to a large extent become useless, and provide buildings for each of the small holdings: that involved a capital expenditure which most landowners, after the heavy losses they had sustained, were not in a position to incur. He did not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite realised where the difficulty really lay. He himself did not believe that there was any difficulty in getting land for small holdings; the difficulty was rather in providing buildings to make the small holdings pay. The land was no use without the buildings. Lord Onslow's Committee had thus reported—
  "Landlords are willing enough to provide the land, but the difficulty is the economic one of tinning buildings."
  There, no doubt, was the whole difficulty. It was well known that the simplest cottages could not be put up to pay a commercial rent. How much less possible was it to erect such buildings as were required for small holdings. It was that difficulty which prevented action by the county councils under the Act of 1902. They had been called apathetic, but county councils were no more in a position to make rash experiments than were private landowners. He had always thought that one of the most serious features in connection with the introduction of land legislation by the present Government was the want of knowledge which prevailed amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to agricultural conditions. He did not say that by way of reproach; how were they to know? They were not able to speak from experience, and he was bound to say that that disability extended to a good many hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House; but that did not make matters any better. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to look upon all landowners as in the same box. Urban and rural landowners alike were denounced as pampered individuals who had year by year grown richer through the efforts of others. He held no brief for the urban landowner, who in the course of years might have amassed some

  1403
  unearned increment; but how different was the fate of the owner of agricultural land! To begin with, hon. Gentlemen opposite often seemed to forget that nine-tenths of the agricultural land of the country had changed hands by purchase within the last 150 years, so that, as far us the great bulk of landowners were concerned, it could not be said that they had "stolen their land from the nation." How often did they come across an individual who thirty years ago had bought his property on the basis of so many years' purchase of the rental, that rental being now half what it was when he bought? Socialists were urging the Government to appropriate what they were pleased to call unearned increment. What about the unearned decrement? Were they prepared to make that good? There was many a landowner whose ancestor had bought the land a hundred years ago, and who had suffered a decrement of from 40 to 50 per cent. Such a man might be very hard up, and could hardly be expected to rind the money to equip small holdings with buildings. He would like hon. Gentlemen opposite to study the balance-sheet of a typical agricultural estate. He thought that a good many of them would be surprised; they would find that rents were now half what they were in the year 1860, while rates and taxes were double. In many cases the rent had been so reduced that it merely represented the interest on the capital expended by the landlord in improving the farm and buildings. The figures adduced by Lord Portsmouth in The Times with regard to a single farm on his estate were typical of the depreciation that had taken place. Those figures showed how agricultural landowners had lost money, and when it was remembered I that agricultural land was the only form of investment which was assessed for death duties and income-tax on the basis of the gross income derived there from, no deduction worth mentioning being made for upkeep and outgoings, it could be well understood how agricultural landowners had come to such desperate straits. Every other industry, every other investment, was assessed, and paid on the net profits actually received. He thought he had said enough to establish his point that the landlords had suffered losses of late years, and that they were not in a position to provide
  1404
  expenditure for buildings. To what extent had that fact been recognised by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. With all due respect to him, the right hon. Gentleman had not recognised it to any great extent. He had talked of small holdings having been withheld by obstructive agents and others, and of vis inertice, to which he ascribed the want of small holdings. But it was rather the weakness and inpecuniosity of the landlords, who, with the best intentions in the world, were not able to provide buildings for small holdings. It was very difficult to judge of the Bill from the statement which they had heard, but the first thing that occurred to one was that the ratepayers would be in a still more parlous condition after the passing of the Bill than they were at present. As far as he could understand, the Commissioners had to go down to enjoy themselves at the expense of the county council. A good deal was left to them to find out as to who should pay for the deterioration of the holding if, at the end of the lease, it should be handed over to the landlord in an impoverished condition. It seemed to him, seeing that the ratepayers were to be called in to such a great extent, that the Government should have paved the way to small holdings by dealing with certain features of the agricultural situation which were bound to hamper those whom they were about to make small holders in their competition with the Continental small holder. For instance, the ideal method of procedure would have been to preface the Bill with the reform of the incidence of local taxation, which was bound to bear upon small holders to an altogether unjustifiable extent. Foreign small holders were held up as models, but what made them prosperous? What enabled them to pour millions upon millions of pounds worth of produce into this country? It was their very efficient system of co-operation. Many had tried, in a small way, to introduce a similar system of co-operation into England, but only those who had tried knew how difficult it was. The Agricultural Co-operative Association had done good work in that connection, but good though that work had been, and successful as the society had been in introducing co-operation in certain districts, it could not be said that a

  1405
  system of co-operation had really gripped the country districts. If the Government could do anything to forward co-operation they would be doing a great work; but if they started a large system of small holdings before the machinery of co-operation was in existence they would run very great risk of failure. He was not blaming the constitution of the Board of Agriculture when he said that they wanted a man like Sir Horace Plunkett to promote co-operation in England—a man of keen enthusiasm, one who knew his job thoroughly, and, above all, one who would forget that he was a politician and absolutely refuse to look upon agricultural questions from a political point of view. He was glad to hear of the establishment of credit banks. In his own county land was continually coming into the market, and he was glad to say that, in many instances, the actual cultivators had bought the land, borrowing two-thirds of the purchase money for the purpose. If the Government by agricultural credit banks could enable the actual cultivators of the soil to borrow money on easy terms in order to equip the land, they would be promoting the division of land-ownership to an extent which could scarcely be realised by those who were not familiar with the position. As he had already said, it was most essential for the success of small holdings that the right men should be chosen for them. It was an extraordinary idea that a man who had failed in every other capacity could make a small holding pay. It was a widespread fallacy, and a fallacy against which they must guard if they wished small holdings to be successful. Small holders on the Continent had been held up to them as models, but it had only been by the hardest work, by constant and continual work, that they had attained success. And why was it that they had been ready to work their hearts out? The incentive had been ownership, and on that account he thought that the Government should make ownership the basis of their small holdings scheme when compulsory powers were put in force. But just as he advocated a policy of assisting small holders to become owners under such circumstances, so he repudiated the policy of compulsory hiring. How could it be justifiable to compel a man to invest his money in a certain way? They must
  1406
  remember that many landowners were very hard-up, and the landowner above all other men was most likely to know whether the particular land was adapted for small holdings. Were they going to say to such a man, "Whether you like it or not, you shall invest your money in small holdings upon this land; we shall not allow you to get out of the land; we shall not give you the chance of selling it, even though you may be willing to do so on reasonable terms. Whether you like it or not you shall try this experiment at your own expense, though you can ill afford to do so." That policy to him was indefensible. He had always held that it was impossible to give a weighty opinion upon a Bill upon the First Reading, upon the explanatory statement of the Minister in charge, able though that statement might be, as it undoubtedly had been in the present case. They ought to seethe Bill in print. He did not believe in the new practice which had grown up of dividing against the First Reading of Bills. His memory went back some way, and he remembered that they did not divide against the First Reading of Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill; neither did they do so in the case of the second Home Rule Bill, and surely there never had been two Bills against the main principle of which they were so strongly united on that side of the House. A division against the First Reading of a Bill militated against the dispassionate consideration of the measure. Dispassionate consideration was wanted for a matter which so vitally affected the rural community. They would give the Bill the fullest consideration when they saw it in print, for they were really and genuinely anxious to arrest the exodus from the country districts into the towns, and to assist the Government in passing wise legislation to that end.
  *MR. NICHOLLSsaid he had listened to the speeches on both sides of the House, and he could not help feeling that they would have to come back to the point raised by the previous speaker towards the close of his observations. He had felt, all the time the hon. Gentleman was speaking about the poverty of the landlords, that there was something strange in the circumstance that they

  1407
  should cling to chat by which they were losers. They were told that the landlords were hard up, and that they had been losing Money for many years. The hon Gentleman said that they were in desperate straits. If they had lost so much money, why were they afraid to let small holders have a grip upon the land? Though he might not know everything about land tenure, he did know something about the difficulties for the small man to got into touch with allotments and smallholdings. He happened some twenty years ago to be one of the unemployed who lived in a rural district, and for many months he was out of work. Like others he had to look for work in the towns. He could state with truth that there were thousands of poor people who would rather live in the rural districts, but were compelled to leave them because of the insecurity of their employment there. The labourer wanted a constant job, and he sought regular employment, perhaps on the railway, or it might be in some great industrial centre.
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ELECTRIC SUPPLY) BILL [BY ORDER].
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [9th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time.
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Courthope.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. WARDsaid he wished to make one or two references to the conduct of this particular business so far as the present and the last session of Parliament were concerned. The difficulty which London reformers found them selves in with regard to this matter was largely due to the attitude of the Board of Trade last session. For some ten
  1408
  years past this subject had been discussed in London, but it had not been settled because the last reactionary Administration would not allow a scheme giving public control to be adopted. London County Council elections bad repeatedly taken place, and those contests had been fought upon the principle of pubic control of monopolies, and on every occasion for the last twenty years the verdict of London had always been in favour of the public control. The London electors, however, had never been able to achieve their object, because there had always been in possession of the legislative machine a reactionary majority opposed altogether to the municipal unified life of London. But January last year saw a Parliament elected to deal with this and other subjects, and for the first time they had the happy conjunction of a Progressive majority in the House and on the London County Council, and London reformers naturally expected to see the problem solved. But for some unaccountable reason the Board of Trade failed to take advantage of the opportunity presented to them last session, Although it was known that the reactionaries would move Heaven and earth to recover the ground which their own incompetence had lost them, that the monopolists and the trust promoters would pour out money like water in order to chloroform the electors, and that a snatched victory was well within the bounds of possibility, the solution of the problem was delayed, and it had proved a very disastrous delay so far as the people of London were concerned. To accept the recent verdict of the electors of London as final would place them in a very awkward position, and that was the feeling of the majority of the Members of the House during the discussion which took place on the Bill before the holidays. He was not satisfied that had the position been reversed and the monopolists and reactionaries been in an overwhelming majority, and the London County Council been composed of a set of men holding entirely opposite principles, the then President of the Board of Trade would have accepted the verdict of London and placed a measure of this kind upon the Statute-book. They were all aware that matters of the greatest importance to London had been burked and thwarted when the monopolists were

  1409
  in power. Considerations of public convenience never weighed in the slightest degree with the late Government, and it was only when there had been a reactionary Council erected for the first time that there had been any hurry and baste to settle this problem. Surely it would be absurd to call the recent County Council election a decision upon the important principle here involved. The sole object of the private monopolists was the exploitation of London's mighty resources. Had the Liberal Party forgotten the London programme upon which elections had been fought for a number of years, in which public control and the public working of these monopolies had been the foremost plank? He was glad that they did not intend entirely to desert their posts because some of the outworks were in the hands of the public enemy. The recent snatch victory at the London County Council election should not be too hastily acted upon, and the County Council and the ratepayers should be given a further opportunity of considering whether they meant to hand over this great city to private exploitation. He agreed that the Instruction placed on the Order Paper by the President of the Board of Trade somewhat modified the position which otherwise he would have been obliged to take up. If that Instruction were adopted it would give breathing time both to the London County Council and to the ratepayer, and an opportunity of considering whether under all the circumstances and the possibilities of the case they considered it advisable to part with the enormous monopoly which this Bill would place in their hands. In view of that Instruction he would certainly vote for the Second Reading, because the Bill recognised as its main principle that the London County Council was the proper authority to control such a monopoly. That was one good principle contained in the Bill. He wished to reserve, however, for himself and for those on whose behalf he was acting, the full right to reconsider their position when the Bill came back from the Committee.
  *SIR EDWIN CORNWALLcongratulated the President of the Board of Trade upon having
  1410
  submitted a proposal which would allow the debate to take a more harmonious turn. He doubted whether the House had ever found itself in the position in which it was that day upon a subject of that kind. The Bill was introduced with the names of four hon. Members of the House upon it, but it was now practically being promoted by other people. That state of things had been brought about by exceptional circumstances. The hon. Members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill were members of the London County Council when that body had a Progressive majority. They were still Members of the House, but the London County Council had now a majority holding different views, and they were promoting the Bill. That was an extraordinary position to be in, and but for the urgency of the question the best thing would have been for the present London County Council to have brought in another Bill embodying their own views in their own way, instead of proceeding with this measure. The urgency of the question, however, justified the present County Council in going on with the measure, and justified those hon. Members who spoke upon the last occasion supporting the Second Beading. He understood the President of the Board of Trade was willing to set up a hybrid Committee, before which a full inquiry could be held, and in his opinion that was the best course to pursue under the circumstances. In allowing that course to be taken, they were rather looking to that Committee to do more than Committees usually did. He agreed that the independent judgment and impartiality of Committees of that kind were invaluable to the work of Parliament; but looking to the particular difficulties of this question, they expected from the proposed Hybrid Committee a full and exhaustive inquiry which would give them help and guidance in regard to the whole question-He had been in communication with the representatives of the outside authorities who were very much concerned about the present condition of things. They said: "We are more or less disturbed at the idea of the London County Council having these very wide powers over our area. If the London County Council get, as they propose, powers from Parliament, and if they then hand them over to a company, we, the outside authorities,

  1411
  will not know where we are in a bargain of that kind." He reminded the House that the Bill extended over an area very much wider than that of the County Council. As to the Instruction which the President of the Board of Trade had put on the Paper, he believed it would enable the Hybrid Committee to go fully into the question. The whole problem must be inquired into. The President of the Board of Trade had stated that they were dealing with the Bill drafted by the London County Council. That was technically true, but it was not only this Bill which would go to the Hybrid Committee, but also the proposals which were made in 1905 and 1906, and the Report of the Committee of last year. It was a little difficult to understand what the present County Council really mean. They were going on with this Bill as drafted, but the following resolution had been passed at a meeting of the London County Council—
  "That the London County Council (Electric Supply) Bill be submitted for Second Reading in the House of Commons with a view to securing an arrangement under which private enterprise undertakes, subject to the control of the Council, the business of the supply of electrical energy, and on the understanding that such alterations as may be required in the Bill to effect this object and to deal with any other matters of importance which may arise on the Bill, will be reported to the Council for its approval as soon as possible."
  He wanted to know what the London County Council meant by that. Did the present County Council mean to ask Parliament to give them powers and a franchise, and then to lease those powers and that franchise? He ventured to say that there was no precedent for Parliament handing over a franchise to a local authority in order that the local authority might lease it. If the County Council meant to enter into the whole inheritance which Parliament gave them, and to undertake the whole responsibility, so far as the business was concerned, and then to lease it to some proper body to carry out the working, there was nothing unprecedented in that from the point of view of the House, or from the point of view of other parts of the country. If the County Council were going to lease the franchise, then he agreed with the hon. Member for Stoke that the House must reject the Bill on the Report stage. The hon. Member for Dulwich, when the Bill was recently discussed, referred to the important question of
  1412
  purchase. In the case of electric light undertakings, Parliament had laid it down that the period of purchase was to be forty-two years by the local authorities, but in the case of electricity in bulk Parliament had, he understood, fixed no term of purchase. Here they had a proposal for bulk supply, but the date of purchase of the electric lighting companies had an important bearing. The term of purchase in the case of the present electric light companies in London expired in 1931. They had, therefore, a difficult problem to deal with. He did not suppose that any man would take a lease which expired in 1931, because it would be too short to make it a successful undertaking. How the Hybrid Committee would get over that it was difficult to see, but it must be carefully considered, having regard to dividends, the price to the consumers, and the conditions of labour. It was not a new thing for the Government and local authorities, when entering into contracts, to insist that certain conditions of labour should be observed. He was not one who wished to prevent anyone making a profit, but the business must be conducted on a basis which would give protection to the consumer, and provide that the economic considerations should not be complicated by water-loaded capital. The present local authorities in the county of London had £12,000,000 invested in electric-light undertakings, so that the House would see there were not only matters of great principle involved in the Bill, but most important details connected with the whole problem of electric supply. The House must look to the Hybrid Committee to help them very materially with regard to this great question. Everyone admitted that the present position in London was unsatisfactory and uneconomical. If the Bill failed to pass into law for any reason, it would mean that the existing electrical systems would have to be developed, which would be the worst possible thing for London. They would have the existing companies coming to Parliament next year—they could not for all time prevent their developing their systems, and that would mean going on with small stations and sub-stations, instead of working on the economical basis of a large generating station down the river, at which large vessels could deliver. In voting for the Second

  1413
  Reading, he and many others reserved their right to move whatever Amendments they might think desirable on the Report stage.
  *MR. CAVEsaid he desired to enforce what the hon. Member opposite had said, though from a different point of view, in regard to the outside areas. It was a fact that the outside areas were greatly interested in this matter. The whole area included in the scope of the Bill exceeded 400 square miles, and of that only a little over 100 square miles were in London. He denied that the authorities outside the county of London were satisfied with the Bill as it stood, or that an arrangement had been made with them. Letters had been written by the outside authorities to the London County Council, in reply to which they had only received an acknowledgment. In Croydon, Wimbledon, Kingston, and elsewhere, electrical undertakings had been established, and large sums of money had been spent upon them. The light was supplied at a reasonable price, and power could be obtained for a very low price. He did not think that anybody in those areas desired that the electrical enterprises should be handed over, even to some extent, to the London County Council. He protested against the proposal that another authority should be allowed to come into those areas after the local authorities had been encouraged to take part in the establishment of electric light and power works, and should either compete with the local authorities or succeed to their options of purchase. He was not sure that the local authorities in the outside areas would be better off than at present by what was proposed by this Dill as explained in the Memorandum accompanying it. He thought it was rather a strong thing to hand over to a private company the powers which had been granted by Parliament to public local authorities. That was a grievance with which he sympathised, and with which he entirely agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite. At any rate, the outside areas should have some kind of voice in the constitution of the private company and the terms to be made with it. He would not divide the House against the Second Reading of the Bill, but he reserved his right to raise the question on the Report
  1414
  Stage or on the Third Reading, if necessary.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,)said he did not rise to discuss the various points put forward by different speakers. Although all hon. Members could not see eye to eye on the details of this Bill, it was generally agreed, he thought, that it should get a Second Reading and be sent upstairs for detailed discussion. Therefore he asked the House, in view of the discussion to be resumed on the Small Holdings Bill, to allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  Ordered, That all petitions already presented against the Bill 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 be 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. Courthope).
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that if any power be conferred upon the London County Council to transfer or lease to any company, local authority, body, or person any of the powers, duties, or liabilities entrusted to it by this Bill, the conditions upon which such power shall be exercised shall be embodied either in this or a subsequent Bill.—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS.
  Postponed proceeding on Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Small Holdings and Allotments," resumed.
  *MR. NICHOLLSsaid he had listened with delight to the introduction of the Bill. He believed that there were thousands of rural workers in different parts of the country who would welcome it as heartily as any one in the House. They were agreed on both sides of the House that something should be done to stop the depopulation of the rural districts and the flow of country workers to the towns. He recognised that the Bill was a real step in that direction; at any rate it was a great advance on anything they had had before, and it would inspire hope in the breast of many rural labourers who had hitherto been unable to get allotments or smallholdings. Everybody recognised that there were good landlords, and in those districts there was no difficulty in obtaining allotments or small holdings; but in some areas the parish councils had their hands tied, while in other areas, especially urban districts, their tongues had been tied. The county councils, many of them, were out of sympathy with small holdings, and in those cases nothing had been done to provide them. The right hon. Member for South Dublin seemed to think that the county councils had been showing their sympathy in regard to small holdings. That might be the case in a few instances, but in the majority of count councils nothing had been done. He had received a letter from an agricultural labourer who said that there were only two men on the county council in his district who for years had done anything at all in regard to small holdings. Where the landlord was in sympathy with the aspirations of the agricultural labourers things worked smoothly enough, but the difficulty was the insecurity of tenure. There might be a thousand allotments on one estate, and the owner could any day of the week, and at any part of the year, give notice to them all to quit. Unless a man had security of tenure he could not put his best into the holding; and they would not get the best type of men to go back to the land unless they had security of tenure. He himself had stuck to the land till he was nearly twenty years of age, when he got out of a job. He hunted the whole of the district for sixteen weeks, and everybody said there was no opening. The little he had saved soon went, and it was not before he got to Tilbury, which was a long way from Cambridgeshire,
  1416
  that he found a job. Afterwards he wended his way back to his native county. He could assure the House that every lad who had been brought up in the country had a longing for the land, and his thought was always to get back to it if only he had a fair chance. Acting upon that impulse, he went back to the land and found work of a rough kind. Having left once more he again came back and found work in the stone pits. Then he got an allotment of a quarter of an acre, and his mind became centred upon that little plot of land. He remembered that on the first Jubilee Day of Her late Majesty he spent the beginning of it upon that allotment, while others were getting warm for the after day celebration. He kept at work at the stone pits for five years, and meanwhile his allotment rose from a quarter to half an acre, then to a holding of one acre, then three acres, although he never got the cow which his right hon. friend had promised. Great hardship was occasioned by the fact that plots of land could not be had in the neighbourhood in which a man lived, and in his case, in order to get three acres, he had to have five plots in different places, in regard to some of which he paid £3 an acre and for some portion even a higher price. He had a wife who was not ashamed to help a little on the land, and he was enabled in the course of five years to lay the foundations of an existence which would make him a freer man. Some people talked about politicians being on the make, but the moment the labourer got his foot upon the soil he prospered. The politician was not the only man who was on the make, and there was no harm in the labourer being on the make in order to acquire a little plot of land which would make him freer. The freer and more independent a man was the better he was. Out of the ninemen who worked in his gang in the stone pits there were, including himself, five who were able to leave and start on their own Two of them had large farms under the Duke of Bedford, and in each case the plot of land had grown from portions of an acre to more. He got letters every day from agricultural labourers in all parts of the country who felt that they had every right to tell him their stories. The effect of them was that in many cases the demand for land had in past years been met with a blank refusal. The difficulty they had to deal with was

  1417
  that the large farmer was prejudiced against the smaller man, and that prejudice was shared by the landlord, while the land agent did not want the trouble of a number of small holdings. In one instance that he knew the first question the land agent asked in regard to an application for a small holding was "What is your client in politics and religion?" The agent for the tenant said, "I should have thought that that was the last thing that the man would have been asked about. All I can say is that the man is of sound character and good standing and he has the capital to work the small holding for which he is applying." He would have thought that those recommendations were overwhelming, but the reply was, "Oh, well, you know, it is not quite that, but we do not want a lot of Radical Dissenters on the estate." He felt that the time had come at last when the local councils should have power to act in the so districts where they had been faced with that blank denial or refusal of land, and if the local authority refused the people the privilege they should have a right to appeal to a central body or Commission. That central body might be responsible to the Board of Agriculture or be the Board of Agriculture itself, but until the people felt in regard to questions of this sort that they had somebody to whom they could go, beyond those local people who could not, in many cases dared not, move, the situation was hopeless. Many of the smaller men knew that the difficulty they had to face was that if they moved in the matter they themselves would not get any small holdings. They were called firebrands, and had in consequence to suffer. Only last Wednesday he received a letter in which his correspondent said that in his district there were several hundreds of acres let in allotments or small holdings, but in every case when they made a move and ''agitated" in order to make it felt that there was a demand for the land, those who had done the agitating did not get any small holdings. His correspondent said that in that particular instance the land agent had taken up the matter and had doled out small holdings of land to men who wanted them, but the live men who had raised the question had been boycotted and could not get a foot of the land which had been granted. That was the
  1418
  reason why, if the smaller councils and the smaller local district bodies were fettered, tongue-tied, and hand-tied, the people felt that they should have the right, as under this Bill, to go to the centre where there was somebody who could inquire into the situation and find out whether there was a demand for land which was suitable and men who were suitable to take it. That seemed to be the difficulty, but his experience was that there were always far more suitable men demanding land than could get holdings, and whenever the landlord was favourable and offered land, if it was suitable and the rent was reasonable, there was always a greater demand than supply. But in some districts the land was not suitable, and in some cases the men who wished to acquire a small holding were not suitable. He himself was not in favour of taking men from the towns and putting them in colonies and trying to teach them the difference between a wood and a potato, when there were thousands of men in the rural districts who knew all about it and were prepared to put all their time and energy into the work, and had moreover, a little capital. He had been ready to go back to the land, and there were hundreds of others willing to do so, but they would not go back to be merely the day labourer of another man. He had no faith in the doctrine that a man who did his duty to his master had no reserve strength for his garden or allotment. He thought that a man who had done a fair day's work for his master could still find time to cultivate his little piece of land. Then there was the question of whether a man in that position of life should pay rent in advance, and that was a ticklish question for a poor man. He would take his own case. He paid the first quarter in advance and there was the rent to pay every quarter after he took possession, and a year from the day after he did so he had paid his fifth quarter's rent. Because he had stated that, the landlord said "Nicholls has stated that they" (meaning the small holders) "are paying five quarter's rent a year." He had said nothing of the kind. What he said was that he had paid five quarter's rent down before the land had been of any use to him. After describing the advantages which labourers reaped from keeping pigs and the many ways in which a man with a low wage could and did make both ends meet, when he

  1419
  had a holding, he said he would like to do something to show that men of that class could be trusted to help them to tide over the difficulty of the first year, and to make it clear that the Liberal Government did really this time mean business and were going to help the larger number of people, even if they hit a few in order to do it. After all, every man, whatever his politics might be, must recognise that they had to look after the welfare of the poor, even though in doing it those who were better off had to suffer a little. In considering this Bill, everyone must see that they were going along the right line, and he believed that they would get some of the Opposition to help in the work
  *MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSthought the House was to be congratulated on the tone of the debate, and on the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He gathered from the tone of the speeches which had come from the Opposition that the Bill would stand a fair chance of passing into law. He was glad that the question had now come to be regarded as urgent, for he felt sure that the depopulation of the rural districts of England and Wales was nearly as great as the depopulation that had occurred in Ireland during the last sixty years. In the Llandovery district of Carmarthenshire the population had gone down from 14,000 to 7,000 between 1841 and 1901, or about 50 per cent; the diminutions of population would also be found to be the same in many rural districts which he had tested by the census returns. Those diminutions must be looked upon as permanent, for the number of inhabited houses had dropped by 35 or 40 per cent. during those years. The right hon. Member for South Dublin did not believe that small holdings would be a deterrent to depopulation, and had asked them to procure statistics to prove it. Wales was a land of small farms, the average holding running from 80 to 100 acres. If a comparison were made of the number of farmers engaged in agriculture in Wales to-day with the number engaged in 1841, no appreciable decrease would be found, notwithstanding the fact that within the last few years rents had been high, tenure was more insecure than in any other part of the country, and men had
  1420
  had to sacrifice more for their religion and politics than anywhere else in the Kingdom. The cause of the rural depopulation was due to the decline in the number of labourers from 66,000 in 1841 to something like 33,000, a decrease of about 50 per cent. He agreed that some of those men must have left from economic causes. In Ireland, the rural population left for the Colonies or the United States, but in Wales they were fortunate in having had large industries developed within the last fifty years, and therefore the agricultural labourer could secure employment either in the quarries or in the mines of Wales. He did not say that it was possible to keep all the rural population at home; it would not be good if they could; but he thought that the rural depopulation had gone further than it ought, and it was necessary to prevent it. Therefore, he thanked the Government for introducing the Bill, which seemed to him to be the best, the wise stand the most courageous of the measures for which they were responsible. It was not only in the interest of the agricultural labourer himself but also in the interest of the landlord and the farmer that the labourer should be kept on the land. From his own knowledge of those men he believed it was possible to get many of them back to the land, if proper conditions were offered. Whether that were so or not, he thought it was the duty of the House, in the interests of the nation at large, and not merely in the interests of a class, at all events to see that the agricultural labourers who were still on the land were kept there. He thought the Government had suggested the proper remedy. The first thing, undoubtedly, was to take away from the landlord the necessity for providing capital; and he quite agreed that the real reason why the landlords had been unable to act in the past was that their property was tied up in such a way that they were unable to provide the necessary funds themselves. The Government, as he understood, in order to meet the position, were giving power to the county councils compulsorily to acquire land and to equip the small holdings with cottages, spreading the repayment of the money over eighty years. He thought that got over two of the greatest difficulties which had been experienced in the past—the getting hold of land and equipping it with what was necessary for its proper cultivation. He

  1421
  understood that the extent of the allotment would be raised from one acre to five acres, and that the Act of 1892 was not to be interfered with, though it was not to be encouraged, that the allotment could be bought by the small holder. Speaking for those small fanners and peasants of Wales, he found that the instinct of property was so highly developed in them that he was perfectly certain that in order to get a better and more speedy solution of the problem some system of peasant proprietorship should not be excluded. With regard to the other remedy suggested in the Bill, he had found from his experience of co-operative effort that the great difficulty had always been to retain the young men on the land in their own district, and the failure of nearly every co-operative effort with which he had been connected had been due mainly to the fact that when the young men who had started it migrated to other countries or to the towns, the energy of those societies had disappeared. Now that the Government had taken the matter in hand he hoped there would be a permanent organisation which would keep alive the co-operative societies in the country districts. With regard to credit banks there was one matter of great importance to many country districts and especially to the Principality. A great deal was heard of the woes of the landlords and the woes of the tenant farmers, but very little was heard of the woes of the peasant proprietor who had been forced into buying his holding in order to secure fixity of tenure. Yet he knew cases where in order to secure fixity of tenure holdings had been purchased at seventy years purchase and where the tenant was paying more in interest than would be paid in rent. Nothing had, however, been proposed for the relief of that class. He hoped when the Government established credit banks something would be done to alleviate the burdens of those poor people.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the speech of the hon. Member who had just spoken was in favour of lightening the burdens and difficulties of those who would like to own the land. This Bill put a positive barrier against the aspirations of that class. He fully admitted the great advantages of credit banks and co-operative associations, but they had never thrived in countries where tenancies
  1422
  prevailed. In Denmark, France, and Germany credit banks and co-operative associations were the natural outcome of ownership. Although by the efforts of associations and of private landowners co-operation had made some progress in this country, it was an exotic; it did not spring naturally from tenancies, and never could do so. He expressed the pleasure which he felt that the policy of small holdings was no longer in a debate able stage. They were all agreed on it. Thirty years ago it was a subject of ridicule and even of contempt. He thanked his right hon. friend for his eloquent and lucid explanation of this measure, and also for the manner in which he had referred to his own endeavours. The right hon. Gentleman had put the matter in the most favourable light possible. It was not a political question and ought not to be a Party question. It was a question of life and death to the nation—one to which every other question was second. He read the speech made by the Prime Minister at the Holborn Restaurant with an immense amount of pleasure, and he agreed with all that was said by the right hon. Gentleman about depopulation and the necessity of dealing with the subject in the interest of the welfare of the people. He know that, the right hon. Gentleman was subjected to a great amount of pressure, and his hopes rose high when the right hon. Gentleman said there were to be provisions, sweeping and strict, to enable the peasantry to live on their holdings and to call their souls their own. There was not such a thing as a peasant in the country. The peasant was a man who owned his holding, and there were peasants in this country for 1,000 years until they were deprived of their land and became mere agricultural labourers. After that great nourish of trumpets, however, the outcome had not been what one had been led to expect; and he was somewhat disappointed with it. His right hon. friend had said that they could not very well stay the stream of migration to the towns. He maintained that they could not only stay the stream, but reverse it. There were hundreds of thousands of men in the towns who had been brought up on the land, who knew all about it, who were good cultivators, and who would return to it on proper conditions. But they would not go back as

  1423
  day labourers or tenants. He could show hundreds of letters to prove that if land purchase were the basis of the Bill, people would flock back to the land.
  *MR. HARCOURTsaid the Government had adopted the Act of 1892 which gave an opportunity to purchase. This Bill was an addition to that.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that was the mistake that had been made. To ask an agricultural labourer on a purchase of land of £200 or £300 to put down 20 per cent. was to call upon him for something he could not do. When a Bill was introduced to remove that difficulty the other day the Chief Whip said the Government could not let the Bill pass because they had a measure of their own. But the Government Bill did not touch that matter. The Government refused to remove that bar of poverty which was the one great drawback to the Act of 1892. That Act had been an unqualified success where it had been put into force. In Worcestershire they had overcome the 20 per cent difficulty. Some members of the council had advanced money to suitable men, and in other cases payment had been postponed. In Worcestershire they could see men who had lived for twelve years in absolute prosperity on their little holdings, and the whole question was solved. The Act had not been a failure, except in areas, and that was because the county councils generally had not put it in force by reason of the money difficulty. If they would only take the large sum of money they were going to spend under this Bill and hand it over to the county councils for the purpose of putting the Act into operation they would find great results, whereas under the system now being proposed the money would be thrown away. The present Bill was admittedly opposed to peasant proprietors. No agricultural labourer in the country could ever hope under this Bill to possess a tiny bit of ground. But he would make the Prime Minister a present of a Bill in which he would find a solution of the whole problem without the paraphernalia of Land Courts and other expenses. [The right hon. Gentleman handed a copy of the Land Purchase Bill to the Prime Minister.] A great deal had been heard about
  1424
  "fixity of tenure.'' What was "fixity of tenure"? The Government did not give it; and it could not be given except by ownership.
  *MR. HARCOURT: I expressly said I gave no fixity of tenure at all, except that derived from tenure under a public body. I said the fixity of tenure I gave was not one which would confer on the occupier any power of sale.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that that made the Bill ten times worse. The poor agricultural labourer had to depends for his fixity of tenure and his rent upon the local authority. The local authorities were a changing body, and they might find upon those bodies men like the hon. Member for Preston, who thought they could measure up by rules all human interests and desires, total them up, and tell them exactly what they amounted to. Such men, if elected to the local authority, might say: "This body of small holders has been paving £1 per acre for land which is worth 30s., and in duty to the ratepayers we ought to let it at the higher figure." That kind of thing would assuredly happen under the local authority. If the poor labourer by his exertions made the land of more value, his rent would be raised, and if he were turned out he would get no compensation worth naming. It was absurd to say that small holders did not desire to own the land they cultivated. The contrary was only common sense. The magic of ownership was intuitive, because it brought out the best powers of the cultivator in a manner which no form of tenancy could achieve. As to the proposed Commissioners under the Board of Agriculture, they had men at that Board second to none in ability, power, and understanding. They could not be bettered, and all that had to be done was to give them a little more help, and all the expense of this Commission would be saved. The present Government could not do anything without creating a new office, though they had everything to their hands. They reminded him of the proverb that "A bad workman always complains of his tools." The power of the Commissioners in the Bill was a monstrous proposition which would not be accepted in any country in Europe except Russia.

  1425
  Were they going to allow a central body to override the wishes of the elected members of a local authority and make the ratepayers of that locality pay for something to which their elected representatives were opposed? How could they put such a proposition into force? Were the elected members of it to be sent to prison? Would the ratepayers pay a rate when they had had nothing to do with striking it? It was as monstrous a proposal as was ever made. The right hon. Gentleman had described the Bill as the Bill of Eights of the labourer. All the loans and sinking fund and interest for which the local authority might become liable in putting the Bill into operation were to be paid by the rent. Was that a Bill of Eights for the labourer? He was not afraid of compulsory purchase, but compulsory letting on the proposed scale suggested serious questions. It was one thing to give parish councils the power which they had hardly ever used, of letting one acre for an allotment, but quite another thing to establish a system of compulsory letting in regard to holdings which might run up to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of acres. There must be a house put up on the holding; to whom was it to belong at the end of the lease? The housing question was solved by the tenant proprietary system, but not by the plan of hiring. In Worcestershire there had been an experiment with thirty-two small holdings, and in connection with about a dozen of those there were nice homesteads. They were included in the holdings, and the tenants paid back the price by annual instalments. If the land was let under this Bill, what would become of the house at the end of the lease? That was a question to which he should like an answer. His right hon. friend had said there was going to be £100,000 spent under the Bill, if that money were spent in enabling local authorities to put the 1892 Act in force, the difficulties would disappear, and all the proposed paraphernalia would be unnecessary. It was said that at the end of the term the tenant would have the right of compensation. That would depend upon whether in view of the county council he had observed all the conditions of cultivation which had been laid down. Under this scheme there must not only be commissioners, but inspectors to see that the land was properly cultivated. The county council would be in
  1426
  the position of the landlord. Nothing of the kind was necessary under the ownership system, where the local authority was simply the receiver of well secured instalments every year. Reference had been made to the Report of Lord Onslow's Committee. It should be remembered that not a single labourer, or anybody connected with labourers, gave evidence before the Committee.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid he brought forward a tenant on his estate who was formerly a labourer.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid several tenants gave evidence, but there was no witness representing the labourers, although dozens could have been found to give evidence. The only legislation that had had any effect in keeping men upon the land had been promoted by the Unionist Party, and the Act of 1892 indicated the direction in which legislation ought to go. One man who had acquired a holding under that legislation sold £600 worth of produce in one year. But for that legislation the money would have gone to Belgium to pay for the stuff. He remembered going down on his knees almost to Mr. Gladstone, and asking him to do something of the kind, but the Party did not then care two pence about the agricultural labourers, except for political purposes—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh."] Mr. Gladstone came into power on an Amendment he had proposed, and when the Lioerals climbed into office by the votes of the agricultural labourers, the latter were cast aside. He would ask his right hon. friend whether he could vindicate the adoption of tenancy in lieu of ownership, except on Socialistic grounds. Hon. Members below the gangway might plume themselves on having captured the Government, in that they had induced the introduction of tenancy instead of purchase. They did not want increase of ownership, and they had succeeded so far, but the question was whether it was best for the country. There were only two alternatives, the Socialistic principle of the nationalisation of the land, and the principle of purchase. He had studied the question for many years, both in England and in almost every country in Europe. In the case of Denmark, for instance, it was only after they had adopted

  1427
  the principle of ownership that prosperity began to flourish amongst the small holders. So in Germany and other continental countries, he found that the principle of ownership underlay every attempt for the improvement of the agriculture population. To adopt the principle of tenancy in the Bill would be to fly in the face of all experience. The welfare of the country—aye, its very existence—depended upon the restoration of the peasant proprietor and the yeoman farmer. It was by legislation that they were destroyed; and it was only by legislation that they could be restored. But this Bill setup a barrier to their restoration. It divided public opinion into two camps, one favoured by the Government, that there should be no occupier who was owner of the soil, and the other approved of by all Chambers of Agriculture and by the villagers, namely, complete ownership. He hoped the time would come when the Unionist Party would place good, honest purchase and ownership on its banner. He agreed that at present that was an unauthorised programme. If they went into any village and put it to the agricultural labourers whether they would prefer tenancy under a local authority, which would be the worst form of tenancy, to ownership with the local authority only acting as the receiver of annual instalments, there would be a unanimous acceptance of the latter alternative, provided always that the bar of poverty were removed. He sympathised with the pathetic statement of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire of the longing desire of men born on the land to get back to the land. Arthur Young had well said that "the magic of property turns sand to gold." He believed that ownership would double the productiveness of the land. Why was that? Because a man who was dealing with his own land worked hard. It might be called slavery, but it was not. The man got up at five o'clock in the morning and worked upon his holding in the interests of himself. He put his labour into his own land and it became his bank. He was surprised that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to show the advantage of tenancy over ownership, because in his view ownership would be of an advantage not only to the individual but to the community. He agreed that there was no absolute property in land; there
  1428
  never was and never could be, because the community had the right to demand that it should be worked under conditions which should produce the very best, and in his view no conditions could produce the very best, unless the land was worked under a system of ownership. He must apologise for keeping the House so long, but he wished to urge his principle, which was that of an honest purchase at a fair price, and his contention was that without that no small holder would be content. Let the Board of Agriculture, as an experiment, be directed to buy an estate of from four to five hundred acres, break it up into holdings of from five to fifty acres, and, totalling up the entire cost for roads and so on, put a fair price upon each. When such holdings were advertised for sale on easy terms, with repayment, interest, and sinking fund by annual instalments, there would be hundreds of applications from men experienced in agriculture. Why should not that be done, instead of embarking on impossible schemes foredoomed to failure?
  *MR. WINFREYsaid he rose with much pleasure to support the Bill. For fifteen years he had spent a good portion of his time in attempting to put into operation the Small Holdings Act of 1892, and the result had been most unsatisfactory. When the experiment was made in Lincolnshire of a county council purchasing three farms, under that Act their experience was that not a single applicant desired to purchase holdings. He thought that the fixity of tenure under this Bill would be quite as good as that which the tenant farmers of the country enjoyed at present. He saw no reason why fixity of tenure should not be as great under a local authority as under a private landlord. The Bill proposed that the land should be purchased under sound economic conditions, and that the money should be borrowed and repaid over a term of eighty years, the rents to cover the repayment during that term. They had found no, difficulty in so fixing the rents in Lincolnshire as to secure repayment in a term of fifty years. His right hon. friend had said that at the end of fifty years the land did not belong to the tenant, but during that period the ratepayers had been pledging their credit, and were entitled to take possession of the land

  1429
  considering that during the whole of the period it had been let to the tenant at a fair rent. As to the difficulty of taking land on a lease for twenty-one years, and erecting houses and buildings upon it, he took it that no local authority would be likely to lease land for that purpose for that period. In many cases the question of erecting houses and buildings would not arise. Moreover, it was quite possible for a county council to buy100 acres of land adjoining 500 or 600 acres which they had leased and erect the necessary buildings upon that so that the two schemes of purchase and leasing could run together. As to past legislation he did not wish to indulge in recrimination, but as the right hon. Gentleman boasted that the Party with which he was now allied was the only Party which had brought about any successful legislation in this matter, he must remind him that the Act of 1892 was a ghastly failure. Petitions were sent up from twenty-seven English counties asking for small holdings; of those counties only six had put the Act into operation, and in those six counties only a paltry 800 acres of land were acquired. That showed plainly the Act was a failure. In point of fact it was not passed with the intention of its being a working Act, but as a window dressing Act upon which to go to a general election. Moreover the Government knew that the failure of the Allotment Act of 1887 lay in the expense of putting the compulsory clauses into operation. Yet with that experience before them they deliberately passed a Small Holdings Act without any compulsory powers whatever. He did not condemn the Act of 1887 without a trial. For two years he explained the Act in the villages in the district where he lived and they applied to the boards of guardians for 1,600 acres of land. At the end of that period they had not succeeded in obtaining a single acre. The Act of 1887 gave very large powers of asking for land, but very small powers for getting it, and it was not until the county councils came in being in 1889, that they succeeded in getting any land at all. Then they succeeded in getting 13 acres for which the board of guardians gave £67 an acre, and for which, after adding the cost of management and an estimated amount for bad debts, they
  1430
  charged the people 84s. an acre or 6½ per cent. on the purchase price. The Government recognised that the Act of 1887 was a failure, because they brought in in 1890 an amending Act transferring the powers to county councils. In his district they made use of this amending Act, and the compulsory powers which, though never used, had the advantage that the mere threatening to enforce it led to agreements, and between 1890 and 1894 they succeeded in getting 800 acres of land for allotment purposes. He maintained, however, that it was not until the Parish Councils Act was passed the land needed was obtained for allotments. The official Returns showed that less than 3,000 acres were obtained under the Acts of 1887 and 1889 and before the Parish Councils Act was passed, while in the nine years succeeding 18,000 acres of land were obtained. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had said that ninety-nine out of every hundred landowners tried to get small tenants on their land. He would like to know where those landlords lived.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: All over the country.
  *MR. WINFREYsaid that in that case as men of business they had made a dismal failure of their attempt. It seemed to him that the modern landowning class did not go the right way to work in order to ascertain the wishes of the agricultural labourer as to small holdings. It was difficult to focus the demand for small holdings, because the agricultural labourers had no organisation, and the landowner with the best intentions did not get at the bottom of their views, whilst the larger farmers were quite out of touch with the labourer so far as small holdings were concerned. Those also who controlled estates in the hands of mortgagees or in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and other bodies did not consider the labourer. The agricultural labourer did not carry his heart on his sleeve, and was slow in his expression of opinion until he could ascertain whom he could trust. In the year 1885—and this showed the different point of view from which hon. Members opposite approached the question of allotments and small holdings—the right hon. Member for

  1431
  Wimbledon was then one of the representatives for Lincolnshire. In those days the Liberals advocated three acres and a cow, but the right hon. Gentleman went up and down the county saying that half an acre was enough for any working man. And he had the courage of his convictions, for when the Allotments Bill of 1887 was before the House he put down an Amendment that no allotment should exceed half an acre. That was the spirit in which in times past the Party opposite had approached the land question.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: We passed Bills for all that.
  *MR. WINFREY: Yes, but they were hardly worth the paper they were printed on. The agricultural labourer had no such organisation as had the skilled labourers of the town, and, therefore, it was very difficult to focus the demand for small holdings. Only a few days ago they had a deputation from Lincolnshire to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with respect to small holdings in Lincolnshire; and only on the previous day he had received a letter from one of that deputation, who was a small shopkeeper. The writer said that since the deputation he had suffered in his business, for on the previous Saturday his man (his correspondent was a grocer) when he called at the Royalty Farm was told that he was not to call there again for orders because Mr. Ward had heard that his employer had taken part in the deputation. The writer had done business on the farm for thirty years with nearly all the people who resided on it. Mr. Ward was a non-resident farmer. There were several cottages on the farm, and the occupants had been actually told not to buy their groceries from this man who had supported small holdings. [An man on his rounds was told by the HON. MEMBER: What parish?] The tenants what had been said by Mr. Ward, who was a tenant under the Duchy of Lancaster, and had just recently been made a magistrate. But coming back to the question of small holdings in his district. Having gone through all the preliminaries with respect to allotments, and having fairly well succeeded with the parish councils in 1894, they were then able to make a
  1432
  solid attempt to put the Small Holdings Act into operation. He thought, however, that he would be able to show the House wherein that Act had failed. They succeeded, it was true, in purchasing three small farms. They arranged everything on sound economic lines. The rent covered the repayment of principal and interest, but although they did that they could not get the county council to proceed any further; they said they would wait to see whether the experiment was a success. That was thirteen years, ago, and the county council were still waiting. He was chairman of the committee during the time, and they had a great many inquiries for small holdings, and for ten years there had been lying with the county council applications for at least 1,000 acres, but no further steps had been taken. Had it not been that the present President of the Board of Agriculture had come to their assistance by leasing them two farms of 700 acres, they would not have been able to do anything more to meet the demand in the district. They let the farms very successfully to men who had made their allotments a success; these men had practically fixity of tenure as long as they paid their rents and cultivated the land properly. The moment they ceased to cultivate the land properly they ceased to be desirable tenants. It was quite true that they had only taken a lease of the farms for twenty-one years, but he thought that the owner was quite prepared to continue the transaction seeing that he was paid his rent regularly and was not asked for abatements. The demand of which he was speaking had been met and satisfied; and he maintained that there was the same demand in many other parts of the country. When they first took those 700 acres they had the land for seven years, and, to show how little capital the men had, they were unable to let the grass land as the applicants had only sufficient capital to take arable land; they had to let the grass land as accommodation land to a local butcher. But in the second year some of the men said that they were ready to take the grassland, and £100 was spent in fencing it in.
  MR. HUNT: Did you put up the houses on those small farms?
  *MR. WINFREYsaid the farm houses were divided into two tenements, and there was also the shepherd's house and three cottages on the farms, which gave accommodation for eight resident tenants. The whole of the other holders were men who lived in the surrounding district, and many of them had to go three or four miles to the land; so they had been really under a disadvantage because they had not the money to build cottages. The same local landowner had a farm which became vacant suddenly three weeks ago, owing to the death of the tenant. His widow was obliged to call the creditors together, and there were considerable arrears of rent. There were at once several applications from different men living in the neighbourhood for small holdings. That farm was not near a village or even a hamlet; it was a wide and scattered district in the Fens of Lincolnshire—a few small-cottages, a public house, a blacksmith's shop, and a chapel. The applicants had written to him saying that they could do with the farm, and within ten days the property had been lot in ten small holdings. The farmhouse and the three houses upon it vided accommodation for five tenants; the other men were living in the neighbourhood. The deceased farmer had not been successful, but they hoped that the small holders would succeed where the larger holder had not succeeded. He would like to ask the right hon. Member for Wimbledon what had been done in the Sleaford Division during the last twenty years, and whether he had explained the Act of Parliament to the working men in that district. In the neighbouring Stamford Division there were some 4,000 acres of Crown lands. There had been a demand for small holdings there for thirty years, but up to now they had met with a blank refusal from the managers of those lands to let any part of them for small holding purposes. But the moment that policy was reversed petitions were sent to the Board of Agriculture asking that some six or seven hundred acres in that particular district should be lot for small holdings. He would like to give to the House as an illustration the case of a little village called Eastville, which contained a population of 400 people, an acreage of 2,657, and a rateable value of £3,924, where the men were applying for some
  1434
  Duchy of Lancaster's land. Upon that land there were six large farmhouses tenanted by foremen and only two resident farmers. This year eight young men left the village and two of them had gone to Canada, and none of these young men could get small holdings in the locality. In a letter received from a neighbouring parish where there was a better opportunity of getting small holdings the writer said—
  "I support the application for smallholdings because I have seen the advantage of them. In order to show that people will not only remain on the land when they can get it, but. will also come back to it, I can name seventeen persons who left this parish as young men and after saving a little money they have come back and are now occupying land. They include live ex-policemen, four ex-railway men, three ex-greengrocers, and three who have been abroad. As every house in the parish is occupied and as several houses have lately been built, I have no doubt the population is increasing. There are a large number of young men who would hire small farms if they could get them, but stewards who had farms to let seemed to prefer to let them to men who had large occupations."
  That was in Lincolnshire. The statement was very often made that the land was very good in Lincolnshire, and that they could not do in other counties what was being done in Lincolnshire. He had made an experiment to see whether they could succeed upon land of half the capital value of that of Lincolnshire, and so he formed a voluntary association, who in 1900 purchased three farms in the county of Norfolk. The land cost them about £20 per acre, and they were letting it at about 20s. and 22s. per acre. The men they put upon that land had paid their rent regularly during the last six years, not one of them desired to purchase, and he thought they possessed a fairly good fixity of tenure. The steward who managed that estate wrote—
  "I paid a casual visit to Carbrooke in March. This is a farm of 109 acres and was previously occupied by a local farmer as an 'off' farm. The farmhouse was not tenanted except by an aged female caretaker, and the labour employed was such as the farmer sent over casually from his home farm. On going over the farm in March I found our principal tenant (Haylock), a man with seven children, employing two labourers I found four tenants in addition working on the land with horses and a hired team, in all twelve horses and eight men. The crops grown by the retiring fanner in the last year of his tenancy yielded not more than six coombs of barley and seven coombs of oats per acre. Haylock's average for barley during the last three years has been eleven coombs. On his

  1435
  fifty-seven acres I found three horses and twenty head of cow stock. During the year 1905 he turned out twenty-six bullocks for the butcher, and in the following year 1906 he fattened eighteen bullocks and 116 sheep. In addition to maize Haylock has consumed on the farm eighteen tons of linseed cake during twelve months. He told me he had spent £200 in feeding stuffs in twelve months. I have received applications for more land from four tenants on this farm, and from two of the sons of the present small holders."
  That man only started farming three years ago with a capital of £100. What he was anxious to point out to the House was that the demand for these holdings Existed, and that a certain amount of assistance was necessary to establish the men on the land. Quotations had been made in both Houses of Parliament from the correspondents of the Board of Agriculture with regard to the demand for small holdings in different counties. Some hon. Members had drawn from those Reports the conclusion that those who supported this Bill were exaggerating the demand. There was a case in the county of Norfolk in which the correspondent of the Board of Agriculture wrote that small holdings were readily obtainable when required, but there was no particular demand for small holdings in the district. That was written by a man who had himself large farms about six miles away from this small holding which he could see every day as he drove to his own farms. In Cambridgeshire the experiment of the hon. Member for East Cambridgeshire was going to be a great success. In that case a Crown farm which the Crown had farmed for two years at a loss was taken up within three weeks by no less than seventy-eight men. The remarkable part of it was that the gentleman who gave up the farm happened to be the Board of Agriculture correspondent for the district, and he had reported that by far the greater portion of the land in the locality was totally unsuitable for small holdings. He could mention several other counties in the East of England where the demand for small holdings was not satisfied. In the Isle of Ely all the land was suitable for small holdings, and yet only 15 per cent. of it was occupied by small cultivators. He knew a case where forty labourers were provided with allotments under the 1894 Act, and the movement had extended until to-day there were 120 persons, principally labourers, occupying small
  1436
  holdings varying in size from four to sixteen acres. On those holdings thirty-seven new cottages had been erected, and, besides, many other buildings had been rebuilt or enlarged. Surely those facts ought to dispel any fear as to the success of the movement in that particular district. The same might be said with respect to Leicestershire. While taking part in the recent county council election in Leicestershire he spoke on the small holdings question, and fired with enthusiasm one of the candidates who succeeded in winning a seat. That gentleman had lately written to him as follows—
  "I spent lust night at New bold amongst the men and was agreeably surprised. I find that most of them have got a little money and although colliers are keen to have a bit of land. All have had farm experience and can milk. There are five men already keeping cows although they have not a yard of land. They put them out to agistment in the summer and buy hay and roots for them in the winter."
  This was useful as showing that not only arable land, but grass land was required. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had said that in his district small holdings had been the rule for thirty years, and that the system had not stopped depopulation. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, he interposed the remark that the small holdings in the western counties were not 15 per cent. of the whole of the agricultural land, and the retort was that the land was not suitable for small holdings.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was quite obvious what he meant. He meant that small holdings had from time immemorial existed in his part of England where the land was suitable. Experiments such as those to which the hon. Gentleman had been referring would not be successful if tried on Salisbury Plain.
  *MR. WINFREYsaid that was why the right hon. Gentleman should not lave used the argument that it did not stop depopulation in his district.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Not at all. If the land was divided into one-third which was suitable for small holdings, and two-thirds which were not suitable, it would be found that depopulation had gone on as much in one part as in the other.
  *MR. WINFREYsaid the right hon. Gentleman's experience was quite the

  1437
  opposite of his own, and as he had challenged anyone to give evidence that small holdings had stopped the rural exodus, he would take up the challenge. In 1881 the census was taken of the population in nineteen parishes in Lincoln shire South—that was before the allotment movement had got a start—and the next census was taken in 1891. The falling off in the population in that decade in those parishes was 2,280. The Allotments Act did not come into operation until 1890, and the Small Holdings Act until 1892. Operations were also commenced under the Parish Councils Act of 1894. In the same parishes during the decade from 1891 to 1901 the decrease in the population was only 115. He ventured to say that when the census was taken in 1911 those parishes would show an increase of population. That was entirely due to the development of allotments and small holdings, and therefore he heartily welcomed this Bill, for he was certain that other districts throughout England could do as well as they had done in Lincolnshire.
  COLONEL KENYON - SLANEYsaid they had had a very long speech from the hon. Member who had just sat down. Some of it was very interesting, but a great deal of it was unnecessary under the circumstances. The hon. Member seemed to take as his theme the necessity of proving to the House that the Bill, which would facilitate the creation of small holdings, was opposed on the Opposition side of the House. There was no reason why any such attack should have been directed against them.
  MR. WINFREY: I said there are exceptions.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: did not think the hon. Member said that there were exceptions. The hon. Member had no justification whatever for his attack on the Opposition, and with his extremely limited knowledge of land he should be careful how he made unpleasant attacks on those who had spent their lives trying to understand the subject. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill that his desire was to facilitate the creation of small holdings and allotments, but his right hon. friend, in his reply, had made it plain that there would not be much difference of opinion
  1438
  on the two sides of the House as to that object, though there was a difference of opinion as to the way in which it was to be attained. It was on that point, after all, that discussion was most likely to be useful. Several hon. Members had spoken as if the chief object of the Bill was to arrest the progress of rural depopulation, which it was contended was mainly due to the abstraction from the land of the rural labourer. There were other descriptions of labour employed on great estates, in building, in drainage, and in the maintenance of the establishment. That was largely decreased when the power of landowners to live on their estates was taken away from them, and it was that which had very largely caused de-population in many districts. The right hon. Gentleman had said that no attempt would be made by advancing loans to landlords to induce them to create small holdings of their own accord. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in that respect. The object of increasing such holdings, properly equipped and let at reasonable rents, would be attained more rapidly by facilitating their creation in the way he had suggested than by setting them up through public bodies or by spending money through those bodies. Without destroying the Bill, provision could be made for the possibility of landlords themselves being able to take up the loans for the purpose of creating small holdings. In that event he believed that better tenants would be selected than by public bodies, that the land would be let at a smaller cost, and that the loss, if any, would fall on the landlords and not upon the ratepayers. It was a matter of common knowledge amongst those familiar with rural life that the owners of land were long suffering, helpful to their tenants, and kind to the poor among them when bad times came. That would be I impossible in the case of public bodies, I which would stand in quite a different relationship to the tenants. It would be their duty to the ratepayers to insist on rents being punctually paid, and in times of illness or distress they would not be able to show the same consideration as private landlords. What would be the position of the public bodies? The land having been acquired, buildings would have to be erected, and the occupier would have to pay the full rent plus

  1439
  the interest on the loan, and thus would be in a position comparing unfavourably with his neighbour. That would be the subject of grievance and difficulty. It was a grave responsibility to try to withdraw a man from well-paid labour and the assistance he could get from a friendly landlord in order that he might set up a small holding. There were several questions of detail on which he wished to touch. As he understood it the loan was to be repaid, principal and interest, in eighty years; but if the holding became vacant at the end of a fourteen years lease, who would be responsible for the unpaid portion of the loan? The success of small holdings depended very largely on the surroundings and the industries of the locality, and if such experiments as had been made were investigated he thought it would be found that success of the smallholder depended upon the individual, and was due also to the fact that he had the means of supplementing his earnings by some other work or by hiring his horse. If there was a class in the country to whom it was of importance to make the condition of the rural people happier, it was the landlord class. Those who lived on their land would know all the conditions and the surroundings, and could calculate the chances of success or failure for the small holder. There were hundreds of thousands of acres of light land where the experiment of small holdings was doomed to failure. It would be very easy to find faults with the Bill, but he would reserve a good many of his criticisms for a later stage. He assumed, however, that the introduction of the Bill implied the withdrawal of the Scottish Small Holders Bill. It would be an extraordinary position if both measures were proceeded with, because they set up different principles and different modes of procedure applicable to different parts of the island where exactly the same conditions prevailed, When the Bill was printed he would consider it, not in a hostile mood, but with an earnest desire to understand and appreciate its merits, if it should turn out to be a fair-minded effort to establish a system of tenure which many landlords had done their best to promote.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had
  1440
  said that there was no opposition in the House to small holdings, and he welcomed that statement: indeed it was one which went no further than he expected. He thought at that stage it was well to look for any common ground of agreement that had been disclosed by the debate. Both sides of the House were agreed that an increase of small holdings was desirable, and he thought they were also agreed that such an increase was a proper object of direct action by the State. That also had been proved by the antecedent legislation of both Parties, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division had referred. Whatever was the value of the antecedent legislation, it at least showed that both sides, all Parties in the House, were of opinion that this was a proper subject for some national effort. He was surprised that some Members, including the-right hon. Member for Bordesley, were apparently contented with the state of existing legislation. [Mr. COLLINGS dissented.] The Acts of 1887 and 1892 were clearly and obviously failures. [Mr. COLLINGS: Not at all.] The Act of 1887, for instance, as far as the compulsory clauses were concerned, had resulted in sixteen acres, and there were less than 1,000 acres purchased by agreement. The results of hiring by agreement were little better, and taking everyone of the transactions from 1883 up to 1892 about 3,000 acres were dealt with; but when they come to the Act of 1894, which had been unfavourably compared with former Acts, under it 15,000 acres had been dealt with, and 30,000 tenants put upon the land. Those results he took from official figures. It was said that the Acts of 1887 and 1892 had led up to those agreements, but let him ask the House to consider why the Acts of 1887 and 1892 were such failures. The Act of 1887 was a failure because the whole administration was in the hands of district councils who were notoriously antipathetic to allotments generally. Then when the matter came into the hands of the county councils they had to go through an expensive procedure involving a public inquiry, and the system of the transfer of property was one of the most cumbrous ever devised by the wit of man. That was not by any means the end, because, under the Act of 1887, after the county council

  1441
  had passed the provisional order, the Local Government Board came on the scene and had to pass a Bill to confirm the provisional order. Could anyone wonder that no more than sixteen acres only were obtained? The Act of 1887 had proved a failure because of the costly and cumbrous nature of the proceedings; and the Act of 1892 was a failure because it avoided compulsion altogether, and left the operation of the measure to voluntary agencies and the option of the county councils, which when left alone were not very friendly to either allotments or small holdings. They were responsible for 800 acres under the Act of 1892, which was not a very promising state of things. From the failure of those two Acts the Government had learnt two lessons—first, that any legislation must provide a simple and cheap procedure; and, secondly, that the administration must be entrusted to people who were sympathetic with the object. those were the two main purposes the Government had in view. Then the preliminary inquiry should be made as cheap as possible, and the Government had taken the cost of such inquiries off the particular transaction between the county council and the tenant. That was a great relief to the tenant, because, under the Acts of 1887 and 1892, the cost fell upon the tenant, and it was almost impossible for anyone to proceed under any such conditions. It was only just and fair to limit the cost that the tenant had to incur to the commercial aspect of the transaction. The rates would, according to the Bill, be very carefully guarded, though there would be a small expenditure incurred by the Exchequer, mainly for the salaries of officials. The right hon. Gentleman for South Dublin had asked who was going to bear the loss of the constant depreciation in cases where holdings deteriorated in value owing to the operations of the tenant. He thought his right hon. friend had made it quite clear that it was the county councils. That was a very great safeguard both to the landlord and to the tenant. With regard to the power of the Commissioners to borrow money and to impose loans on the county councils, the Commissioners had no direct and explicit power to borrow under the Act either on their own or anyone else's behalf.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid, it was a pity that in this debate there should have been such a great amount of rivalry between the two Parties as to which in the past had done most to promote the establishment of small holdings and allotments. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had made that a point, but the hon. Member for South West Norfolk had endeavoured to show how little the Conservative Party had contributed in the past towards providing small holdings, while the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had gone the length of quoting a great many figures which he (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) did not think proved very much. But, after all, a little practical experience on these matters was worth something, for he had always discovered that as soon as an Act of Parliament was passed on a subject such as that with which the present Bill dealt, Members went down to their constituencies and one side would say that the Bill was of very little use, and the oilier would declare that it was the charter of freedom of the agricultural labourer, that they were all going to get allotments, and were all going to do wonders with them. It had always been his experience that as soon as legislation of that kind was passed there was a number of applications for small holdings. It had occurred in his own case when a Bill had been passed, and he had always been very pleased to fall in with the wishes of the workmen who made the applications. But after a while, when the interest had subsided, one saw that the allotments began to be given up. In his own case, and he was sure that it was the same in many others, a number of the small holders had fallen out, and the land was hold by a few instead of by a large number. Personally he believed that the Bill would have the effect of increasing the number of applications for small holdings in certain parts of the country, but he believed, also, that, as soon as the talk about the Bill had ceased they would go back to exactly the same state of affairs as before. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk had quoted the case of Lincolnshire. He thought that no man had taken a keener interest in this question than the hon. Gentleman, and he knew perfectly well

  1443
  that in several instances the hon. Member had been very successful in his experiments with small holdings. There could be no doubt that he had looked wisely into the matter, and had chosen land that was suitable for small holdings. But where he thought the Bill would break down was that, while it was true that a certain number of big farms could be turned into small holdings successfully, yet those were cases in which there were buildings to accommodate the tenants, or some of them. Besides the instance of successful experiments in Lincolnshire, there was the case of the hon. Member for Newmarket, who he believed had taken one of the large farms in his district and cut it up into small holdings, which had turned out very successfully. But it was to be noted that in none of those instances did the success take the form of bringing people back to the land, and that was the whole crux of the matter. It was perfectly easy to turn a farm into small holdings, but they must have houses for the tenants to live in. If there were houses already in existence the thing could be carried out; but the moment they had to build houses, to provide accommodation for the stock, and to furnish all the implements and the one hundred and one things necessary to the equipment of a holding, they were met with the difficulty of the great initial cost which people could not afford to pay. It was not the experience of local bodies alone, but of landlords and others with knowledge of these matters, that, where small holdings had been successful, in almost every instance it was found that there were buildings for the accommodation of the tenants. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill had said that he did not believe that certain farmers would approve of it, but that they would be wrong to disapprove of it because the measure would help to keep people on the land. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was very sanguine of getting more people back to the land; in fact, he had said that what they wanted was to keep on the land the people who were there now. He had also stated that farmers ought not to object to small holdings because, by their agency, they would have their labourers at hand. A large number of farmers, however, had stated to him that the labourers with
  1444
  small holdings were absolutely useless to them, because they were always most busy with their holdings when the work on the farms was at greatest pressure, and at the very moment when the farmers most needed their services. He did not himself think that the Bill would in any way help the farmer in respect of providing him with labourers. He knew that the hon. Member for Preston objected to anything in the way of subsidised industries, because it would be a bounty, according to him, and break through the blessed rules of free trade. He had always believed himself that if they wanted to get more people back to the land they would have to devise something acceptable to the owners of the land, and something acceptable to the farmers and labourers of the country generally, instead of spending money on wild-eat schemes like that now proposed, which might succeed in some instances where the building difficulty did not present itself. If they wanted allotments and small holdings to succeed, why did they not in some way, out of Government funds, provide money for the building of houses in the country in order to assist their object? If they went to the landlords of the country and said, "Give us half an acre of land, free of charge, and we will put up the cottage, for which of course a rent will be charged," he believed that in hundreds of cases the landlords would give them free of charge the sites for the erection of cottages. Such a scheme would have a far greater effect in keeping people on the land than the present proposal. One of the causes of rural depopulation was the fact that labourers' cottages were frequently so bad. If some such principle as that were adopted he believed they would be doing far more good than by spending such large sums of money in Scotland and England upon schemes which he did not believe would be a success, and were economically unsound. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies had informed them that they were going to have a Bill under which an authority in London would supply the ginger for the small holdings. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture was to provide the ginger, but who was going to find the sugar? If county councils were forced to hire land for allotments and small holdings he felt sure that ultimately they would be thrown upon their hands. In that case

  1445
  who would have to make good the loss? The Solicitor-General had told them that the county councils would be responsible, but in case a scheme proved to be a failure they would have to fall back on the rates. In other words that meant that the neighbouring land would have to bear a rate of 2s. or 3s. in order to make good the loss. Such losses ought to fall not upon the local rates but upon the public exchequer. Although he did not intend to oppose this Bill as a whole, he believed that a universal system of small holdings would not be successful until they were placed under a system of peasant proprietors or some other form of ownership. A man was sure to work harder as an owner than as a tenant, and there were many troubles which he would overcome as an owner which he would not overcome as a tenant. Unless it was in those particular districts which were adapted for growing early potatoes or fruit farming, or some other special form of cultivation, he did not believe that small holdings were economically sound, and if they attempted to produce meat and corn upon small holdings he did not believe they would be successful. In producing corn in this country they had to compete against the whole world. How did they grow corn in Canada and the Western States of America? Did they divide the land up in small holdings? Certainly not. They ploughed towards the horizon, and there was nothing wasted. In ploughing three or four acres in this country the farmer had to turn his plough round thirty or forty times where the Canadian farmer only had to turn it once.
  *MR. WEDGWOODsaid he should not have intervened at all in the debate but for some words which had fallen from the Prime Minister at Question time. There was only this week left to them to influence the Government in what might prove a critical session, and he for one did not mean to allow the chance to pass. In his opinion this Bill could not be a success unless it was preceded by a Valuation Bill. What was the machinery suggested for purchasing the land? It had to be purchased by the county council from private landowners, after certain expensive preliminaries, and upon the decision of a single arbitrator. The arbitrator had to decide between the local landlord and the public purse. The
  1446
  local landlord was generally a popular and influential person. Under those circumstances human nature would not be what it was if the landlord did not get the best of the bargain. Everybody knew what happened when a landlord went to arbitration with a public body or corporation in regard to the price to be paid for a piece of land. When a railway company or a public body obtained compulsory powers to purchase land and compelled a landlord to sell even a piece of land for a small bridge or a siding, the landlord generally asked about ten times as much as it was worth and he often succeeded in getting five times more than its proper value. Hon. Members knew that that was what invariably happened. He did not wonder that the Bill had been received fairly well by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, because it seemed to him to be very largely a landlord's endowment Bill. After the land had been bought, it was to be parcelled out among the unfortunate small holders. [Cries of "Divide."] There was no division. This Bill was welcomed by the other side. No one need stop. If the land was bought in that way, and taken up by the small holders at the enhanced price, and if they had to pay a sinking fund to clear oft all the charges in respect of land and buildings in eighty years, a fourth of them would be bound to go bankrupt before very long, and as soon as they went bankrupt the whole of the loss on the experiment fell on the rates. They would avoid all that if they produced a scheme which based the purchase price on a general uniform valuation all over the country. If they did that, they would be able to buy land at a price which might enable the small holder to make it pay. Personally, he should urge upon hon. Members that by far the best way of dealing with the question of small holdings, and getting the land used properly, was to have an entire reform of the system of local taxation. Until the rates were based, not on improvements as now, but on the unimproved value of land, they could not hope to get the land used in the best possible way. If they based the rates on the unimproved value, they would induce landlords to use the land in the best possible way. It was only by bringing the landlord to the tenant, and not the

  1447
  tenant to the landlord, that they could hope to solve this question.
  *MR. HUNTsaid he agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite that there was a great demand for small holdings in the country. His experience was that a working man would very much rather rent land than buy it. So far as ordinary allotments were concerned, he certainly thought that there should be compulsion to provide them at a reasonable price under fair conditions. It must, however, be remembered that in providing allotments there would have to be provision for houses, buildings, fences, and water supply. The moment a man got a small holding he was faced with the difficulty of providing these necessary things. The hon. Member for the Newton division did not say in his excellent speech whether, in connection with the cases to which he referred, buildings had been provided, or whether the tenants of the land merely took houses which were close by. The question of new houses, buildings, fences and water supply was at the bottom of this matter of providing small holdings. What was going to happen in regard to the buildings on a large farm for which large buildings had been especially erected after half the land had been taken and parcelled out in small holdings? That was a question which had to be considered. But the biggest difficulty, after all, was that they could not get labourers back on the land under present conditions, because they could not provide land and buildings at a price which would pay even two per cent. That was the difficulty which the Government had got to face, and unless they faced it, they were bound to get into a mess over the Bill. He knew that there was a great yearning among agricultural labourers for small holdings, and he should be only too delighted to provide small holdings if it were possible to do so, but it could not be done under present conditions. The difficulty was that people did not get enough money for their produce to enable them to pay the rates and taxes and the rent which would be required for the interest on the necessary outlay. The produce of other parts of the world was coming into this country without any taxation at all. He would put it in this way. All the things
  1448
  we produced from the land in this country, from a bullock to and egg, were very heavily taxed because the land was very heavily taxed. All foreign nations with their cheap land and cheap labour were actually given a bounty through the free entrance of their products into this country. Could agriculture be expected to flourish in this country when subjected to these hopelessly unfair conditions?
  *MR. J. D. WHITEconsidered that the system of purchase would not work satisfactorily unless it were preceded by a measure for the reform of valuation and rating, which would bring the cost of land down to its fair market price. If that were not done the prices would remain too high, and the burden would ultimately fall on those who had to repay it by instalments, while the plan would also have its usefulness impaired by the fact that as soon as a man improved his property the valuation and the rates would be raised against him. What was needed in the first instance to secure to our producers fair play as compared with their foreign competitors was that they should be able to obtain the land on reasonable terms and be assured that their rates would not be raised against them in consequence of their improvements.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harcourt, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Burns, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Solicitor-General.

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Small Holdings and Allotments," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]
  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (No. 2) BILL.
  Read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.