Sitting of 16 March 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the Borough of Camberwell (Peckham Division), in the room of Charles Goddard Clarke, esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
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
  156
  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.:—Herne Bay Pier Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT 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 Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with respect to the discharge of compensation waters from the water undertaking of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the County Borough of Huddersfield, [Huddersfield Water Bill [Lords].]
HUDDERSFIELD WATER BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (NO. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Ledbury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Petition from Pembroke, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petition from Lee, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Dovaston; Ruyton Eleven Towns; and Whittington; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Aintree, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHARITY COMMISSION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Fifty-fifth Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales; [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Copy presented, of Supplement to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1906. Return of Persons employed in 1904 in Non-Textile Factories and of Summary of Annual Reports of Medical Officers of Health for 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF ESSEX).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Essex, altering certain Polling Districts in the Mid or Chelmsford Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the Sowerby Bridge Urban District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Emigration Statistics of Ireland for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Copy presented, of the Enactments proposed to be Amended or Repealed in the Schedules to the Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SPRING ASSIZES ACT, 1879.
  Copies presented, of Two Orders in Council of 29th February, 1908, constituting Spring Assize Counties Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of the ensuing Spring Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copies presented, of Two Orders in. Council, dated 29th February, 1908: (1) applying the provisions of Section 238 of the Act to Deserters from Roumanian vessels; and (2) revoking the Order of the 2nd November, 1907, relating to the same subject [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
  Copy presented, of Orders in Council of 29th February, 1908, approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for sanction to: (1) the continuance of payment of Command Money heretofore paid to the Captains of the Gunnery Schools at Sheerness and

  159
  Devonport, and allowances to Gunners at those Schools on their amalgamation with the Royal Naval Barracks at Chatham and Devonport; (2) improvements in the Pay and Position of Commissioned Warrant Officers and Warrant Officers, and in the Pensions of Chief and Head Schoolmasters in His Majesty's Navy; (3) the payment of Prize Money for proficiency in Torpedo practice; and (4) certain modifications in the Rules respecting Allowances for Gunnery and Torpedo, and the application to men in the Service of the Regulations abolishing Re-engaged Pay [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EMIGRATION.
  Copy presented, of Report on the Emigrants' Information Office for the year ended 31st December, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Statistics, 1907, Vol. XLII, Part II., Return of Produce of Crops in Great Britain, with Summaries for the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1907.
  Copy presented, of Act of Sederunt regulating the Fees payable in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, and prescribing the Form of Books of Account to be kept by Sheriff Clerks [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 15th March, 1908, granting to James Ranyard Lee, First-Class Attendant, British Museum, a retiring
  160
  Allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Local Loans Fund.—Accounts of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the Capital and Income of the Local Loans Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1907, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 48.]

  ISLAND OF VATERSAY.
  Return ordered, "of the Correspondence between Lady Gordon Cathcart and the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord-Advocate, with reference to the Seizure and Occupation of the Island of Vatersay by Squatters; and with regard to proposed future arrangements in that Island."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 91.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Men Employed in Dockyards.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the number of men now employed at each of the following places, Pembroke Dock, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham, as compared with those employed on the same date in 1905.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The following statement shows the numbers borne on the undermentioned dates—

    Yard.

    Numbers borne.

    4th March, 1905.

    3rd March, 1906.

    2nd March, 1907.

    29th February, 1908.

    Portsmouth

    10,473

    8,698

    8,651

    9,642

    Devonport

    9,055

    7,256

    7,774

    7,955

    Chatham

    9,019

    7,069

    6,823

    7,917

    Pembroke

    2,723

    2,213

    1,981

    2,034

    31,270

    25,236

    25,229

    27,548

    Cordite in Hot Climates.
    LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, consistently with the due maintenance of public interests, he can state the period during which cordite can safely be preserved in hot climates.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am afraid it would not be in the interests of the public service to make any statement on this subject.

    Salvaging of Torpedo Boat 9—Payment to Workmen.
    SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the raising of Torpedo Boat 99 off Berry Head in August and September of last year; and whether in view of the danger and arduous conditions under which the work was carried out and of its successful termination, it is proposed to make any additional payment to the men employed thereon.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The circumstances connected with the raising of No. 99 Torpedo Boat off Berry Head have been before the Admiralty, and some awards have already been made. It is not proposed to make any additional payments to the dockyard workmen who were employed in connection with this service.

    Work of Rural Postmen in Hilly Districts.
    MR. NIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that two rural postmen in the district of the Chiltern Hills have recently died by reason of the excessive severity of their work; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing those whose duties are in the hilly districts with suitable conveyances for the conveyance of mails and parcels post, and so relieve the heavy strain to which in the past they have been subjected.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry on the subject and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

    Scottish Emigrants.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any statistical information as to age, sex, locality, and occupation, as regards the persons of Scottish nationality who emigrated from Scotland last year.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I can give no information as to the localities in Scotland from which persons came who proceeded abroad. The following particulars give such information as is available upon the other points referred to in the Question—

    (1) Statement showing the numbers of Adults and of Children of each sex among the Scottish Passengers (Cabin and Steerage) who left Scottish Ports for, or arrived from, Non-European Countries during the year 1907. (Compiled from the Passenger Lists furnished to the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Under those Acts Passengers of twelve years of age and upwards are regarded as Adults.)

    Adults.

    Children.

    Total.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    Males.

    Females.

    Total.

    (a) Outgoing Passengers.

    To British North America

    15,753

    6,362

    22,115

    2,142

    2,109

    4,251

    17,895

    8,471

    26,366

    To other British Colonies

    6

    3

    9

    1

    1

    2

    7

    4

    11

    To Non-European Foreign Countries

    10,357

    7,584

    17,941

    1,968

    1,828

    3,796

    12,325

    9,412

    21,737

    Total

    26,116

    13,949

    40,065

    4,111

    3,938

    8,049

    30,227

    17,887

    48,114

    (b) Incoming Passengers.

    From British North America

    1,188

    628

    1,816

    113

    114

    227

    1,301

    742

    2,043

    From other British Colonies

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    From Non-European Foreign Countries

    2,804

    1,842

    4,646

    349

    385

    734

    3,153

    2,227

    5,380

    Total

    3,992

    2,470

    6,462

    462

    499

    961

    4,454

    2,969

    7,423

    (c) Balance Outward.

    To British North America

    14,565

    5,734

    20,299

    2,029

    1,995

    4,024

    16,594

    7,729

    24,323

    To other British Colonies

    6

    3

    9

    1

    1

    2

    7

    4

    11

    To Non-European Foreign Countries

    7,553

    5,742

    13,295

    1,619

    1,443

    3,062

    9,172

    7,185

    16,357

    Total

    22,124

    11,479

    33,603

    3,649

    3,439

    7,088

    25,773

    14,918

    40,691

    (2) Statement showing the Occupation Groups to which the Scottish Adult Passengers (Cabin and Steerage) belonged, who left Scottish Ports for non-European Countries in 1907. (Compiled from the Passenger Lists furnished to the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Under those Acts Passengers of twelve years and upwards are regarded as Adults.)

    Occupation Group.

    Countries in which Passengers contracted to land.

    British North America.

    Other British Colonies.

    Non-European Foreign Countries.

    Total.

    Adult male passengers:

    Agricultural

    2,478

    —

    474

    2,952

    Commercial and Professional

    1,295

    —

    1,891

    3,186

    Skilled trades

    4,923

    —

    5,719

    10,642

    Labourers

    3,240

    —

    760

    4,000

    Miscellaneous or not stated

    3,817

    6

    1,513

    5,336

    Total males

    15,753

    6

    10,357

    26,116

    Adult female passengers:

    Domestic and other service

    1,275

    —

    1,087

    2,362

    Dressmakers and other trades

    403

    —

    750

    1,153

    Teachers, clerks, and professions

    97

    —

    187

    284

    No stated occupation

    4,587

    3

    5,560

    10,150

    Total females

    6,362

    3

    7,584

    13,949

    Total adults

    22,115

    9

    17,941

    40,065

    Parliamentary Printing.
    MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the waste of public money used by the daily printing on the Order Paper of Government Notices of Motions and Orders of the Day, and the amendments thereto, which have no prospect of coming before the House; and whether he will take steps to avoid this waste by,
    166
    as far as possible, placing upon the Paper only those Notices and Orders with which the Government intend to proceed should opportunity offer.
    (Answered by Mr. Whiteley.) During the early stages of a session it is of general convenience to place all the Government Orders upon the Order Paper, especially when, as in the present session, there has been no volume of

    167
    amendments to any particular Bill. When there has been such an accumulation of amendments, I have endeavoured to arrange the Orders each day with due regard to economy and will continue to do so.

    Pay of Civilians in the Army Ordnance Department in Ireland.
    MR. FIELD:: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the necessity for revising the wages of all the civil employees of the Army Ordnance Department at Dublin and the Curragh, in view of the recent Report of the Board of Trade on the cost of living of the working classes, which shows the cost of living in London as compared with Dublin as 100 and 94 respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards Dublin the wages of the unskilled labourers in the Army Ordnance Department were revised as recently as April last, and there is no reason for believing that in the case of these, or any other Army Ordnance Department employees in Dublin, the rates do not compare favourably with the general rates in the district. The rates of the Army Ordnance Department labourers at the Curragh are somewhat lower, but would appear to be adequate.

    Criminal Statistics—Imprisonment in Default of Paying Fines.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the figures on page 26 of the introduction to the Criminal Statistics for 1906, relating to persons committed to prisons in England and Wales in default of payment of fines, the figures showing an annual average for the years 1903–6, both inclusive, of over 100,000 persons so committed; whether he will say, with regard to the 97,382 persons so committed in 1906, how many of these persons were male and female juvenile adults; how many males and females were so committed in default of payment of a fine of 40s. or less; and how many males and
    168
    females were thus imprisoned who had not been previously imprisoned.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The figures which are given in my hon. friend's Question are correct, but I am sorry that I cannot obtain the further particulars for which he asks.

    Bilingual System for Irish Ordnance Maps.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can arrange that the members of the Ordnance Survey working in Ireland shall consult with the local branches of the Gaelic League respecting the correct spelling of the Irish names; and whether a bi-lingual system will in future be adopted on the Ordnance Survey maps.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The names on the original 6-inch maps of Ireland were submitted to and very carefully investigated by three Irish scholars, all members of the Royal Irish Academy, who paid special attention to the correct rendering of names of Irish origin; and such names remain unaltered on the new 25-inch plans so far as they still apply. As regards the comparatively few new names of Irish origin, the council of the Royal Irish Academy have recently supplied us with the names of competent authorities to whom reference may be made in various counties. This arrangement will be supplemented where necessary by reference to a branch of the Gaelic League. A bi-lingual system on the Ordnance Survey maps would be cumbersome; and as it does not appear to have any solid advantages over the present practice the Board cannot recommend its adoption.

    Pay of Labourers on Ordnance Survey Work.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing, the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the labourers, who are a special class of men, employed in the Ordnance Survey

    169
    will be granted a minimum wage of 24s. a week; and if he will take into consideration the expense these men entail in the cost of living, having to move frequently from place to place.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) My hon. friend apparently refers to the unskilled labourers employed with surveyors and others engaged in the field duties of the Ordnance Survey. These labourers are no more a special class of men than are other labourers, who, with no previous experience at a particular kind of labour, have to get used to the work required of them. There seems to be no need to introduce the minimum wage suggested, as there is generally no difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of hands at the present wages, which therefore are presumably adequate to meet the fluctuations in the cost of living referred to in the last part of the Question.

    Prohibition of Hay Imports.
    MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will explain why the order prohibiting the importation of hay, which was to apply only to hay from European ports and certain South American countries, has been extended to other countries; and will he state in which of the countries prohibited foot-and-mouth disease exists to-day, and particularly whether it exists in Algeria.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The object of the order was to prohibit the importation of hay and straw from countries where we had reasonable grounds for supposing that foot-and-mouth disease actually exists, or where the sanitary precautions taken do not safeguard the country from its introduction, and the list of countries scheduled was prepared on this basis. Owing to the nature of the disease, it is not possible to say in who many of those scheduled countries it actually exists at the present moment, but the latest
    170
    Returns available go to show that it exists, or has recently existed, in Austria, Hungary, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Russia, Roumania, Netherlands, France, and Germany. As to Algeria we have no definite information, but we have reason to believe that disease has existed there recently. In any case, it must be regarded as a dangerous country.

    Pay of Customs Outport Watchers.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when it is intended to grant an increase of pay to outport watchers in the Customs Department; and if he is aware that the labourers employed by the Dublin Corporation have a much higher rate of wages than the watchers employed at Dublin.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The rates of wages received by these men are adequate for the duties which they perform, and I see no sufficient reason for increasing them. I have no information as to the wages paid to labourers by the Dublin Corporation.

    Interest on Credit Balances of Irish Public Departments.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the gross amount of interest paid from 31st March, 1907, to 31st March, 1908, on the credit balances, etc., of public departments in Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed by the Bank of Ireland that the amount of interest paid and credited to interest-bearing Government accounts at the bank between 31st March, 1907, and 12th March, 1908, was £25,441, and that there was also at the latter date a sum of £11,013, representing interest accrued but not yet paid.

    Germany and Great Britain—Imports and Exports.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what were the values respectively of

    171
    our imports from Germany and our exports to Germany for each of the ten years 1898 to 1907, inclusive.

    Year.

    Total imports of merchandise imported direct from Germany into the United Kingdom.

    Exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures to Germany.

    Exports of Foreign and Colonial produce to Germany.

    £

    £

    £

    1898

    28,534,159

    22,525,987

    10,805,714

    1899

    30,123,058

    25,996,127

    11,982,130

    1900

    31,181,667

    27,999,712

    10,543,078

    1901

    32,207,214

    23,573,785

    10,647,295

    1902

    33,633,956

    22,850,295

    10,244,270

    1903

    34,533,390

    23,550,631

    10,965,708

    1904

    33,944,322

    25,103,270

    11,324,580

    1905

    35,799,758

    29,704,449

    13,037,851

    1906

    38,021,762

    33,558,954

    14,753,370

    1907

    38,780,846

    41,377,278

    15,373,761

    Note.—The above particulars of imports from Germany relate to imports received directly from German ports. The figures, therefore, include a certain amount of imports derived from other countries which pass through Germany, but exclude a much larger portion of our imports from Germany which pass through other countries. Particulars of the value of imported merchandise which was consigned to the United Kingdom from Germany can only be given at present for the years 1904, 1905, and 1906, the totals of such consignments being in 1904, £49,512,221; in 1905, £53,838,546; in 1906, £55,907,597.

    Land Registration.
    MR. ROWLANDS: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the evidence already taken by the Royal Commission appointed in May, 1906, to consider the expediency of extending the registration system to Scotland, could be published at an early date, with a view to aiding the work of the proposed Royal
    (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The following statement gives the information desired by my hon. friend—
    Commission which is to inquire into the working of the present system of compulsory land registry.
    (Answered by Sir William Robson.) I think this Question should, perhaps, be addressed to the Scottish Office, but I have no doubt that the evidence taken by the Committee appointed in May, 1906, will be available as soon as the report is made.
    MR. ROWLANDS: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, pending inquiry by the proposed Royal Commission into the working of the present system of compulsory land registry, the Privy Council will consider the advisability of exercising its power to revoke the order making registration compulsory in the county of London, and thereby admit voluntary action on the part of persons desirous of registering.
    (Answered by Sir William Robson.) I am not able to answer for the Privy

    173
    Council but I think it unlikely that it will exercise such power as it possesses to revoke the order in question pending the Report of the Royal Commission.

    Post Office Servants in Receipt of Technical Increment.
    MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Postmaster-General if it would be to the advantage of the Post Office to take such steps as are necessary to ascertain how many of those of both sexes in the Post Office telegraph service have, on 31st December, 1907, earned the technical increment; and will he collect the necessary information and give it to the House.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will consider the matter.

    Reduction of Tobacco Duty.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the question of reducing the duty on tobacco by 2d. per pound to meet the views of Irish manufacturers.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The representations which have been made to me on behalf of tobacco manufacturers both in Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom are receiving my careful consideration; but, as I pointed out to the deputation which recently waited upon me, I cannot admit the principle that fluctuations in the price of raw materials are a valid reason for alteration of the rates of duty.

    Allowance for Irish Land Purchase.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money he proposes to allow for the purpose of carrying out land purchase in Ireland this year.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The whole question of the financial arrangements in connection with Irish land purchase is under consideration upon the Report of the Departmental Committee, and, pending the general statement which I hope to make at an early date, I am not in a position to say anything on the subject of the Question.

    Pensions of Irish School Teachers.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: To ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord
    174
    Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of teachers in the service of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland who have completed forty years service or more, reckoned from the actual date of their appointment as principal or assistant teachers; what yearly sum in addition to the reduced pensions to which they would be now entitled on voluntary resignation would be required to allow these public servants to retire on full pension; whether representations have been made at any time to the Treasury by the Commissioners of National Education that the addition of a number of years to their actual service should be made so as to qualify a certain section of teachers to full pension; and what has been the reply of the Treasury to these representations.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that it would take a considerable time to prepare a Return of the number of teachers who fall within the description contained in the first part of the Question, and that an elaborate actuarial investigation would be necessary in order to answer the second part of the Question. It does not seem that any useful purpose would be served by procuring the information asked for under these heads, and I do not, therefore, propose to put the Departments concerned to the trouble of preparing it. The Commissioners of National Education have made representations to the Irish Government to the effect mentioned in the third part of the Question, and the matter is under consideration.

    Grievances of Inter-Grade and Transition Teachers.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has considered the case made by the inner-grade teachers and the transition teachers, i.e., those in training colleges in 1898 and 1899, in Irish national schools; and whether he can hold out any hope of the redress of their grievances in the matter of classification and salary.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The position of these teachers is fully dealt with in my Answers to Questions put by the hon. Member for North Donegal on

    175
    13th February, and by the hon. Member for South Down on 3rd March. If the hon Baronet will refer to those Answers, he will see that the Commissioners of National Education do not admit that these teachers have any well-founded grievance as regards classification and salary. At the same time the Commissioners have expressed their willingness to consider the case of any teacher which may be brought under their notice, and which has not been already investigated.

    Acquisition of Untenanted Land at Dysart.
    SIR WALTER NUGENT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what action, if any, the Estates Commissioners for Ireland have taken with regard to a petition forwarded to them from the people of Dysart, County Westmeath, asking for the acquisition by the Commissioners of the piece of untenanted land known as White Park and another evicted farm known as Big Meadow, which land is situated in the neighbourhood of Dysart, as set out in the petition.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the matter of the estate in question has been referred to their inspector, who will in due course report upon the petition referred to.

    Suggested Grant to Mr. R. Pearson, of Clonmore.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether taking into consideration the amount of interest charged during the first, second, and third decades of payment of the loan granted by the Land Commission in 1878 to Mr. Robert Pearson, of Clonmore, Errill, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, Ireland, for the purchase of the property known as Ballyquaide Glebe, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, and likewise the sum deducted from the amount of purchase money received by him for the sale of the same property to his tenants in 1904 under the Act of 1903, he will recommend a reasonable amount of cash being granted to him by the
    176
    Estates Commissioners by way of allowance.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which was given to this Question by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland on my behalf on 28th February. I have nothing to add.

    Sale of the Village of Ballacolla.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the village of Ballacolla is to be included in the proposed sale of the estate of Captain Caldbeck; and, if so, can he say in whom the court-house and police barrack are to be vested.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Portion of the village of Ballacalla is included in the estate proposed to be sold to the Land Commission. The documents in the matter are in the hands of the Estates Commissioners' inspector, and it cannot at present be stated whether the courthouse and police barracks are included in the proposed sale. No arrangements for resale have yet been made.

    Delay in Purchase of the Estate of Captain Caldbeck.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in the purchase by the Estates Commissioners of the estate of Captain Caldbeck, Ballacolla, Queen's County; can he say if the delay is due solely to a question of price; if he is aware that an attempt is being made to reserve a portion of the untenanted land for certain individuals already in possession of large farms and business houses, and what course the Commissioners will take in this matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the delay in the purchase proceedings has been due mainly to difficulties with reference to the price. The Commissioners have given permission to the owner to arrange, subject to their approval, for the disposal of about 50 acres of untenanted land immediately surrounding his demesne, so that the amenities

    177
    of the demesne and mansion house may not be interfered with.

    Evicted Tenants—Case of Mr. Henry O'Flanagan.
    MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in regard to the case of Mr. Henry O'Flanagan, an evicted tenant on the Blake-Foster estate, now Scottish National Assurance Company, Kinvana, County Galway, negotiations were opened two years ago by the Commissioners with a view to his reinstatement; and whether they will now state when Mr. O'Flanagan's case is likely to be dealt with.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the claim of Henry O'Flanagan, and have referred his case to their inspector with the object of providing him with a holding if possible.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Signal Ratings.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total number of signal ratings borne, and how many have been promoted to the warrant rank of signal boatswain for the past year.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is 3,315, including 260 boys. There have been no vacancies in the rank of signal boatswain during the past year, and consequently there have been no promotions to that rank.

    Manufacture of Torpedoes at Woolwich.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many men are employed at Woolwich, either directly or indirectly, upon the production of torpedoes; and whether, when this employment is transferred to the proposed new workshops at Greenock, all these workmen will be employed there, and facilities given for the removal of themselves and their families to that place.
    MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the first part of the Question is approximately 700. It is the intention to transfer as far as possible the present personnel at the Torpedo Factory, Woolwich, to Greenock, and a small Departmental Committee has been appointed to consider how best this can be done with a minimum of inconvenience to those concerned.
    MR. CARLILEasked whether provision would be made for the removal of the families of the men.
    MR. LAMBERT: The Departmental Committee will take that matter into consideration.

    Royal Naval Reserve Engine-room Artificers.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the number of efficient Royal Naval Reserve engine-room artificers, with the numbers that have first or second-class Board of Trade certificates, and the number that have been promoted to warrant engineer without a Board of Trade certificate.
    MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the first Question is 521. Sixty more were enrolled at the end of last year, but they have not yet been reported upon after Naval training. The Answer to the second Question is 65, and to the third 12.

    Refrigerating Machinery in Ships Magazines.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the first estimate of £500,000 as the cost of fitting refrigerating machinery to the magazines of ships, including all necessary alterations, is likely to be exceeded.
    MR. LAMBERT: Not as far as can be ascertained at present.

    Army Reports.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state when the General Annual Report on the British Army for the year ending 30th September last and the Report on recruiting will be in the hands of Members.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It is hoped that the General Annual Report which will contain the Annual Recruiting Report will be ready for publication by the end of the month.

    The Territorial Army—Promotions to Honorary Rank.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the regulations for the Volunteer Force prohibited more than one promotion to honorary rank, and that thereby quartermasters were unable to rise beyond the honorary rank of captain, he will make provision in the regulations for the Territorial Army that quartermasters who have received the honorary rank of captain may, after a prescribed term of years, be allowed the further step to the honorary rank of major.
    MR HALDANE: Yes, Sir. Provision will be made for this in the forthcoming regulations.

    Drill Regulations for Artillery Recruits.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the statements in paragraph 14 of the Order dated 24th February, on the training of the Territorial Force, by which it is explained that drills up to three may be performed in one day, and in paragraph 17, that noncommissioned officers may count attendance at lectures as drills, and privates attendance at physical training as drills, up to a maximum of five drills in each case, apply to the drills set forth in Appendix 2, dealing with Artillery recruits; and how far he regards the forty-five, and afterwards twenty, annual drills, thus reduced, as sufficient in the case of drivers and specialists of field batteries about to be formed.
    MR. HALDANE: The provisions of paragraphs 14 and 17 do apply to the number of drills required by Appendix 2. It is considered by the General Staff that the instruction imparted at lectures will, within the limits defined, be of equal value to that imparted at drills, and that the substitution of three physical drills for one ordinary drill will be of benefit to both drivers and specialists of Artillery, and will not reduce their training below what is required.

    Netheravon Cavalry School.
    MR. CARLILE: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is possible for Yeomanry officers to qualify for promotion to the rank of field officer by attending a course at Netheravon instead of being attached to a regular cavalry regiment if they so elect.
    MR. HALDANE: Only senior Yeomanry officers who are in possession of certificates qualifying for the rank of major can attend the Cavalry School for a refresher course. At present the necessary facilities do not exist at the school to enable more Yeomanry officers to attend. Further, it is considered that attachment to a Regular cavalry regiment is more beneficial to them.

    Territorial Army Attestation Form.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the penalties prescribed in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act still remain in force with respect to enlistments in the Territorial Army; and if the revised attestation form does or does not convey any actual change in the provisions of the Army Act so far as they apply to the Territorial Forces.
    MR. HALDANE: All the penalties prescribed in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act remain in force with respect to enlistments in the Territorial Force. No change in the provisions of the Army Act applicable to the Territorial Force is conveyed by the attestation.

    Sale of Licensed Property by the War Office.
    *MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when the "Coach and Horses," a fully licensed public house, at Hilsea, near Portsmouth, was sold by public auction in July last on behalf of the War Office, the then owners of it, a reserve price was put upon it; if so, whether the reserve price was fixed on instructions from the War Office, and was it so fixed on the basis of the War Office being the owners of a fully licensed property, with a permanent monopoly value, or on what basis; at how many years' purchase on the rental value was the property sold; and did the auctioneer who was instructed by

    181
    the War Office to sell the property make any announcement before the sale, on behalf of the War Office, that the property in question was likely to be injuriously affected in value by impending Government legislation.
    *MR. LEIF JONES: Before that Question is answered, may I ask whether the reserve price fixed in this case was not, in the opinion of the War Office, the market value of the property to be sold, and whether he has ever known a case in which, when licensed premises were offered for sale, the auctioneer has reminded possible purchasers that the license was an annual privilege, and that the property might at any time be affected in value, either by the action of the justices or by legislation.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.
    MR. HALDANE: So far as the supplemental Question is in order my reply is in the affirmative. The Answer to the Question on the Paper is this—the reserve price of the "Coach and Horses" was not fixed on the basis suggested by the hon. and learned Member, but at the amount of a written offer received prior to the sale. The rental, which was fixed at £125 a year on a twenty-one years' lease in 1886 was no criterion of the value of the house at the time of the sale, as the neighbourhood has changed considerably during the currency of the lease. The fact that the lessee, and at least one other bidder were willing to give £10,000 for the property at a time when it was well known that licensing legislation was imminent, seems to indicate that for some years the terms of the lease must have been very profitable to the lessee. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the negative. I may add that the time of sale was not fixed with any idea of realising a maximum price, as has been suggested, but under the rule laid down by a recent Committee on War Department land that all super fluous land is to be sold as leases expire. In this case, the lease expired in September, 1907.
    *MR. GEORGE FABER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, at the time when this property was sold on a
    182
    basis of monopoly value, he himself, as a member of the Government, was aware that legislation was intended prescribing a time-limit for licensed property?
    MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member seems to suppose that in dealing with the sale of superfluous property, whether licensed or otherwise, I personally intervene and fix the terms. I do not, and most properly do not. As regards the rest of the Question, it was well known that the Government was going to deal with licensing. I think it was perfectly certain, ever since the passing of the Act by the late Government, that the next Government would deal with the question of licensing. The subject has been constantly discussed.
    *MR. GEORGE FABER: May I ask for a specific answer? Did the right hon. Gentleman himself know that a time-limit was to be proposed by his own Government?
    MR. HALDANE: Suppose I did; what difference would it make?
    *MR. GEORGE FABER: I see the right hon. Gentleman declines to reply. I was not aware that there was anything discourteous in my Question. May I ask whether the Government of which he is a member has two standards of value—one when they are selling property and another when they propose legislation?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That is an argument, and not a question.

    Gun Statistics.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the respective weights of the following field guns, complete in each case with carriage and limber filled with ammunition: the 18-pounder quick-firing gun, the 15-pounder converted gun for Territorial Army, and the 15-pounder unconverted gun; also the weight of shield complete as fitted to the 18-pounder quick-firing gun.
    MR. HALDANE: The figures asked for are as follows. I have also added those for the 5-in. howitzer. The weights do not include gunners or personal kits:—18-pr. Q.F., 38 cwt., 2 qrs., 26 lbs. (with 24 rounds of ammunition, and

    183
    inclusive of shield); 15-pr. B.L., unconverted, Mark I., 37 cwt., 2 qrs., 17 lbs; Mark IV., 36 cwt., 0 qrs., 12 lbs. (with 42 rounds of ammunition); 15-pr. B.L., converted, Mark I., 41 cwt., 3 qrs.; Mark IV., 40 cwt., 1 qr. (with 42 rounds of ammunition); 5-in. Howitzer, 43 cwt., 1 qr., 8 lbs. (with 16 rounds of ammunition). The weight of 18-pr. Q.F. shield, 1 cwt., 1 qr., 21 lbs.

    The New Guns.
    MR. ARTHUR LEEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having complied with the request made to him last week, that he should arrange to exhibit the converted 15-pounder field gun to Members of that House, he would also bring up the 18-pounder quick-firing gun, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of studying the comparative values of the guns which were to be supplied to the Territorial Army and to the Regular Forces, respectively.
    MR. HALDANE: I have already, at the request of the hon. Member, blocked up the Star Chamber Court with field artillery, and to put in any more would, I think, have a deterrent effect. If any hon. Member wishes to see the 18-pounder gun, I shall be glad to make arrangements for him to do so.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman arrange to give an exhibition of these two guns, so that hon. Members may see for themselves the inferiority of the gun to be supplied to the Territorial Army?
    MR. HALDANE: You can go down to Woolwich and see them. I am not going to bring these guns up here. These are the very guns which were commended in the House of Lords by Lord Roberts for firing batteries of sixty rounds a minute.

    Recruiting Natives in Nyassaland.
    SIR C. HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies at what date between 10th February and 24th February last did the recruitment of natives in the Nyassaland Protectorate recommence.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): There
    184
    has been no recruiting in Nyassaland for the Rand since November, 1906.

    South Nigeria—Dwellings for Europeans.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if some means can be found to secure good sanitary dwellings for European officials at Lagos, South Nigeria, with the least possible disturbance to the present proprietors; if the head-quarters of the railway are at some distance from Lagos and are healthy; and, if so, if Europeans could be provided with comfortable houses in or near the same place.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Efforts are being made, and it is believed with success, to secure sites for dwellings on the condition referred to. The head-quarters of the railway are situated some four miles from Lagos at the railway terminus. As regards health, there is little to choose between this place—the town of Ebute Motta—and Lagos. Ebute Metta would be quite unsuitable as a place of residence for European officials other than those connected with the railway, and any available land there is no more than sufficient for the necessary extension of the railway premises. It may be added that the aquisition of sites at Ebute Metta would involve the removal of the present residents in the same manner as has been found necessary at Lagos.

    Treaty with the Egba Chiefs.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the recent meeting between the Commissioner of His Majesty's Government, the Egba chiefs, and people at Abeokuta; will he say if the independence of the people there is secured by treaty; and if he is aware that the people view with extreme suspicion proposals to supervise the chiefs or suggestions to interfere with their privilege of levying tolls.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. The independence of the Egba country is recognised, subject to certain conditions, by a Treaty made in 1893, but subsequent agreements, both judicial and commercial, have also been entered into. Under the latter, dating from 1903, the native authorities agreed not to add to

    185
    their list of dutiable goods, or to increase the duties, without the sanction of the Secretary of State. It will be seen, therefore, that the rights of the native authorities in this respect are already limited by the agreements into which they have voluntarily entered.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that there are constant efforts being made by merchants and others to induce natives to do away with the tolls? It is a matter of extreme importance.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, I know there are efforts being made to do away with the tolls; and, of course, it would be a good thing if the tolls could be done away with, but they would not be done away with without some other arrangement equally beneficial to the native chiefs being arrived at.

    The Nairobi Floggings.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a communication has been received through the Governor of the East Africa Protectorate from Mr. W. A. Burn, barrister at-law, practising at Nairobi, asking for compensation for unsustained prosecution in connection with the Nairobi flogging incident; and, whether, in view of the opinions expressed by the magistrate in acquitting him, the Government still declines to consider his claim to compensation.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Mr. Burn was present in the crowd upon the occasion of the flogging incident at Nairobi on the 14th of March, 1907, and was charged by the police with being a party to those improper proceedings. He was summoned to attend the Court at Nairobi on the 25th March, and after a fair hearing of the case was discharged by the magistrate. There is nothing in this to warrant any claim for compensation, and certainly none will be entertained by His Majesty's Government.

    Dinizulu.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if Dinizulu's solicitor and representatives are allowed to
    186
    proceed to Zululand to obtain evidence for Dinizulu's defence.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Dinizulu's solicitor or legal adviser has been refused permission to enter Zululand for the purpose of investigating evidence on his behalf; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to secure free access to Zululand for such solicitor or other legal adviser, in order that Dinizulu may not be prejudiced in his defence.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Complaint of such refusal has been made, but the Natal Government, as appeared from the telegram which I read to the House on 10th March, state that they will give the usual opportunities to the defence to obtain evidence. I am making further inquiries on this head.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the fact that the chief Dinizulu has been ever since the 23rd of December in prison, and under secret examination before a magistrate in Natal upon charges which have never been specified, and are not based upon sworn information, and considering that this chief is a British subject towards whom the Imperial Government has special obligations, he will consider the advisability of recommending that an application be made to the Supreme Court of Natal for an order for his liberation from custody.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not gather from my hon. and learned friend's Question to whom he would desire the Secretary of State to address such a recommendation. Obviously it could not be made to the Natal Government, because they are the prosecutors in the name of the Crown, and as to the other party to the proceedings, namely, the prisoner—he is represented by his legal advisers, who will, I feel sure, make such an application to the Supreme Court when they think it desirable in the interest of their client.
    *MR. REES: May I ask if it is true that the Government of Natal addressed

    187
    a minute to the Governor of Natal pointing out the patent untruth of the charges brought against the Government of Natal in this respect?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, some message of that kind has undoubtedly been addressed to the Governor by the Minister. But the charges were of a very numerous character, and we have asked for specific information on the various points referred to.
    *MR. REES: Will the information be communicated in substance to the House?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that all the relations between the Government and responsible self-governing Colonies are carried on through a system of Ministerial minutes. As to which of these minutes should be published I cannot say until the times comes to lay them.

    White Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, on 31st December, 1905, at the time when His Majesty's present advisers took office, the number of whites employed in the Transvaal mines was 18,159, and whether on 31st December, 1907, it was 17,697.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The first figure is correct for 31st December, 1905; the latter is the average figure for the month of December last. In both cases the figures refer only to gold mines.

    Portuguese Natives in the Transvaal.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether natives recruited from Portuguese territory for the Transvaal are permitted by law to become registered as owners of land in the Transvaal?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Natives from Portuguese East Africa have, I understand, the same right of purchase and registration in regard to land as natives of the Transvaal.

    Health of Natives in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for
    188
    the Colonies if, having regard to the responsibilities of the Government under the Transvaal constitution in respect of the natives employed in the mines, he will take care that Dr. Sanson, the medical officer appointed by this Government to look after the health of the natives, and who has recently been retrenched by the Transvaal Government, is replaced by some other equally efficient medical officer.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is not in the power of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make appointments to the Transvaal Civil Service.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it not in the power of the British Government to make representations to the Transvaal on a question which was reserved for special consideration?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Colonial Secretary, in the name of His Majesty's Government, can make representations on any subject at any time to any self-governing colony in the British Empire.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will not the Government under the circumstances make representations to the Transvaal Government on a matter which so intimately concerns the well-being of the natives employed in the Transvaal mines?
    MR. CHURCHILL: For the last few years, and particularly since the establishment of responsible Government, there has been a steady decline in the mortality of natives on the Rand, and before we could undertake to make special representations on a small point of administrative detail, we should have to be convinced that there was an improper state of things justifying such action. That has not been proved.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the Government take pains to inquire if the conditions now are such as to warrant doing without the services of an inspector whose action has been of such benefit to the natives?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Our communications with the Transvaal Government are very numerous, but we are anxious that they should not be more so than in the ease of other self-governing Colonies.
    MR. FELL: Has there been an improvement in the health of the natives?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Since 1904 there has been a steady improvement in the mortality rate. It lies with hon. Members asking these Questions, at any rate, to show some prima facie grounds for our interfering with a responsible Government in this matter.

    Repatriation of the Chinese.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is the intention of the Transvaal Government to repatriate the remaining 29,000 Chinese working in the mines and to replace them by natives; and from what country in Central or South Africa will these natives be drawn.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is the declared intention of the Transvaal Government to repatriate the Chinese, and the necessary labour in substitution will, no doubt, be drawn from all those places in which the Transvaal have liberty to recruit; unless, as is hoped, it may be found possible to make a greater use of white labour with improved machinery.

    Native Legislation.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the native question has been reserved in respect of any of the self-governing Colonies, with the exception of the Transvaal.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Natal and the Orange River Colony are the only self-governing Colonies besides the Transvaal where the governor is required to reserve legislation imposing special disabilities on persons not of European birth or descent.

    Goanese and Indians in British East Africa.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Goanese and Indians are employed by the British East African Government at a gross remuneration of £80 and more a year.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I regret that I am not in a position to give the information desired by the hon. Member, but I can make inquiry, if desired.

    Land Ordinance for British East Africa.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the new Land Ordinance for British East Africa is now under consideration by the Colonial Office; and whether it will be submitted to Parliament before being despatched to British East Africa.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Instructions will shortly be sent with regard to the provisions of the new Land Ordinance which it is intended to introduce in the Legislature of the East Africa Protectorate. There will be no objection to the despatch conveying these instructions being laid before Parliament as soon as it has been received in East Africa.

    Proposed Recruitment of Malagasy Labour.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether natives recruited from Portuguese East Africa are entitled under the regulations to bring their wives and children to the Rand at the expense of the importers, as in the case of the Chinese; and whether, in the event of natives from Madagascar being recruited for the Rand, such provision will be made.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The question of recruitment from Madagascar is not yet sufficiently advanced to make it worth while even to consider, still less to decide, the exact regulations which would be necessary to secure decent and healthy conditions for such labour. Natives of the actual Continent of Africa are recruited for short periods of six month" or a year, and do not, as the hon. Member is aware, bring their wives and children with them to Johannesburg.

    Treaty between Great Britain and Siam
    MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have satisfied themselves that the results of the treaty now pending between Great Britain and Siam would be beneficial to British trade in those parts.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,; for Sir EDWARD GREY): British trade interests will, of course, be borne in

    191
    mind. But my right hon. friend is waiting till he receives a draft of the terms which are proposed, and he must have an opportunity of considering them before he can answer questions on the subject.

    Russian Tea Duties.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Russia proposes to remove the surtax on Indian and Ceylon teas entering the Empire by way of the Black Sea or other European ports.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Representations have recently been made to the Russian Government on the subject. No reply has yet been received.

    Egyptian Government School-Sports.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state if the sports competition for Government schools has been fixed by the Ministry of Education in Egypt, on the advice of Mr. Dunlop, for "Friday, 20th March; whether an announcement had previously been made that a mourning ceremony for the late Moustafa Kamel Pasha is to be held on that date; and whether, in view of the profound esteem in which the pasha was hold by the Egyptian people, he will instruct the British Agent to advise the Government to hold the sports competitions on some other date, and to allow the students of the schools to participate in the public tribute of respect to the memory of Moustafa Kamel.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend learns that the usual date of the sports would have fallen within a few days of the mourning ceremony. In these circumstances it was decided some time ago to postpone them this year till 19th April, about a month after the ceremony. It is very much to be regretted that a statement which was the exact opposite of the truth should have been circulated.

    Egyptian Students and the Funeral of Moustafa Kamel Pasha.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state if Mr. Dunlop, Adviser to the Ministry of Education in Egypt, advised the Government to inflict punishment on the students of the Government
    192
    schools who attended the funeral of the late Moustafa Kamel Pasha; whether some years ago when a Mr. De Vere, a professor of gymnastics, died, Mr. Dunlop requested the students of the Government schools to attend his funeral; whether any students have, in fact, been punished; and what is the nature of the punishment employed in the Government schools.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will send to my right hon. friend the information on which his Question is based, my right hon. friend will ask for a Report on the question of punishments in schools.

    Licensing Compensation in London.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the sum of £327,763 18s. 3d. awarded as compensation for non-renewal of licences at the supplemental meetings of the County of London Quarter Sessions on the 27th and 28th days of January, 1908, of which the sum of £46,542 was assigned to the licence holders, whether he can say, approximately, how the remainder, amounting to more than £280,000, was distributed, how many brewery and distillery companies participated in it, and what were the amounts allocated to any of these companies.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am indebted to the clerk of the compensation authority for the County of London for the following figures:—Of the sum of £281,221 to be distributed to parties other than the licence holders, a sum of £195,376 is to go to brewers and distillers, and the remainder, £85,845, to ninety-two other parties. There are thirty-eight brewers and one distiller, each interested in from one to ten cases, and receiving total sums varying from £50 to £24,674.

    The Children Bill.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state, with reference to Clause 22 of the Children Bill, under what Vote in Committee of Supply would it be possible to criticise or call in question the acts or decisions of inspectors appointed by him under the Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is clearly right that hon. Members should be able to raise such points in Committee of Supply, and Amendments will, if necessary, be moved when the Bill is in Committee to remove any doubts as to whether such criticism would be in order on the Vote for the Home Secretary's salary.

    Manufacture of Explosives—Case of Messrs. Kynoch.
    *MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, that the offence of Kynoch, Limited, in adding mercuric chloride for the purpose of masking the only available test, was one liable to be a cause of great danger in that with explosives so treated there is no means whatever of finding out if they are dangerously unstable, and that a test would lead to the belief that dangerously unstable explosives were fit for prolonged storage, hot climates, or drastic treatment for purposes of thawing them; and, in view of the statements conveyed therein of the way the lives of miners, soldiers, and sailors have been hazarded, what punishment has been visited on the firm.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Large quantities of Messrs. Kynoch's explosives were placed under seizure and proceedings were instituted against the firm in various parts of England, Scotland, and Wales, for breach of the terms of their licence. At Grays they were fined £25 and the explosive was ordered to be forfeited. Further legal proceedings were stayed in pursuance of the terms of the agreement which I fully explained to the House in my statement of the 27th June last. These terms included the acceptance of the magisterial decision, and the withdrawal of their appeal. The severe losses, direct and indirect, which the firm have sustained, have, in my opinion, inflicted a heavy penalty upon them.
    MR. RIDSDALEinquired whether Messrs. Kynoch had been removed from the list of contractors.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That has nothing to do with my Department. The Question should be addressed to the Secretary for War.
    MR. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that Messrs. Kynoch agreed to a verdict being given against them on technical grounds, and the Home Office agreed to withdraw all imputations of any kind whatever; and does the right. hon. Gentleman think it fair, therefore, to use the Order Paper of this House to-repeat this charge?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The facts stated by the hon. Member are substantially correct.
    *MR. BELLAIRS: Was the definite charge of using chloride in order to facilitate passing the heat test withdrawn?
    MR. GLADSTONE: It was an admitted fact.

    Pembroke Explosion.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department why the Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives of 6th November, 1906, concerning an explosion which occurred in the County of Pembroke, was not issued until November, 1907, after the adjournment of Parliament.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Report referred to was kept back while certain proceedings against Messrs. Kynoch were sub judice and pending the settlement which I explained to the House on the 27th June last. Much correspondence ensued in connection with the terms of the settlement; and it was not until the end of October that it was deemed proper to issue the Report. The delay had no connection with the adjournment of Parliament.

    Licensing Proposals.
    MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what statistics of population to acreage he based the proposals in the Licensing Bill for a reduction of on-licences to a statutory proportion to population; and whether he will lay the statistics upon the Table of the House.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The scale of statutory reduction was obtained by applying the principle recommended in Lord Peel's Report as

    195
    to the ratio of licensed premises to population in "town" and "country" respectively to the known variations in the density of the population in different areas, so as to form a graduated scale between the least and the greatest density. The general basis is to be found in the Census figures, but the mode in which the scale will operate will depend on the infinitely varying circumstances of every ward and parish. It is impossible to show these variations by statistics.
    MR. YOUNGER: May I ask if the Government have launched their scheme entirely on the recommendations of the minority report of the Royal Commission, and without really inquiring into the effect of the application to the various districts of this reduction?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Government examined a great many sample cases, and came to the best conclusion they could.
    MR. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of the Commission made no such recommendation at all?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not know whether you wish us to accept all the recommendations of the majority Report.

    Irish Weaving Industry.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will appoint a small committee of manufacturers and hand-loom weavers to inquire and report whether it is desirable to mark Irish hand-woven damasks in such a way as to protect this home industry, with a view to early legislation on the subject.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The Board of Trade see no reason why the manufacturers and hand-loom weavers should not confer together with regard to the establishment of a recognised mark for Irish hand-woven damasks in such a way as to indicate their Irish origin. If, however, the hon. Member wishes to suggest compulsory legislation for the purpose, I must point out that no inquiry with a view to the compulsory marking of home products could be limited to a single article of trade.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to secure that the words "Irish hand-woven" are worked into the damasks, and thus help to restore the industry of Ireland?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.

    Housing Bill.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he can state the day on which he proposes to introduce the Housing Bill.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I cannot at present fix a day, but I hope to introduce the Bill at an early date.
    MR. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this Bill will include Scotland—the land of his birth?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have hope in that direction.

    Rates in Agricultural Districts.
    MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what were the average rates in agricultural districts throughout England and Wales on agricultural land, and on other hereditaments, for the years 1899–1900 and 1906–7, respectively.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Agricultural districts cannot be exactly distinguished for the purposes of the statistics relating to local taxation. The only rate generally levied in the 13,000 rural parishes in England and Wales is the poor rate. In a few of these parishes there is also a burial rate, which is similar in all respects to the poor rate. In the year 1899–1900 the average rate in the £ of these rates, in all the rural parishes, was just under 2s. 9d. In the year 1905–6, which is the latest year for which similar information can be given, the average rate was rather over 3s. 9½d. The average rates in respect of agricultural land were in each case one-half of the amount.

    Road Repairing and the Unemployed.
    MR. MYER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, taking into consideration the disrepair of the roads throughout the country, many of which have not been re-metalled for a number of years, he will take steps to compel county, urban, and rural district councils to put such work in hand where necessary, thereby giving employment to many men who are at present a burden on the rates.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am not empowered to compel the local authorities mentioned in the Question to put in hand work of the kind to which my hon. friend refers. I may, however, draw his attention to Section 10 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, under which county councils may enforce on highway authorities the performance of their duty in respect of the maintenance or repair of highways, if complaint is made to them on the subject.
    MR. MYERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would appoint a Commission to report on the state of the roads throughout the country.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he could not at this moment comply with the hon. Member's request; but within the last few months work of this kind had been projected which would give work to the type of men mentioned by the hon. Member.

    Rural Markets.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties which arise in the present state of the law in regard to the establishment and control of cattle and other markets in rural districts; whether he can see his way to introduce a Bill on the subject this session; and, if so, when.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been drawn to this subject. I hope to be able to introduce a Bill with regard to it during the present session; but I cannot at present fix a date for the purpose.
    MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether the Bill would give power to pre-
    198
    vent the offering of diseased cattle for sale in public yards.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: That subject has nothing to do with the object of the Bill.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid it had a good deal to do with this question.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, after the markets are established.

    Politics in the Post Office.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will give equal rights to all political associations formed by postal servants.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Yes, sir; I have done so, and propose to continue to do so.

    Falkirk Telegraphists' Wages.
    MR. J. M. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that according to the recent Returns of the Board of Trade the cost of living at Falkirk is 97 per cent., as compared with 98 per cent. at Glasgow and 100 per cent. at Edinburgh, and that the wages paid to telegraphists rise to a maximum of 56s. per week at Edinburgh and Glasgow, as compared with 44s. at Falkirk; and whether it is proposed to readjust the Falkirk scales in accordance with the cost of living in that town.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Parliamentary Committee recommend that the classification of each town should depend on the volume of work and on the cost of living. The volume of work at Falkirk is 161 units, which places it provisionally in Class IV., the units of work of which are between 120 and 240. The volume of work at Edinburgh is 4782 units, and at Glasgow 7404, which places them in Class I. The cost of living at Falkirk does not appear to be higher than at Edinburgh or Glasgow.

    Liverpool and Hong Kong Mail Route.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what is the net, as distinguished from the gross,

    199
    revenue obtained from mail matter despatched by the Liverpool and Hong Kong route, after allowance has been made for the cost of collecting this mail matter, of conveying it to Liverpool, and of any handling in the course of transit which is not provided for by the contractors.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The analysis of the general cost of the Inland Postal Service in such a manner as to show the actual cost of a particular section of the service is a matter of great complexity and some uncertainty. Moreover, the deduction of that cost, if it could be ascertained, from the gross revenue, would not give a fair measure of the proper sum that should be paid for the remainder of the service, since, if postage rates are uniform, some services are necessarily less remunerative than others. Probably my hon. friend's object will best be met by stating the amount which would have to be paid at Postal Union transit rates if the service from Liverpool to Hong Kong were performed by another administration, instead of going by the Canadian Pacific service. That sum is estimated at rather under £20,000.

    Projected Non-provided Schools.
    MR. MYER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state how many proposed new provided schools, the plans of which have been submitted by the local authorities to the Board of Education, are at present awaiting its approval; whether in one county there are at least eighteen so hung up; and if he can state the reason for the delay.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The number of plans which have been submitted to the Board and have not yet been approved could only be ascertained with great difficulty. A considerable number are, of course, necessarily suspended pending the expiration of the statutory period of notice required in the case of new schools or enlargements by Section 8 of the Act of 1902. I am not aware of any unnecessary delay and cannot identify the county to which my hon. friend refers, but if he will inform me of the cases which he has in view I shall be happy to
    200
    make inquiries and to let him know the result.
    MR. MYER: Are there eighteen in the county of Middlesex?
    MR. MCKENNA: Now that my hon. friend has named a county I will inquire.

    Attendance Regulations.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the words, children in attendance as computed by the Board of Education, in Clause 2 of the Education Bill, mean children in average attendance; and, if not, what is the meaning of those words.
    MR. McKENNA: I am considering the possibility of replacing by some more satisfactory system the present method of computing what is known as "average attendance," which is open to serious objection on several grounds, among others, as affording a pecuniary inducement to retain children in school who, for medical reasons, ought to be excluded. Any change would, however, apply to the whole system of grants, and until certain inquiries which I have recently instituted into the working of the present system and the effects of various possible bases are completed, I cannot make any statement on the subject. Any changes, however, which are ultimately adopted in this respect will necessarily be of such a nature as not to alter materially the numbers in each school on which grants are calculated, or upon which Clause 2 of the Bill will turn.

    Swansea Education Dispute.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any reply from the Swansea local education authority to the letter of the Department dated the 10th February.
    MR. McKENNA: I am informed that the Education Committee have drafted a reply to the Board's letter of the 10th February, which will be submitted to the town council at a meeting to be held this week.

    House of Commons Library
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has

    201
    found it possible to make such alterations, structural or otherwise, to the existing Library as would allow a large number of modern standard works to be placed therein; and whether he can make any statement upon the subject.
    *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): I have made careful search for waste spaces which might be available for the storage of books which are in little request, and I have found sufficient to enable me to give in the future considerable relief to the shelves of the Library proper and I hope that thereby accommodation may be afforded for the improvement of the Library in historical, biographical, and constitutional works. I will, if necessary, ask the House at a later date to assent to a Supplementary Estimate for the work of increasing the storage accommodation, which I am sure will command the general approval of Members.

    Importation of Straw from Dunkirk.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, in reference to the cargo of straw brought from Dunkirk, being a district affected with foot-and-mouth disease, by the ship "Fram" to Dublin, and the landing of which was prohibited and prevented on its arrival by a Special Order issued by the Vice-President of the Agricultural Department in Ireland, whether any, and what, precautions were taken by the Agricultural Department in England to prevent it subsequently landing in Great Britain; whether it was so prevented; and, if not, is he able to say what became of the cargo.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex,; for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): The Board had no evidence to show that there was any exceptional danger attendant on the landing of the cargo of straw to which the right hon. Member refers, and they therefore took no special steps in the matter. They are not in a position to say what became of the cargo. The General Order which was issued on the 4th inst. with regard to the importation of foreign hay and straw was of course not then in force.

    The Tuberculin Test.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether cattle suffering from indigestion or other indisposition caused by a sea voyage commonly re-act to the tuberculin test.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: It would not be correct to say that non-tuberculous cattle suffering from indigestion or other indisposition Caused by a sea voyage commonly re-act to the tuberculin test. Such cattle may, however, and frequently do show irregularities of temperature for a few days after landing which make it impossible correctly to interpret the result of the test.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Is it not the fact that many cattle sent from this country to Argentine are slaughtered immediately on arrival?
    MR. J. A. PEASEasked for notice.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether cattle sent from this country to the Argentine are subjected to the tuberculin test immediately on arrival?
    I beg also to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture will request the authorities of the Argentine Republic to keep British imported cattle in quarantine for at least four days before subjecting them to the tuberculin test.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: The Argentine General Sanitary Regulations of 1903 provide for the application of the tuberculin test to imported animals at the end of the period of 40 days, during which they are quarantined. We have no knowledge that this requirement has been in any way modified, nor have we received any complaints on the subject. No representations to the Argentine Government appear therefore to be called for.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Report which

    203
    stated that the animals were slaughtered one or two days after arrival after examination by a veterinary surgeon? Will he inquire if that is correct?
    MR. J. A. PEASEasked for notice.
    MR. LUPTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tuberculin test is of very doubtful value?
    MR. J. A. PEASEasked for notice.

    Parliamentary Printing.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the waste of public money caused by the daily printing on the Order Paper of Government Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, and the amendments thereto, which have no prospect of coming before the House; and whether he will take steps to avoid this waste by, as far as possible, placing upon the Paper only those Notices and Orders with which the Government intend to proceed, should opportunity offer.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY,): During the early stages of a session, it is of general convenience to place all the Government Orders upon the Order Paper, especially when, as in the present session, there has been no volume of amendments to any particular Bill. When there has been such an accumulation of amendments, I have endeavoured to arrange the Orders each day with due regard to economy, and will continue to do so.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of placing in some conspicuous place the programme of forthcoming business.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: The programme is usually announced on Thursdays for the succeeding week, and if any alteration is subsequently made, a Question is usually prompted, but if there is any general desire that a paper should be posted in the outer lobby, it can be done.

    Enfield Lock Small Arms Factory— Compensation for Accidents.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a man named West, employed until recently at the Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock, met with a serious accident to his arm in July, 1885; a very serious accident to his leg in October, 1886, which has left a running wound, and which has had to he under medical care ever since; the total loss of one eye on the 17th May, 1887, for which the Government gave him £23, and then docked his wages 10s. per week till it was paid back; that he was ruptured in May, 1905; that some hot metal almost destroyed the sight of his remaining eye in 1907, leaving him almost blind; and that he met with a serious accident to his hand, destroying two fingers, happening subsequently; and whether this man, now aged sixty-two, was discharged without any compensation; and, if so, whether he will take his case into his favourable consideration.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. As I informed the hon. Member for Enfield on the 10th instant, the question of rendering any further assistance to this man presents grave difficulties and I am not yet in a position to say whether anything can be done for him. I should point out, however, that the hon. Member is not correct in his statement of the facts; for example, West received £73 not £23 as compensation, and it is not the case that he was docked 10s. per week of his wages till the money was repaid. It is true, however, that immediately after the accident he was re-employed at wages lower by 10s. than he had been receiving, but after a little more than a year he was put back to his old rate of wages and continued at that rate until in September, 1902, when he was fifty-eight years of age, they were increased by 4½d. a week. On retirement he was granted a gratuity of £29 18s. 6d.

    Shader Landing Place.
    *MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state when the proposed works at the landing place at Shader, Island of Lewis, are likely to be commenced.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I can add nothing to the information which my hon. friend has already received from the Congested Districts Board, except that if the works are not begun before the 4th proximo the Congested Districts Board propose to cancel their grant.

    Island of Lewis Water Supply.
    *MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the Scottish Office state that the local authority in the Island of Lewis are not in possession of sufficient funds to admit of any satisfactory improvement being effected in the supply of water in the insanitary townships, will he state how he proposes to deal with the matter, "specially bearing in mind that nearly every outbreak of fever in the island has been attributed to the defective water supply.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am glad to inform my hon. friend that some progress is being made. The Local Government Board are informed that during the past three years four new wells have been sunk and three more are expected to be completed by May.
    *MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Stornoway have twice held indignation meetings to protest against the insanitary character attributed by the hon. Member to their salubrious island?
    *MR. WEIR: Is not the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs aware that Stornoway is not the Island of Lewis.

    Case of Robert Simpson, of Glasgow.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in connection with the case of Robert Simpson, of Glasgow, who was sentenced on 12th June last to five years penal servitude, his attention has been called to the facts that letters admitting the authorship of the telegram and purporting to come from John Hill, an important witness who was not produced at the trial, were received on the 10th and 23rd July; that these letters are held by experts to be in the same handwriting as the telegram for writing which Simpson was found guilty; and whether in view of the facts that the juries in the civil
    206
    action and in the criminal action differed as to Simpson having written the telegram and that 40,450 people have petitioned in favour of reduction of the sentence, he will order this man's release or reduce the punishment.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The inquiry which has been made into the whole facts and circumstances of this case discloses no ground for action in either of the directions suggested by my hon. friend.
    MR. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the jury in the civil action after long consideration found this man not guilty of having written the telegram, and ought not that to have some bearing on his decision.
    MR. SINCLAIR'Sanswer was inaudible.

    Trawlers Certificate Suspension Bill.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that last year instructions were given by the Secretary for Scotland to block the Trawlers Certificates Suspension Bill, will he state whether it is his intention to adopt a similar course this session.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Answer is in the affirmative for the reasons which I have communicated to my hon. friend.
    MR. WEIR: I want the information for my constituents?
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Answer is too long to be read in the House, but I will issue it as unstarred if the hon. Member wishes.

    Fine on a Glasgow Butcher.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the fine recently imposed on a Glasgow butcher for having exposed a carcase for sale which was found to be tuberculous; and whether, in view of the fact that it is perfectly competent to a qualified authority to say whether an animal is tuberculous or not during life, that the said animal was passed as sound by the Glasgow authorities, and that the butcher acted faith, he will consider what steps interests of justice he should take
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have inquired into the case referred to by my hon. friend. The sale, or exposure for sale, for human food of unsound meat is an offence under the Public Health Act, and the butcher in question appears to have been convicted of a contravention of this Statute. The facts mentioned could have been brought to the notice of the sheriff, and it does not appear therefore that any action on my part is called for.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Had the inspectors of meat no responsibility in the matter? Many of them saw the carcase.
    MR. SINCLAIR'Sanswer was in audible.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Are these inspectors at Glasgow veterinary surgeons?
    MR. SINCLAIRasked for notice.

    Scottish Offices Vacant.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when it is intended to fill up the vacant offices of limner and historiographer.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The filling up of these offices is under consideration, but I am not able to make any statement at present.
    MR. RIDSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sums for these offices appeared in the Estimates?
    MR. SINCLAIR: My Answer admitted this.
    MR. RIDSDALE: What has become of the money already voted?
    MR. SINCLAIR'Sanswer was inaudible.

    Hely Estate Evicted Tenant.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are about to be taken by the Estates Commissioners to reinstate Mr. James Brennan (now of Killadooley Ballybrophy, Queen's County, Ireland), who was evicted from his holding on the Hely property at Folkscourt, Johnstown County Kilkenny, in 1897.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the case of James Brennan, and have decided that he is suitable to work a holding. The case has been referred to an inspector with a view to providing Brennan with a holding if possible.

    Duncormack Letter Deliveries.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if Duncormack is included in the list of villages on the Rosslare line of railway to which it is proposed to give a second delivery.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I regret that it will not be practicable to provide a second delivery at Duncormack, as the amount of correspondence which would be benefited is not sufficient to justify the cost involved.

    Duncormack Telegraphic Needs.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraph is badly needed in the village of Duncormack, as it is in close proximity to a railway station and has a petty sessions court and police barrack, with several extensive business houses; and whether, as the nearest telegraph office is three or four miles away, he will meet the wishes of the people of this village by giving them a telegraph office.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am sorry to say that the probable amount of telegraph business at Duncormack is not sufficient to warrant the extension of the telegraph system to that place except under guarantee. Terms for an extension under guarantee have been twice offered, viz., in 1901 and in 1906, and I am having inquiry made with a view of ascertaining whether the terms offered on the last occasion can still be quoted.

    Kingstown Harbour Mail Pier.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which has passed between his Department and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company in connection with the proposed running of the London and North Western Company's steamers to the mail pier at Kingstown Harbour.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I presume the correspondence referred to is the correspondence now in progress. I should have no objection to the publication of the correspondence when completed. But I should be glad to confer with my hon. friend as to whether it is necessary to have it published as a Parliamentary Paper.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to allow me to see the correspondence?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is not yet complete.

    Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
    MR. POWER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if any, and, if so, can he now state what decision, has been arrived at with regard to the status and conditions of employment of clerks to surveyors of taxes, as a result of the deputation which waited on him last year on the subject.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I regret that, as I explained the other day to the hon. Member for East Leeds, who has interested himself in the case of these clerks, the inquiry has taken longer than I anticipated; but I hope to be very shortly in a position to arrive at a decision.

    Scottish Small Holdings Bill.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government intend to reintroduce the Scottish Small Holdings Bill which was rejected by the House of Lords on 11th March.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am not in a position at present to make any statement on this subject.

    Land Tax.
    MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the Financial Statement of this year, he will consider the possibility of exempting charities and friendly societies from the payment of land tax when the total income from land of such charities and friendly societies is less than £160 per annum.
    MR. ASQUITH: The question of exempting from land tax charities and other corporations whose income from all sources does not exceed £160 has already received my careful consideration, but, for the reasons given in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division on the 26th March last, to which I would refer my hon. friend, I do not think that any sufficient ground exists for altering the present law. The case for discrimination between different charities on the basis, not of total income, but of the amount of income derived from land alone, appears to me to be still less sustainable.

    Army Votes.
    MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view of providing further time for the discussion of the number of men required for the Army, he would undertake to place the Report of Vote A, Army Estimates, first of the Reports of Supply.
    MR. ASQUITH: I regret that it is not possible for me to comply with my hon. friend's request, since a promise has already been given to place one of the Navy Votes first upon Report of Supply.

    Hayti Despatch of British Warships.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is there at present a British warship in the vicinity of Hayti, where a serious outbreak has occurred, and, if not, will the Government send one to protect British subjects?
    MR. ASQUITH: Orders were sent this morning for the despatch to Hayti of the "Cressy," an armoured cruiser of 12,000 tons,' and of the "Indefatigable," a protected cruiser of 3,600 tons.

NEW BILL.
  CALENDAR REFORM BILL.
  "To reform the Calendar, fix Easter and other and more Bank Holidays; and for other purposes in relation thereto," presented by Mr. Robert Pearce; supported by Sir William Bull, Mr. John Deans Hope, and Mr. Corrie Grant; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

SUPPLY [3RD ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the chair.]

SUPPLY [3RD ALLOTTED DAY].

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1908–9 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £21,805,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1909, viz.—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS II.

  £

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  65,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Post Office

  6,500,000

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS II.

  Ireland—

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  95,000

  CLASS I.

  Royal Palaces

  20,000

  Osborne

  5,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  52,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  18,000

  Salisbury Memorial

  1,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  30,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  25,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  40,000

  Revenue Buildings

  250,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  230,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  90,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  20,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  10,000

  Rates on Government Property

  300,000

  212

  £

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  95,000

  Railways, Ireland

  30,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England—

  House of Lords Offices

  10,000

  House of Commons Offices

  20,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  40,000

  Home Office

  75,000

  Foreign Office

  24,000

  Colonial Office

  25,000

  Privy Council Office

  5,000

  Board of Trade

  100,000

  Mercantile Marine Services.

  25,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Charity Commission

  15,000

  Civil Service Commission

  17,000

  Exchequer and Audit Departments

  25,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  3,000

  Local Government Board

  85,000

  Lunacy Commission

  5,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  5

  National Debt Office

  6,000

  Public Record Office

  10,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,200

  Registrar-General's Office

  15,000

  Stationery and Printing

  330,000

  Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  8,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  36,000

  Secret Service

  40,000

  Scotland—

  Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  25,000

  Fishery Board

  7,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,500

  Registrar-General's Office

  1,500

  Local Government Board

  5,000

  Ireland—

  Lord-Lieutenant's Household

  2,000

  Chief Secretary's Offices and Subordinate Departments

  10,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  30,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  16,000

  213

  Registrar General's Office

  5,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  7,000

  CLASS III.

  United Kingdom and England—

  Law Charges

  30,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  28,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  150,000

  Land Registry

  16,000

  Public Trustee

  1,000

  County Courts

  2

  Police, England and Wales

  15,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  320,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  130,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  15,000

  Scotland—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  30,000

  Register House, Edinburgh.

  15,000

  Crofters Commission

  2,000

  Prisons

  35,000

  Ireland—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  25,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  43,000

  Land Commission

  110,000

  County Court Officers, etc.

  40,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  60,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  615,000

  Prisons

  50,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  4,000

  CLASS IV.

  United Kingdom and England—

  Board of Education

  7,000,000

  British Museum.

  60,000

  National Gallery

  17,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  3,000

  Scientific Investigation, etc

  28,000

  Universities and Colleges Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  75,000

  214

  Scotland—

  Public Education

  850,000

  National Galleries

  3,000

  Ireland—

  Public Education

  760,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  2,000

  Queen's Colleges

  2,500

  CLASS V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  250,000

  Colonial Services

  350,000

  Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  25,000

  Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

  49,000

  CLASS VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  300,000

  Miscellaneous, Charitable and other Allowances

  1,150

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland.

  17,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

  ——

  CLASS VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  25,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  4,740

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  Ireland Development Grant

  100,000

  Revenue Departments—

  Customs

  350,000

  Inland Revenue

  830,000

  Total for Civil Services and Revenue Departments

  £21,805,000"

  MR. CHAPLIN, in moving to reduce the sum by £1,000, said: My object in moving the reduction which stands in my name on the Paper is to obtain from the Government some explanation of their proceedings both before and after the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland, and also some assurance as to the general policy to be observed and the methods of treatment to be adopted in any such cases as may unhappily, if it should be

  215
  so, recur in this country in the future. Now, although I am perfectly ready to admit there can be no absolute immunity from outbreaks of this kind, yet I do say that undoubtedly, with care and watchful attention on the part of the Board of Agriculture, at all times, and prompt and even instantaneous action when it is needed, future outbreaks both can and ought to be prevented. I think I am also bound to add this, that from the information which is now before us, it does appear to me that the recent outbreak at Edinburgh ought to have been prevented. In support of this statement—and I hope to detain the Committee for a very short time only—I will begin by reminding the Committee of the history of the proceedings, and of the circumstances in connection with the re-admission into this country of foot-and-mouth disease, after Great Britain had been perfectly free from that most injurious pest for a great number of years. This is a very grave and serious matter to the agricultural community, as well as to the country at large, and I hope to get a satisfactory explanation from the hon. Member who is to-day representing the Board of Agriculture. I am afraid we cannot yet say we are out of the wood, although happily there is reason to believe that the disease at all events has been arrested, and I hope with all my heart that it is so. If it has been, then I should like to add this, that, in my humble opinion, no praise can be too great for the officials and inspectors of the Board of Agriculture, to the men who have actually done the work and have succeeded in arresting in so short a time a disease which, as everyone knows, is the most difficult to contend with and to get rid of when once it has broken out in the country—in fact, there is, in the whole world, no more insidious disease or one more difficult to prevent spreading, because the infection is carried by every imaginable means, even by birds and game, and it is therefore important that every conceivable precaution should be taken. Now, the circumstances to which I wish to allude are the following:—In November last, on the 15th of that month, the Board of Agriculture was warned by a letter from the Central Chamber of Agriculture in London, which has a permanent Com-
  216
  mittee sitting on this question, of the great danger there was at that time of the reappearance of the disease in this country. I think I am fully entitled to read that letter. It is addressed to the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, and says—
  "The attention of the Central Chamber has been called to the fact that there is a large quantity of hay and straw, especially the former, now being landed at different places on the east coast; that much of this hay and straw is coming from Holland and Belgium and that there is some uneasiness among the farmers of East Anglia, who, knowing that foot-and-mouth disease is very bad in those two countries, fear that the infection may be carried into this country by these means. My Committee direct me to bring this matter to your notice, and to express a hope that the Board will take every possible precaution to prevent this disease being brought here."
  I think everybody will admit that that was a very reasonable and proper letter for a body representing agriculture to have submitted to the Board, and that they were thus taking a course which was in all respects perfectly justified. I am not aware what answer was returned by the Board of Agriculture. I have never seen one, but all at events no action, so far as I know, was taken at that time in the direction desired, either by restricting or by prohibiting the import of hay or straw from these infected districts into this country. The landing of hay and straw from the infected districts was permitted to continue unchecked. I do not know whether any safeguards were taken at all, but the consequences were under the circumstances very far from unnatural, because on 5th February, foot-and-mouth disease again made its appearance in the United Kingdom, and an outbreak was announced at Edinburgh. How did the disease get there? The hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Somerset, who represents the Board of Agriculture in this House, and who, we hope, is now recovering from the indisposition which keeps him away at present, told us on the 26th February, in reply to a supplementary Question which I put to him, that the hay in the present case was imported from the Netherlands, where foot and-mouth disease had been very prevalent during last autumn and the present winter; the hay was used for bedding certain cows for three days before the

  217
  first symptoms of the disease became apparent, and within two days afterwards, 81 out of 110 cows were found to be affected. On the same day the hon. Member stated that the hay which was used on the premises where the first outbreak occurred was, there was no reasonable room for doubt, the medium by which the infection was introduced into this country. That is the statement of the Board of Agriculture itself, and in face of it there can be no doubt whatsoever as to the means by which this disease was again permitted to find its way into Great Britain. While upon that I put to the hon. Member across the Table another Question. I said to him—
  "Am I right in supposing that this disease has been re-admitted into the country because the Board of Agriculture thought fit to neglect the warning that had been already given to it by the Central Chamber of Agriculture in London."
  The hon. Member replied to me in a somewhat irritated tone—I will not say more than that—
  "The right hon. Gentleman is to suppose nothing whatever of the kind."
  Now, I want to know, because it is the only inference I can draw from his reply, and at that time I did not wish to be unnecessarily harassing, whether the Board of Agriculture had any idea in their minds that there was some other source to which the outbreak could be traced. I hope the hon. Member in charge of this matter will deal with that point to-day, because if the Board had no other idea in its mind it is perfectly clear I was right in the Question which I put at that time, and that it was the introduction of this unfortunate cargo of hay from an infected district on the Continent which produced this outbreak of disease. As a matter of fact, that as practically been admitted already by the Board of Agriculture, but still I should be glad to know if they really had any other idea in their minds, and if they think that the disease has been introduced by any other cause whatsoever. Now I come to another point which appears to me to be stranger than anything else, and that is the attitude of the Board of Agriculture after the outbreak had actually occurred. They had had three
  218
  months, since November in the previous year, to learn everything about foot-and-mouth disease and fodder in the Netherlands and other infected districts of Europe. Early in February, my hon. friend the Member for Rye, who is one of the most persistent, active, and energetic guardians of the agricultural interest in this country, put another question to the Board of Agriculture, and to this I am going to ask the attention of the Committee. He asked the Member for South Somerset, with regard to the letter addressed on 15th November by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to the Board of Agriculture, in which it was stated that the importation of hay and straw from Holland and Belgium was likely to convey foot-and-mouth disease into this country, and having regard further to the fact that the disease had broken out in close proximity to one of the ports from which the importation of continental hay and straw was taking place, whether the Government would prohibit the importation of hay and straw from all countries in which foot-and-mouth disease existed. Unfortunately I was not in the House at the time this Question was answered. But I must say it seems to me most extraordinary that such a reply as was made should have been given by the Government Department which had charge of this particular interest. The reply was to this effect—
  "The matter to which the hon. Member refers is receiving very careful consideration, but our information on the subject is not complete and no decision can as yet be arrived at respecting it."
  Why, they had had the matter before them for three months, and I affirm this and challenge and defy contradiction that it is the imperative duty of the Board of Agriculture, at all times when there is this danger about, to make themselves perfectly acquainted within a limited number of hours with all the conditions with regard to the disease and infected fodder and everything of that kind, and unless they are in a position to take the necessary prompt and instantaneous action upon such information we shall never be safe from the incursions of this disease at any time whatever. A more extraordinary reply to have emanated from the Board of

  219
  Agriculture I never recollect since that body came into existence, and to tell me that the Board of Agriculture requires three months in which to make itself informed on this question is so remarkable a statement, that I can only say, if it were true, it would show that the present organisation of the Board for acquiring information is absolutely fatal to the welfare of this great industry. But I do not believe that it is true. So far as I know the Board has it in its power to get information at almost any time and from any place, and I think we ought to have some explanation from the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who unfortunately does not actually represent the Department in this House, as to how it is when the Board has had the condition of affairs brought to its notice three months beforehand it states, in reply to a question in this House, that its information is not complete, although it must have been within its knowledge that foot-and-mouth disease had been exceptionally prevalent on the Continent during the autumn and the larger part of the winter. I want to know how the Board can justify itself in taking up that position. This is the most remarkable thing of all. After the outbreak had occurred the Board of Agriculture could not make up its mind to issue the necessary orders to prevent the importation of this infected matter. Questions were put to them, not from this side of the House alone, not from any party motives whatever, but from all sides of the House, from hon. Gentlemen who knew what the danger was, who were well acquainted with the question and who recollected what had happened in former days, and nowhere did it come more frequently from than from the Benches on which the Irish Members are in the habit of sitting, and it was not until after the disease had actually spread and a second outbreak had occurred that the Board of Agriculture thought it fitting to take any action at all, and then it was not to issue an Order, but to give orders for the preparation of an Order, and I do not know how many weeks it was after these orders had been given before the Order was actually issued. One explanation of that long delay that was given, I confess I have never been able to understand. If it was right
  220
  to issue the Order at all, it must have been right to issue it at the time of the outbreak or immediately after. Why was it not done? Why was it delayed till actually a month after the outbreak? It was the most unreasonable thing I ever heard of. The Government knew perfectly well that the disease was owing to the importation of this infected stuff, and it is of the more importance because of the answer to the Question which I put to the hon. Gentleman to-day. There was a case of infected straw being taken to Ireland. The hon. Member who is in charge of agricultural interests in Ireland got wind of this. He got information. It came from an infected district, and I have his answer to a Question upon the subject, and I am going to quote this, as it will show the remarkable contrast between the way this kind of thing is dealt with by the Board of Agriculture in Ireland and the Board of Agriculture in England. The hon. Gentleman's attention was called to this cargo by a question from an Irish Member, and he was asked what had been done. What he says is this—
  "I received information on Thursday last that a ship called the "Fram" was about to sail from Dunkirk with a cargo of straw for Dublin. That was an infected district and I anticipated the general Order by issuing a special Order prohibiting the landing of the cargo on its arrival."
  I asked whether any similar precautions or any precautions had been taken by the Board of Agriculture to prevent the landing of that cargo of straw subsequently in England. I gathered from the reply of the hon. Member to-day that the Board of Agriculture saw no exceptional danger in the admission of that particular cargo of straw, and that they had taken no steps to prevent it, and if I rightly understood the hon. Member they did not even know what had become of it. I am quite sure, and I think my opinion will be shared by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, that we should like to hear something more upon that subject. We should like to know on what grounds it was that the English Board of Agriculture had satisfied themselves that there was perfect safety in admitting this cargo. I think it will be difficult, knowing as we all know that it did come from a district infected with this

  221
  most odious of all cattle diseases, and I shall wait with profound interest to hear from the hon. Gentleman on what grounds it is that he is satisfied that the agricultural community in England should be treated in matters of this grave importance with so much less care, and that they should be submitted to so much more risk, than are their brother agriculturists in Ireland. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give his special attention to this point, and give us some further information upon it, because if it was necessary in the one case it must undoubtedly have been necessary also in the other. I have dwelt on this branch of the subject because it is really the one point on which I anticipate still further danger in regard to this question, that is, from the long permitted importation of this fodder into various parts of England since these districts have become so dangerous as we now know by the unfortunate experience of Edinburgh that they have. This disease is so insidious and it lies dormant so long in fodder that is unused, that at anytime when it may be used we are not free from the danger. The germs may be there and the thing may start unexpectedly in some other part of England where the fodder has been allowed to be sent. I was very sorry to hear what the hon. Member told me about the Irish cargo, because I am afraid it is no use asking him how many cargoes of fodder from these infected districts have been permitted to land in this country during all these three months, now nearly four, during which the Board of Agriculture took no action whatever. It is really of such serious importance that I think it would be worth while even now, and I do not believe it is necessarily too late, if the Board of Agriculture would make every possible endeavour to trace all the cargoes that may have been admitted during that time, to learn what became of them and to take every precaution within their power to prevent their being used. Of course, if they treated so lightly this cargo which was refused admission by the Irish authorities, I am terribly afraid they will neglect what I should consider their duty. I know the hon. Gentleman said he considered they had acted with very commendable
  222
  promptitude, because in the whole history of this outbreak, except in the time of the cattle plague, which I should think was before he could actually remember himself, the importation of hay and fodder of that kind had never been stopped. The hon. Gentleman forgot that the whole position is completely altered in that respect, not since the days of the cattle plague, but since even the later outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease because hay and fodder were imported in those days to the smallest possible extent if at all, and these large importations of hay and straw which come in now are comparatively speaking a modern trade. At all events they were not conducted in anything like the same proportions years ago as has been the case lately. Therefore, I think it requires different treatment now from what it might have done then. I am sorry if I appear to be insistent in trying to enforce the importance of this question upon the House of Commons, but I do it because I recollect all these things for a great number of years past, and I doubt very much if any man living has had more to do with combating them and getting rid of them from this country than I have. If I were asked what is the most important duty of the Board of Agriculture in this country, I should say without the smallest hesitation that their first duty above all is this, to prevent the incursion of this disease into the United Kingdom, and to maintain the security of our flocks and herds against disease. These diseases are not indigenous to this country. They always come from abroad, and we are perfectly safe so long as you can prevent this disease being imported, and I say so for these reasons. Firstly, because of the enormous amount of time, labour, trouble, and money that were spent in days gone by—an amount that would be startling to any Chancellor of the Exchequer in these days—before we were successful in getting rid of them, and, secondly, because if once they were re-admitted, and especially at this time, the loss and ruin, and the difficulty of ever getting rid of foot-and-mouth disease again would be something absolutely incalculable. I remember being warned by perhaps the greatest expert on this question that ever lived, the late

  223
  Professor Browne, who was for so many years the head of the Veterinary Department of the Board of Agriculture, who said—
  "Remember this. If ever this disease unhappily was admitted again and once got a hold in the country, all our cattle and our sheep being practically virgin soil for them it would fly like wildfire and there would be such a scene of devastation as never was witnessed."
  It is for these reasons that I have ventured to occupy the attention of the Committee for a short time this afternoon. I assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that I am speaking without any party feeling or party motive. It is a matter of supreme importance, of the greatest importance that anything could be to the agricultural community at the present time. I have given full credit to the Board of Agriculture for arresting disease as far as they have done so, but what we want to see is a little more energy, a little more promptitude and effective action before the disease has got into the country, without running the enormous risk of not being able to arrest it after it has come in. If I am successful at all in that direction I shall be satisfied that the time I have occupied has not been wasted. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item Class II., Vote 11 (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries), be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Chaplin).
  *MR. COURTHOPEsaid he had a few words to add to what his right hon. friend had said upon this question, and he also wished to refer to one or two other cattle diseases. He was extremely sorry that the hon. Baronet the Member for South Somerset was not present. He thought the hon. Baronet would agree with him when he said that the present session had shown to an extraordinary degree the very great inconvenience which arose owing to the fact that there was no directly responsible representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House. The experience of this session should induce the Government to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, who should sit in the House of Commons when the President sat in another place, because very important subjects arose
  224
  upon which it was imperative that there should be some responsible officer of the Board of Agriculture, not only for them to shoot at when anything arose, but who would be able to bind the Board to what he said. This drawback was shown in a remarkable degree the other day when the question of the milk supply was discussed by an influential and important deputation to the Local Government Board, when there was no one present representing the Board of Agriculture. Everybody would admit that the question of milk production of this country concerned the Board of Agriculture quite as much as the Local Government Board, and it was unfortunate that there was no one to represent in a thoroughly representative capacity that great Department. With regard to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, he did not think the President of the Board of Agriculture realised what an appalling disease it was. He could assure the hon. Member now representing the Board of Agriculture that foot-and-mouth disease would travel down the wind in exactly the same way as smallpox, and the risk was quite as great. The disease, moreover, was very much more difficult to deal with and to check. Considering the extraordinary danger of a disease of this kind to the general prosperity of this country, he thought the Board of Agriculture had failed entirely in their duty of protecting the flocks and herds by really prompt action. He was not finding any fault with the permanent officials, because they had acted with the greatest possible promptitude and energy, but that was not sufficient. The controlling mind of the Department was, as far as one could judge, vacillating and weak, with the result that the officers who would have acted more promptly and energetically, and probably would have avoided subsequent outbreaks, were unable, in the absence of a strong lead, to do what they otherwise might have done. It seemed an extraordinary thing that the Board of Agriculture should be unable to act as promptly as the Board of Agriculture in Ireland. Nothing could exceed the promptitude with which that body acted. From the moment the outbreak was reported in Ireland, not only was the importation of cattle stopped,

  225
  but the importation of hay and straw from all Continental countries was absolutely prohibited. He thought the Board of Agriculture in this country was deserving of the greatest condemnation, because at least one cargo which was rejected in Ireland was actually allowed to land in this country. Surely the Board of Agriculture in this country might have acted at least as promptly and strictly as the Irish Board. He was not going to enlarge upon that question, but he wished to refer to a statement made by the President of the Board of Agriculture when he was being pressed to use this Order to prohibit the importation of hay and straw. He said—
  "The necessary negotiations are going on with other departments."
  If the House looked at the powers conferred upon the President of the Board of Agriculture by the Diseases of Animals Acts they would see at once that conferences with other Departments were unnecessary, because he possessed the greatest possible powers, and any importation which might bring infection to our cattle could be stopped at a moment's notice by a stroke of the pen, without reference to anyone else. And yet the Board of Agriculture had allowed all these weeks to elapse before the importation of this dangerous stuff was prevented.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: You cannot do that without the co-operation of the Customs Department.
  *MR. COURTHOPEsaid that when the President of the Board of Agriculture had statutory powers himself it was not necessary for him to ask the permission of the Customs officers. That was done in Ireland, and it could be done in England. Then there was the important question of the hay and straw used for packing, which involved very great danger. It was well-known by everybody who had inquired into this subject that a very considerable quantity of hay and straw came from Continental countries, where it was used as packing for china and furniture. It was also well-known that in the case of a former outbreak of this disease in 1885 it was traced to hay and
  226
  straw which came into this country as packing with German furniture, which was unpacked in a park where there was a very valuable herd of cattle, and the whole lot went down with the disease. ["No, no."] At least that was the view of the Board of Agriculture at the time, and he did not think, after twenty-three years, one could get away from facts which were admitted at the time. Knowing the risk caused by hay and straw used as packing coming into this country, and being sold in the ports of entry as litter for use in urban cowsheds and stables, it was only natural that those representing the Chamber of Agriculture and other agricultural bodies should have pressed the Board of Agriculture to extend the Prohibition Order to hay and straw imported in this way. He had the honour of introducing a deputation to discuss this point the moment the outbreak was reported, and the President of the Board of Agriculture asked them to write to him, making such recommendations as they thought were most practical and proper. After carefully considering the question and considerable consultation they recommended this course, which he thought all would admit was quite reasonable—
  "That notice should be given to the Boards of Trade of the various countries concerned that after a certain date (one month from the time of the notice was suggested) no goods would be admitted into this country packed in hay and straw from those affected countries, and in the meantime prompt measures should be taken for securing the destruction of hay and straw imported into this country on the premises where the goods were unpacked so that it should not be sold as litter."
  The President of the Board of Agriculture laughed at that suggestion, and said—
  "No, agriculture is a very unimportant industry compared with many other industries, and we must not upset trade."
  They afterwards pointed out that hay and straw were not indispensable for packing purposes, that many other materials could be used, and that a month's notice would have given ample notice to foreign manufacturers without upsetting their business. By refusing to take this step the Board of Agriculture had failed most gravely in their duty as the custodians of the health of the flocks and herds of this country.

  227
  He wanted to say a word about the question of swine fever. There was very grave dissatisfaction among swine owners in this country with the action of the Board of Agriculture with reference to the matter of swine fever. The Report of the Cattle Diseases Committee which, in January last, was submitted to and approved by the Council of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture contained the following—
  "Your Committee note with extreme satisfaction the remarks made by Sir Edward Strachey (the representative of the Board of Agriculture in the House of Commons) to the North-East Somerset Farmers' Club, on 13th instant, on this subject. After pointing out how the number of outbreaks had fluctuated, and the alarming increase in the number during the last two years, he stated—as his personal opinion—that the Board of Agriculture must begin the consideration of this matter de novo (as has so often been urged by your Committee and by the Council), and suggested the appointment of a Departmental Committee as the only way of trying to solve the question. Your Committee accept this view, and strongly urge the President of the Board of Agriculture to appoint such a Committee, with a reference which will enable an inquiry to be made into the whole question, without loss of time."
  The President refused to do anything of the kind. He made some amendment in the orders applying to the question of swine fever, but he declined either to hear expert opinion on the subject, or to consider it de novo, or to appoint a small Departmental Committee. The greatest dissatisfaction was felt with the amended Orders which had been issued by the Board. It was felt that they would not begin to solve the question. This matter would involve the country in considerable annual outlay, and it would conduce to ultimate, if not immediate, economy if it were taken in hand promptly from the beginning, and dealt with in a sensible and businesslike manner. He thought this was a point which showed how undesirable it was that hon. Members of this House who did not really represent the Board of Agriculture should be in a position which led the public to think that they represented it. He had read an extract from a speech by the hon. Member for South Somerset, but the Board of Agriculture had gone in a direction absolutely opposite to that indicated in the speech. He hoped the hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Government to-day
  228
  would be able to tell the Committee that the President of the Board would reconsider the position de novo, and that he would appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire with the view to such steps being taken as might be necessary to deal effectively with the matter. On the subject of the exportation of pedigree stock from this country to the Argentine he had already obtained the opinion of the Board from the hon. Member opposite in answer to Questions. All who had at heart the welfare of agriculture in this country must admit that those answers were very unsatisfactory indeed. There was a Regulation in the Argentine according to which cattle sent from this country were to he quarantined for forty days and then submitted to the tuberculin test. If they did not pass that test they were immediately slaughtered, and there was no question of compensation or anything of the kind. It happened that the Argentine Government had for some years run a stud ranch on their own account with the object of providing bulls for the ranch holders and stock breeders of the Argentine. The large stock owners preferred the pedigree shorthorn bulls and other pedigree stock sent from this country to any bred out there, and the Argentine Government presumably thought it necessary to interfere in order to protect their own business, and instead of keeping the animals in quarantine for forty days they now applied in many cases the tuberculin test immediately, or almost immediately, after their arrival. It was an undoubted fact that animals suffering from indigestion or other forms of indisposition, call it mal de mer if they liked, reacted to the tuberculin test, and a very large percentage of the animals were slaughtered. The Argentine Government did not want this undesirable competition which affected their business, and by such means they were protecting their own stud farms. He hoped the hon. Member would assure the Committee that the Board of Agriculture would institute an inquiry and ascertain whether the forty days quarantine were always carried out, and would take the necessary steps to ensure that our animals received fair treatment when they arrived in the Argentine Republic, because that was a matter

  229
  of the greatest possible importance to the stock-owners of this country. A great deal of valuable stock was bred here and sent to the Argentine, and it would be a serious blow to our trade if the Argentine Government by any unfair means like those referred to were allowed to stop this legitimate business which the stockowners had been carrying on. A short time ago a large importer, an Englishman, who held land in the Argentine, and who imported a large amount of pedigree stock, found that about 70 per cent. of his bulls from this country—bulls for which he had paid a large amount—were slaughtered on arrival because they reacted to the tuberculin test. That gentleman asked the Argentine Government in the interest of justice to allow one of their inspectors to take up his residence in this country to undertake the duty of inspection before the cattle were shipped, and he offered to pay all the expenses. He mentioned this to show the motive that underlay the action of the Argentine Government, and he thought that probably his being able to show them up in that way would induce the Board of Agriculture to make prompt and effective inquiries into the matter and to take such steps as they could with other departments to secure fair play to British traders.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: I think perhaps I may claim some indulgence to-day when I state that. I have been at somewhat short notice, owing to the illness of a colleague, called upon to reply for a great Department of the State with reference to this debate. I think perhaps it would be fair to the House and the country to make at once a statement in regard to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon alluded in his opening speech. The outbreak undoubtedly, in the opinion of the experts of the Board of Agriculture, is attributable to the cargo of hay which was obtained from Holland in November last. It was opened out on 29th January at a place called Gorgie, near Edinburgh, and on 1st February a certain number of cattle were found to be ailing. A veterinary surgeon was called in, and on 4th February the cattle were certified by him to be suffering from foot-and-mouth
  230
  disease. Very prompt action was taken by the Board of Agriculture and the cattle were all slaughtered on 9th February. Two other outbreaks subsequently took place, and those responsible took the greatest care that every one in the herds was slaughtered, and even all the cattle which had come in contact with these three particular outbreaks within a distance of three miles. There were 244 cattle slaughtered, and the net cost to the country was about £4,000. The course taken was right if for no other reason than that it was necessary for the Board of Agriculture to do its utmost to stop an illness of this kind. The Board of Agriculture are quite as fully aware as the right hon. Gentleman opposite and others who have spoken of the terrible character of this disease, and they desire, of course, to take immediate steps to suppress it. I am very glad to say that, so far as the expert opinion of the Board of Agriculture is concerned, we are out of the wood and that there is no further outbreak anticipated, or at all probable, in connection with this last outbreak. I am glad to be able to say that from the killing of rats, the destruction of all material which came in contact with the cattle, the disinfecting of the premises, and the proper safeguarding of the premises, this attack has been thoroughly stamped out. In regard to the origin there is no doubt that it came from The Hague, and was brought in by the cargo of hay in the "Nigel" from an infected country, namely, Holland. When it was suggested in the first instance that it was due to this hay the Board of Agriculture did hesitate for a moment to accept that suggestion because there were other portions of the cargo sent into other districts. For instance, sixty bales were sent to Leith, and it was used as fodder for horses. In the other two cases where it was used no result appeared similar to that at Gorgie. That being so, the Board had to accept the fact that while a portion of the cargo might be infected the whole cargo was not necessarily so.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether horses are in the habit of catching foot-and-mouth disease?
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: Yes, just in the same way as cattle. Then, with the view of preventing another outbreak of the disease, the right hon. Gentleman had sought to censure my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture for not prohibiting the import of hay and straw from infected countries abroad and for not issuing an Order so prohibiting the import for a whole month after the outbreak at Gorgie. I would remind the Committee of the history of the investigation into this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman himself was in charge of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1885, and subsequently of the Board of Agriculture in 1892, when Mr. Hanbury was at the Board of Agriculture, and subsequently when Mr. Fellowes and Lord Onslow were there, pressure was brought to bear on all of them to do exactly that which we have, been condemned by the right hon. Gentleman for not doing, viz., to exclude foreign importations of hay and straw from any affected country. No one is going to censure the right hon. Gentleman for neglect of his duty in 1885 and 1892, but if we are to be censured, surely every word of his censure and denunciation recoils on his own head. What are the facts? Under the pressure placed on the right hon. Gentleman he consulted his experts whether hay and straw should be prohibited from coming into this country from infected countries, and he acted as advised. He considered then that the danger was hypothetical and not real, and for twenty-five years the policy of this country has not been changed. We have allowed hay to come into this country, year by year, to the extent last year of 90,000 tons from non-infected countries and 65,000 tons from infected countries. Well, we have never had any outbreak attributable, in the opinion at any rate of many people who have considered this matter, to imported hay and straw. The case which occurred in 1885 quoted by the hon. Member for Eye was where it was thought that a certain amount of hay which had come from abroad, and which came in contact with a herd part of which was in Bedfordshire, had conveyed the foot-and-mouth disease. In connection with that particular case another outbreak took place a short
  232
  time before. The cattle were slaughtered and the railings with which the cattle had been enclosed were buried. Just before the outbreak referred to by the hon. Gentleman the railings were dug up and placed in position again. It is very much more probable that the second outbreak was attributable to the railings taken from the ground, and put in contact with the cattle, than to the imported hay.
  *MR. COURTHOPE: Were they iron railings?
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: I think they were timber railings. But it was not cleared up as to what was the cause of that particular outbreak. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman did not act in 1885 on that outbreak to exclude foreign hay, and not one of his successors had done so.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Was foreign hay imported then in anything like appreciable quantities?
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: I have not any information on the point.
  MR. CHAPLIN: There was none. It is quite a modern trade.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: I believe that in those days hay was used for packing, which is one of the objects for which the right hon. Gentleman desired to have hay included in the Order which has been recently issued by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. When the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are so anxious to keep out the import of foreign goods into this country the Government ought to satisfy themselves that there is some real proportion between the danger of infection and the loss of trade which may result from such an Order, and Lord Carrington and the Board of Agriculture thought that they were not justified, having regard to the experience of the past twenty-five years in acting suddenly as if they were in a panic, in regard to the introduction of hay and straw into this country. They, first of all, wanted to ascertain how much hay and straw came into the

  233
  country and found that in 1906, 65,700 tons of hay and 78,000 tons of straw valued at £378,000 were imported. To destroy the whole of that trade was not a matter which could be very lightly undertaken, and the Board had to be satisfied that, at any rate, those who advocated the exclusion for years and years of foreign hay and straw from this country were actuated by a single motive, or whether like many of us they unconsciously might have been influenced by other motives in regard to any exclusion, for the benefit of the producer and to the detriment of the consumer. The Government are not only responsible to the producer, for, as in 1893, prices may rise to the benefit of the farmers, but also responsible to other sections of I he community—the consumers—and they desire to see that the quality, health, and reputation which have been such a distinctive character of English stock should be maintained. When the Government came to the conclusion, after looking into the question of the extent of the hay which might be prejudiced by this Order, and this outbreak having been attributed to hay, they did not think that a month was too long to look round as to the effect a prohibition of the impart of hay and straw would have on trade. And they thought it would be an injustice to a particular individual who had engaged a cargo to come into this country to prevent it, because there was no reason to apprehend that that shipload on board the "Fram" at Liverpool contained any infection any more than the straw contained infection which was allowed in by the right hon. Gentleman and his successors during the past twenty-five years.
  MR. T. L. CORBBTT: What about compensation for destroying the straw?
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: I do not know what the law is on that question, and I would not like to speak definitely on compensation; but at any rate the Board thought there was no reason to apprehend any danger from that particular cargo any more than from the 78,000 tons of straw which we have been receiving for many years past into this country from France and elsewhere. It has
  234
  been said that other materials than hay and straw might be used for packing and that the Order should include the straw and hay required for packing merchandise as well as for litter and fodder. The Government have taken a different view. They have thought it unnecessary to prejudice the many trade interests Involved by an extension of the Order. Sawdust has been suggested as a substitute for straw; bat in many cases eggs are imported from places where sawdust is not available. Besides, sawdust would make the cases heavier and the carriage more expensive. Again, straw comes from special districts for hats and bonnets, and the Government hesitated to prevent that straw coming into our ports.
  *MR. COURTHOPE: Straw of that kind was not included in our recommendation; we expressly excluded all straw which had undergone a process of manufacture.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: I am told that if straw were prescribed it would include the straw for hat-making, bottle packing, and other industries, and the Government were not prepared to extend the prohibition beyond straw and hay used for litter and fodder purposes. The hon. Member for Rye alluded to the absence of a representative of the Board of Agriculture at the meeting with the deputation which waited upon the President of the Local Government Board a few days ago. I regret the absence through illness, not only of my noble friend, but of the hon. Member who represents the Board of Agriculture in this House. The Board of Agriculture realise that in connection with the milk industry the interests of producers as well as consumers should be considered, and in any legislation to deal with this very difficult problem the Board of Agriculture will be consulted by the Local Government Board, and vice versa, and we trust that an amicable arrangement will be come to in the interests of both consumers and producers, and that no injustice will be done to the stockowners in this country. In regard to infection referred to by the hon. Member opposite, while we admit that the risk of infection is very great, I do not

  235
  think that we should exaggerate its amount in the way the hon. Member did. It is perfectly true that infection may be carried down-wind, but only if carried down-wind by some material, and not through the air itself. I am given to understand that that is the only way in which infection can be taken; it must be by contact with an article which has been infected by an infected animal. There are two other subjects to which the hon. Member alluded. In regard to swine fever, I think perhaps it will be of interest to the House if I explain to them, that although a great deal of dissatisfaction exists among farmers in connection with regulations in regard to swine fever, yet the policy of the Board of Agriculture for the last fourteen years has been a consistent policy and has also been a very successful policy. It is almost absurd to pick one year and compare it with its predecessor, and you can draw no very accurate conclusion by taking one selected year and comparing it with another selected year. But I have taken the trouble to take out the averages of the fourteen years during which the swine fever regulations for the slaughtering of infected swine and swine supposed to be infected have been in operation. I find that there is an average in the first five years, 1894 to 1898, of 58,000 swine slaughtered each year, with a view of reducing swine fever. The average in the next five years brings it down from 57,900 to 16,000, and the average of the last four years, up to 31st December last, brings it down from 16,000 to 7,000 a year. That is very satisfactory, and I do not think the President of the Board of Agriculture ought to act hurriedly in a matter of this kind, when the diminution of swine fever is very marked under the existing regulations. It is, unfortunately, true that last year the amount of swine fever in this country was greater than the year before, but it is equally true that there has been a diminution of swine fever during the first ten weeks of this year, as compared with the first ten weeks of last year, and we trust that diminution may go on. There has been, as probably hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are aware, a new regulation arranged in connection with swine fever, which, I believe, will help very much the move-
  236
  ment of swine, especially for slaughtering purposes, and will mitigate the inconvenience which many traders hitherto felt, and the President of the Board of Agriculture wishes to see how these regulations operate for a year or so before he feels justified in appointing a Committee, or taking any steps to alter the system which has existed so successfully for the last fourteen years. I think it must be also a source of gratification to this Committee to know that the number of swine in Great Britain is 2,636,766, an increase of 13½ per cent. for last year over the year which preceded it, so that the swine industry is really increasing in amount at the same time as we believe the swine fever is diminishing in extent. We can only trust that that is so, and that this very difficult problem may be eventually solved, to the satisfaction not only of the farmers, but also of the consumers, who are equally interested in the suppression of this disease. In regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Eye, I should like to say, so far as the Board of Agriculture is aware, and so far as I am aware, no complaints whatever have been received by the Board in connection with the unfair treatment of English cattle which have been sent to the Argentine. If, however, the hon. Member will communicate with the Board of Agriculture in regard to any case where he feels that unfair treatment has been meted out, inquiry will at once be made, and I trust that thereby any repetition of the case which he gave to to the House, and which in one instance caused considerable dissatisfaction, will be avoided.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERwished to congratulate the Board of Agriculture on their prompt action in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease. He thought that, upon the whole, they did all that they possibly could, but at the same time the hon. Member for Rye was naturally trying to carry out his duties, being in opposition, in trying to find fault with all that they had done and urging them on to greater care. Although he could not agree with him that the Board of Agriculture ought to prohibit the packing of goods in hay and straw from infected countries, yet he

  237
  thought some regulation might be established preventing this hay and straw, in which goods had been packed, from being used as fodder for horses or cattle, or at any rate from being sold as fodder. He believed that china and earthenware had to be packed in straw, and it was almost impossible to prohibit its importation in that way, but it was, he thought, quite possible for the Board of Agriculture, or the Board of Trade, or the Local Government Board to prevent hay and straw imported in the form of packing from being used for fodder for horses or cattle at the present time. It was a very important thing in regard to the cattle which produced milk, because it was among these, in large towns, that there was most danger of such diseases breaking out and spreading, as the animals were crowded together and had less open air than in the country. That was a point which he should very much like to impress upon the authorities. He sympathised with his hon. friend in his difficult task of having been suddenly put in charge of a Department, which, although it did not hold the position it ought was one of the most important Departments of the Government. He hoped that before long the Board of Agriculture would be able to assert itself a little more and be more powerful than it was at the present moment. If a little more power and a little more money were put at its disposal for carrying out the necessary work it had to do throughout the country it would be better. He thought that a good deal of some of the delay in carrying out this work was caused by want of money and the necessary number of officials, which a Board of this kind must have to carry out the very arduous duties it had to perform. The hon. Member for Rye had asked why in one case the Department did not prohibit the cargo coming in and pay compensation for it, but no Department had a right to spend money without the sanction of this House. They could not spend money and confiscate a cargo of goods without. The authority of this House, although perhaps a responsible Minister might take the matter into his hands and order the hay to be destroyed and come to the House afterwards. He considered that there ought to be
  238
  a Member of this House to answer for the Board of Agriculture with more responsibility for it, and he hoped that before very long that might be the case. As to swine fever, he could only congratulate the hon. Member on the very excellent figures which he had given to the House, and he hoped the farmers would realise them. The farmers were always grumbling about swine fever not being extirpated. One year it went down a little and another year it went up; he wished that the figures were more known to farmers and that they studied them more. There was one other point which had not been mentioned that day, but was a very important one which should be impressed upon the Board of Agriculture, and that was the spread of anthrax, which had been breaking out in many parts of the country. Some twelve months ago he knew of a case in which there was a grave suspicion that the refuse from a horse-hair factory went into a stream and infected certain horses who were down the stream. There had been several cases from time to time in which human beings had been infected with the disease, but that, of course, came under another Department. But the case as regards animals was serious as it was a very dangerous disease, not only to the animals, but owing to the fact that they might give it to human beings. He hoped that inquiry might be made, and that something would be done before long to frame some kind of regulations to be issued by the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture, because he thought that double regulations were required to prevent anthrax from spreading in this country, as it had been increasing and was a very serious disorder.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he could well understand the position in which his hon. friend found himself in replying for the Board of Agriculture that afternoon, and he could assure him that it was unpleasant for him to make any criticisms on the hon. Member: he would rather have made them upon the person who legitimately represented the Board, and was responsible for the Department. There were one or two points to which the

  239
  attention of the Board of Agriculture should be called. The hon. Member-had made clear to the House the imminent danger that lurked in the importation of hay from a tainted, source, and he did not know until he heard the hon. Member speak of it how great that danger was. As they had heard, a cargo came over from Holland in November; it was held over to January, when it was unpacked, and it was not until then, the end of that month, that it spread forth its infection, and led to the outbreak which they deplored. It showed how sudden the danger was, and how long it could be retained in a cargo imported into this country. The hon. Member was able to show that the Board of Agriculture acted with promptitude upon this outbreak, and that they exerted themselves in destroying all the rats which were about the infected premises. As a matter of personal interest he should like to know by what process that was achieved. He had tried to destroy rats by using one of the most advertised preparations to kill these pests. He took two rats and fed them upon nothing else but the "poison," and they flourished so exceedingly that eventually he had to liberate them and destroy them with a stick. He therefore would like to know the method pursued in this case. The line of defence taken by the hon. Member that Presidents of former days had not done any better was not a good line to take. If agriculture had any chance at all it could only learn as the years went by, and, therefore, he desired to enter a caveat against the argument that because it was not necessary to take precautions in days gone by it was not necessary to do so now. He also protested against the tone of the hon. Member's remarks which seemed to imply that on no account was the interest of agriculture and the protection of the flocks and herds to be the first necessity for action in these matters, but that on the contrary, they were to wait as long as possible and to be careful that they gave every other trade every possible chance, and that they were practically to expose agriculture to dangers to which they were unwilling to expose other trades. What the Committee wanted from the Board of Agriculture was a rather more whole hearted
  240
  defence of the agricultural interests of the country than was evident in the tone of the hon. Member's remarks. He certainly did not think they should, as the hon. Member suggested, see what proportion of other trades would be affected by their action before they acted. All that should be considered was how it would affect agriculture, that great industry which the Board of Agriculture was created to safeguard. The Board of Agriculture had no right to be too considerate to other trades in safeguarding the interests of the industry they were established to protect. The imputation cast upon hon. Members also by the hon. Gentleman was hardly fair. The hon. Member had suggested that one of the reasons the Board of Agriculture had to be so careful was because it was conceivable that certain people connected with the Board of Agriculture might not be actuated simply and solely with a desire for the prevention of the disease, but by some indirect and unconscious desire to get protection.
  *MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he had no intention of conveying that idea in connection with this matter. What he desired to convey was that great pressure was brought to bear by individuals to protect their own interests, and it was necessary to see what other interests were affected.
  COLONEL KENYON SLANEYsaid he was glad of that explanation. As to the undue kindness to other trades he would point out that with regard to removing any source of possible infection in the packing of eggs the answer of the Board of Agriculture was that the alternative method of packing would make the packages too heavy and so prevent foreign eggs from coining in. Was it right that they should hesitate to take such a step in order to protect this country from the ravages of a disease, the damage of which could only be estimated in millions, because they might inflict some slight loss on a foreign country? Then what about that mysterious cargo of which they had heard and of which the Government had lost sight? What was it, and where was it? Nobody knew where it might be or how much mischief it had introduced into the country. It did not

  241
  speak well for the Board of Agriculture that they should have allowed that cargo to slip out of their notice, and go elsewhere. The hon. Member had said that a month was not too long to look around in the interests of other trades. But a month might have flooded the country with foot-and-mouth disease which might cost the nation millions; a month's looking around might be absolutely fatal to the best interests of the stockbreeders and stock keepers of the country. The action taken by the Board of Agriculture had not been quite so spirited and determined as he would have liked it to have been. Everyone recognised the difficulty of the situation, but he desired to put it on record that some Members of the House thought that in these matters the interests of agriculture ought to be supreme; that they ought not to be too tender with other interests, and that there ought to be more whole-heartedness on the part of the Board of Agriculture in their actions with regard to that industry for which they had to answer.
  *MR. BOWERMANsaid that before this Vote was passed he desired to draw attention to a matter which seriously affected his constituency, namely, the unnecessary restrictions, as he suggested, in connection with the Deptford cattle market, which kept out live cattle from Continental countries which were officially declared to be free from disease. The question had been frequently raised, but the replies of the Board of Agriculture had always been of a negative character. Only last year the President of the Board of Agriculture had visited Deptford, and was an hour witnessing the operations and conditions of that magnificent market. Yet, when the request was made that live cattle should be introduced, with the knowledge that the cattle must be slaughtered within a limited period of time, they had always received the discouraging answer that the Board could not reconsider their regulations at that moment. So far as Deptford was concerned, feeling was growing in this matter. During the last few months the various municipal bodies interested had taken up the question. It was in the interests of labour mainly that he asked the Board of Agriculture
  242
  to reconsider this matter. Hundreds of thousands of pounds had been spent in the construction of the market, and in addition a considerable amount had been spent in the installation of the most up-to-date appliances for the purpose of dealing with any disease that might appear there. He had heard it stated that in the opinion of the Government inspectors it would be practically impossible for any disease, it having been detected, to leave the market, so admirable were the appliances there. There was a huge sheep market in which there had not been a sheep for months and months. The ropes were rotting, and the ironwork was rusting, and the scene was one of desolation. When one reflected what the corporation had spent in putting up machinery to deal with these very matters, it certainly seemed a strange proceeding that the Board of Agriculture should not see its way to relax its rules so far as those countries which was officially declared to be free from disease were concerned. The number of live cattle which came to this market was decreasing year by year, and contemporaneously the great American Beef Trust had come into being. In 1906, 88,886 live animals were imported into our markets. In 1907 the number was reduced to 77,139. and this year to 65,508. It seemed to him that the action of the Board was depriving hundreds and thousands of people of their livelihood, while it was depriving the whole community of Deptford and adjacent districts of fresh and cheap meat. He asked the Board of Agriculture to give the matter further consideration than they had bestowed upon it on previous occasions. He desired to call the attention of the Board of Agriculture to another matter. He would be glad if the hon. Member representing the Board that afternoon would state during the course of his reply upon the debate the Board's attitude towards the Alderney foreign animals wharf and abattoir scheme, and the delay on the part of the President of the Board in carrying out his promise, given in February of last year, to those acting for its promoters, that he would cause inquiry to be made into the reasons for the opposition shown by the officials of the Board to a project towards which

  243
  he (the noble Earl) was favourably inclined. As a matter of fact, the officials of the Board of Agriculture were really opposing the scheme, and the reasons for their opposition were not quite known. If the hon. Member would be good enough to make a note, and if possible give an answer, he would be very much obliged.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsuggested to the hon. Member for Deptford that probably the present was not a very appropriate time to press on the Board of Agriculture the subject which he had brought forward, because, as they all knew, there had just been a most serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and it was, therefore, a time when it was necessary to take the utmost precautions to prevent a further outbreak. In regard to the question raised by his right hon. friend the Member for Wimbledon, he did not think there was very much fault to find with the general attitude of the Board of Agriculture, or with the explanation of the hon. Gentleman. But he wanted to carry a little further the point with respect to the importation of hay and straw, because on that the answer of his hon. friend was not very satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman had rather relied on the tu quoque argument which had been so often used in that House, for he had remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon himself, and other previous Presidents of the Board of Agriculture had not thought it necessary to restrict the importation of hay and straw, and, therefore, the present President of the Board of Agriculture could hardly be blamed for following their example. What was the fact? It was that it had been proved to the satisfaction of the expert advisers of the Board that this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland was due to foreign hay and straw. Therefore, new circumstances had arisen, and he thought the action of the Board in regard to the matter had been a little too cautious and a little over feeble, as had been suggested by one of his hon. friends. They seemed to be so careful about other interests that those of agriculture, which they were supposed specially
  244
  to represent, were thrown into the background. Whatever might have been the state of affairs in years past it was now established beyond denial that foot-and-mouth disease had been introduced through the agency of foreign hay and straw. It seemed to him to be quite easy to prevent the importation of hay and straw which was to be used for litter and fodder; but he quite admitted that the difficulty chiefly arose when they had to deal with hay and straw in which other commodities were packed. He thought, however, that it would be quite possible to devise regulations by which that difficulty could be dealt with. It was notorious that hay and straw used for packing purposes was usually sent to large working centres, and in those places regulations might be devised by which the hay and straw could be destroyed if it came from places affected by foot-and-mouth disease. Usually in municipal boroughs they had means, frequently a destructor, for destroying refuse, and this hay and straw could be dealt with in that way. That was a matter which might very well claim the consideration of the Board. He agreed with his right hon. friend that on these subjects it was absolutely necessary that the Board of Agriculture should remember that the interests of agriculture were their first concern. It was a most important industry, which they all tried to the best of their ability to represent in the House; at any rate, the Board of Agriculture was only concerned in seeing that the agriculturists of this country were properly looked after, and they were not to be too cautious or too gentle about treading on the toes of someone else who might be to a small extent indirectly affected by any action which the Department might take.
  *MR. EVERETTsaid that swine fever was the disease from which they suffered most and which caused most inconvenience in the county in which he lived. He was very glad to hear that the reports showed that on the whole the disease was diminishing compared with the state of affairs many years ago. Locally they had formed a different opinion. Many of them

  245
  thought it was a disease indigenous to this country, with which our grandfathers and more distant ancestors had had to grapple, and that it was always more or less likely to break out. The local feeling had largely been that they suffered more from the restrictions than from the disease. He was glad to say that representations, addressed to the Board by deputations and otherwise, had received some attention, and that the remedies applied had been less unreasonable and onerous than they had been in past times. He heartily hoped that these conditions would not break down again, and that the Board of Agriculture would be as considerate as it could be in not exposing them to inconveniences which were not effectual in proportion to the loss and inconvenience which they caused. In regard to the tuberculin test of cattle exported to the Argentine, he thought they were greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Rye for calling attention to that matter. Farmers were inclined to be very sceptical about that test, and if the Board could do anything in connection with it to prevent the unnecessary killing of valuable pedigree stock exported to the Argentine, they should be very much indebted to it. With regard to foot-and-mouth disease, it was impossible to exaggerate the loss that would arise if it were introduced and spread in this country. Considering the many ways in which that disease could be communicated, it was wonderful we had continued free from outbreaks for so many years, and he hoped the Board would still continue to watch the matter very closely. But he was bound to say, after listening to the discussion and the reply of his hon. friend, that it appeared to him that the Board had acted in a way which was most consistent with the interests of this country as a whole, which were what they, of course, were bound to look at. His hon. friend below him had remarked that those who had preceded the present Board of Agriculture had felt chary about preventing the importation of hay and straw from foreign countries, even from countries known to be infected with the disease. We had not had outbreaks
  246
  from this cause previously. And considering that only one had been caused in this way, and that had been so promptly and satisfactorily dealt with, they could hardly find fault with the Board for not having gone to greater lengths than they had done in excluding these articles of hay and straw, which were very useful to a great many owners of stock in this country, as well as being the subjects of a large trade in themselves. He thought the Board had made a reasonably good defence for any apparent tardiness they had shown, and he sincerely hoped it would be long before they were again able to trace any outbreak to the importation of those articles.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid that the hon. Member who temporarily represented the Board of Agriculture had quoted some figures with regard to swine fever which he thought they must accept as reassuring. But he would venture to suggest that, in view of the very large sums of money which the slaughter of swine cost this country, the Board should lose no opportunity of endeavouring to trace out and find some cure for this and other diseases of the kind. He was aware that something was being done in that direction, but he attached to the question of final cure a degree of importance which was not always shared to the same extent. In reference to the proposed legislation on the milk supply, he understood that the Local Government Board were rather looking to the interests of the consumers, and he hoped that the Board of Agriculture would see to the interests of the producers of milk, who, throughout the country, were perfectly convinced that legislation was necessary, and that everything that would conduce to the purity of milk should be done. So far as he had been able to observe, all the attempts to increase the purity of milk on the farms were expensive, and must necessarily be so. He quite approved of taking every precaution possible to insure cleanliness and of having veterinary inspection. But if all the precautions were carried as far as he had carried them himself the cost would be so great as to place milk out of

  247
  reach of the poorer classes of the country. He stated that in order that the Board of Agriculture should limit the restrictions.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the President of the Local Government Board, who had the matter in hand and who was introducing a Bill had given assurances on that subject.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid he was glad to hear that the matter would not be lost sight of. Everybody was agreed that agriculture in this country was not in so flourishing a condition as it was in others. In this country between the years 1875 and 1890 nearly 3,000,000 acres of land had gone out of cultivation. During that same period a corresponding amount of land had been brought under cultivation in Germany, whilst agricultural wages in that country had increased nearly 50 per cent. Agriculture in this country Was overburdened, the advantages given to it by the Agricultural Rating Act had been almost entirely neutralised by the increase in the rates of the country. Something must be done to increase production. Small holdings might do something; they had their advantages, but he was not an entire believer in them. Where they were held by people who had some other occupation and who could go in for intensive cultivation, small holdings might be a success. But what was required was to endeavour to improve the yield of the land. The yield of wheat per acre in England was twice as much as that of the United States, but it did not compare with the yield per acre in France. He could not help thinking that by the study of deep cultivation and other matters the yield per acre in this country could be very largely increased. But any experiments in that direction were far beyond the powers of the small holders and should be undertaken by the Board of Agriculture. Another way in which the Board of Agriculture could do a great deal was in the direction of improving the plants grown in this country. For instance, Manitoba wheat was always worth more than English wheat in the market. Manitoba wheat grown in England had failed to retain its quality, but recently it had been crossed with great success
  248
  with English wheat, with the result that there were now crossed red wheats which combined the weight of the Manitoba with a constitution which enabled them to thrive in the English climate. In the improving of seed in this way the Board of Agriculture might do a great deal of good
  MR. WATTcongratulated the hon. Member on the admirable manner in which he had defended the Board of Agriculture, and the Department itself on the way it had tackled the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Edinburgh. He did not agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite who thought that in matters of this sort agriculture should be considered supreme. In his opinion it was absolutely incumbent on the Board of Agriculture to consider the interests of the various trades affected before they issued any orders whatever. But the question he rose especially to speak on was that alluded to by the hon. Member for Deptford, namely, the importation of Canadian cattle into this country. It seemed to him that before this Government came into power the Party was pledged to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle, and their action in keeping the embargo on during the two and a half years they had been in power was inconsistent with the pledge they gave when wooing the electors. It was the only inconsistency of which they could be accused, and he hoped they would take the earliest opportunity of removing that blot from their escutcheon. It certainly seemed inconsistent that a Government which was so in love with free trade should prevent the importation of animals from our Colonies which were certified as being-free from disease, but it was more inconsistent still that hon. Gentlemen opposite should preclude these cattle, because their contention was that a preference should he given to the Colonies. In this particular case they, however, advocated that Canada should be handicapped.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question of the importation of Canadian cattle requires legislation, and therefore cannot be discussed upon this Estimate.
  MR. WATTsaid that perhaps it was just as well that the point of order had come exactly at the termination of his observations.
  *MR. GEORGE FABERsaid he agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that the Party in power before the general election were committed to the free importation of Canadian cattle and that the Government when wooing the country shared that view. But courtship was quite a different matter from matrimony, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were now wedded to the Treasury Bench and things that were said lightly and rashly in the days of their wooing were now forgotten or had a very different significance. So far as the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was concerned, the Board of Agriculture had come through that more by good luck than good judgment. He could not admit that they had taken even reasonable precautions. They were warned distinctly and in terms by the Central Chamber of Agriculture, that Holland was infected with foot-and-mouth disease and that it was dangerous to import hay from that country. Of that warning they took no notice whatever; they took their chance and trusted to luck for months. He quite agreed that when the outbreak actually occurred, all precautions were taken, but the mischief was then done. The pecuniary damage suffered already amounted to £4,000. He would remind the Committee that they were not yet out of danger, and the amount might any day become not £4,000 but £400,000, or even £4,000,000. When the Central Chamber of Agriculture first warned the Board of Agriculture if they had then put a stopper on the importation of foreign hay and straw, all this danger and trouble would have been avoided. The hon. Member representing the Board of Agriculture had used the tu quoque argument, but it did not overcome the danger to say that his predecessor or predecessors had run the risk before. He was not so sure that the tu quoque argument held good, because the importation of hay and straw was quite a matter of modern commerce. For a long time the difficulty was one of bulk, but
  250
  he understood that that had been got over recently, by comprising hay and straw for importation. The matter had not been dealt with that vigilance which they had a right to expect from a Government Department. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member, representing the Government, imply that other trades must not be interfered with for the sake of agriculture. The hon. Member seemed to forget that agriculture was no longer the Cinderella to be kicked and cuffed about. They had now got a Small Holdings Act and agriculture was not going to be the Cinderella any more. It was the duty of the Department to watch agriculture and do everything in their power to see that that great industry was safeguarded. With regard to the question of the importation of hay and straw in packing cases there was great danger from its being distributed and so carrying infection. He did not think that on a matter so vital as this, the Board of Agriculture ought to make up its mind without further consideration, and say once and for all that it would do nothing to stop the hay and straw which came into this country in packing cases in any circumstances. That was a matter which had to be looked at all round from different points of view. They wanted some further explanation of the cargo of hay which was refused at Dublin, and after it had been tossed about on the high seas was lauded somewhere. Had it been landed in this country? They had not yet been able to trace all the infected hay which came over from Holland in the first instance, and only part of it had been accounted for. When the advisers of the Department told them that the danger was passed, how did they know that that statement was well founded? In future he hoped the Board of Agriculture would think over the matter many times before they came to the conclusion that in the matter of the importation of hay, straw, and fodder from abroad much greater care ought not to be taken than had been taken in the past, if the flocks and herds of this country were to be properly safeguarded.
  *MR. SUMMERBELLsaid there were one or two matters to which he would like to call attention. He was delighted to see the great anxiety

  251
  which was being displayed on the Opposition Benches on this subject, for it might develop into enthusiasm, and then they would probably get something done. One hon. Member had said that the Agricultural Rating Act had done nothing for agriculture. If anything had been relieved of taxation by that Act it certainly was the land, and that was not fair to the industrial workers. The town he had the honour to represent under that Act had to pay something over £7,000 per annum, and to say that under those circumstances agriculture wanted further consideration along those lines was asking too much. Any one who studied the history of the land from the 16th century to the present time would find that the claim of the landholder had always been "Give, give, give," and they had certainly got the biggest share. The grievance was private ownership, and something would have to be done in that direction. So far as the development of agriculture was concerned, protection was no remedy. Last year he raised the question of the low rate of wages paid to a number of employees under the Board of Agriculture, which he thought was about the worst of all the State Departments in regard to the wages paid to its employees. He said then that if nothing was done in regard to the particular case he raised he should bring the matter up on every opportunity, and he now proposed to bring the matter forward again. On the last occasion one hon. Member rather hinted that he had slighted Kew, but he had just as great an admiration for Kew as any other hon. Member of this House, and it was because of his great admiration for the work done there, and the pleasure it afforded to the people of this country, that he rose to again protest against the manner in which they were treating the employees at the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Is the hon. Member in order in raising that question upon this Vote?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; Kew Gardens is on the Board of Agriculture Vote, and it is in order.
  *MR. SUMMERBELLsaid there were fifty men employed at Kew who were receiving the miserable wage of 21s. a week, and the Department were allowing
  252
  that to go on from year to year. Before any of those men could be employed at Kew they had to satisfy the Board of Agriculture that they had served five years in a first-class nursery or garden. They insisted upon having only skilful men and then they paid them the low wage of 21s. per week, out of which they had to provide a serge suit and look quite respectable. Considering the skilled work these men were called upon to perform it was a scandal to continue paying them such a miserable wage. It had always been said that there were great opportunities for these men getting good situations elsewhere after working at Kew. There were at present ten men under notice at Kew, and the Board of Agriculture had kindly conceded the right to those men to be kept there until they got other employment. He knew one of the best men who left Kew Gardens and went to Canada, whore he was now doing the work of a labourer. The argument, therefore, that these men could get higher positions was unfair and incorrect It was said that lectures were given to these men free of charge. He had inquired as to how far the men availed themselves of the lectures, and he found that the number was one, and he thought the Government should not waste the £1 per lecture which they spent for those lectures. The labourers at Kew received 24s. a week, while the highly skilled men to whose case he had called attention received 21s. a week. It was said that the cost of living in the district was not high for a single man, but he did not think anyone who occupied respectable lodgings and paid a very moderate sum for living, would be able to save much for the proverbial rainy day. He hoped the Department would be able to put the gardeners on a level at least with the labourers in the matter of pay. He also called attention to the pay of 19s. 6d. including allowances a week given to the chainmen. That was a very small wage, and he believed that it was against the spirit of the fair wage resolution carried unanimously in this House in 1893.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid it appeared to him that the Board of Agriculture was not as expeditious as it might have been in preventing the extension of foot-and-mouth disease. The hon. Member representing the Board

  253
  had stated that the department took a month to stop the importation of hay and straw from foreign countries because sixty bales had been sent to Leith for the forage of horses and that the horses had not contracted the disease. The hon. Gentleman was technically right in stating that horses could contract the disease, but according to returns which he had seen in the library extending over the fourteen years from 1887 to 1900 there had been 300,000 cattle and 400,000 sheep inflicted with foot-and-mouth disease. In nine of these years no other animals were infected except cattle, sheep and swine, and in the five other years only eighty-four other animals were infected. The report of the Board of Agriculture dealing with foot-and-mouth disease only alluded to sheep, cattle, and swine. It was evident that the disease very rarely attacked horses, and, therefore, the excuse of the Board of Agriculture that they did not stop the importation of hay from the infected country because these particular horses were not infected was not a very good one. The hon. Member for Deptford was very eloquent about the closing of the Deptford market. He hoped the Board of Agriculture would not listen to the hon. Member, because, after all, his view was an extremely selfish one. Bather than that a few people should suffer a certain amount of disadvantage the hon. Member's view was that the whole of the agricultural community of the country should take the risk of heavy loss from disease in their flocks and herds. The hon. Member had stated that the people in the port of London were deprived of cheap moat. He could not see how the hon. Member could make that statement. There was nothing to prevent cattle being slaughtered at foreign ports and brought in in carcases. His right hon. friend had said that foreign meat was always cheaper than home fed meat, and therefore the argument that people were deprived of cheap food fell to the ground.
  *MR. BOWERMANsaid it was perfectly true that the people of Deptford were getting cheap frozen meat, but they were not getting what they used to get—cheap fresh-killed meat.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that if live cattle were knocked about on the voyage they suffered in condition. If cattle ex-
  254
  perienced rough weather on board ship the meat was nothing like so good as if the animals were killed in their own country and sent here either frozen or in a cooled chamber. He hoped the Board of Agriculture would remain firm. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow had said that the action of the Government in regard to the importation of Canadian cattle was the only matter on which they had been inconsistent. The hon. Member must have had his eyes and ears closed, otherwise he would have found more examples of the Government's inconsistency. He was glad that for the moment foot-and-mouth disease had been stamped out. He hoped that if it should again break out the Board would take steps to stop without delay the importation of anything which might introduce the disease from foreign countries.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid it appeared to him that hardly sufficient attention had been given to the scientific side of this question. They were apt to apply the same rough and ready method of treatment to different diseases without due regard to the differences in the pathology of the diseases. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon had justly referred to the great work of Professor Brown. He recognised the value of the stamping out method as applied to cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, and foot-and mouth disease. In the case of swine fever, he was not sure that the method was applicable in the same way. He hoped the hon. Gentleman representing the Board would institute an inquiry into the pathology of swine fever in order to ascertain whether it lent itself to stamping out in the same way as cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, and foot-and-mouth disease. Possibly the long incubation period rendered it more difficult to deal with than in the case of other diseases. In regard to foot-and-mouth disease he would remind the Committee that there was not there, as we were assured there was in the case of other diseases, such as anthrax, tubercle, and glanders, the means of diagnosis by a definite micro-organism. The hon. Member for South Somerset had stated that the Board of Agriculture recognised that there was no micro-organism which could be identified as the cause of foot-and-mouth disease and isolated. They

  255
  were left to diagnose by clinical symptoms and were not able to derive from infected animals or from fodder any particular organism which might be traced with precision as the cause of the disease, as as was said to be the case in anthrax, glanders, and tubercule. It was easy to speak in a glib fashion of an infected country, and to proscribe the importation of hay or straw from a whole country, whereas in all probability only a particular district of that country was infected. A more complete and satisfactory method would be an international system of notification of diseases and of the exact part of the country from which the disease was likely to be distributed by infection, and not by the rather rough and ready method of proscribing a whole country which might not be wholly infected. He urged his hon. friend to consider the propriety of instituting a more scientific inquiry into the causes of these diseases on which science had not yet said the last word, especially in relation to those diseases where organisms of transmission have not been discovered. Enormous sums of money had been spent on attempts to stamp out swine fever without the same satisfactory results as in the case of cattle-plague, pleuro-pneumonia, and foot-and-mouth disease. Swine fever did not from its very nature lend itself to the same kind of treatment as those other diseases.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: The hon. Member for Lichfield and two or three other Members have endeavoured to impress on me the importance of extending the regulations issued by the Board of Agriculture to other hay and straw not used for fodder or litter. I have endeavoured to point out that the Board in coming to their decision were wise not to extend the order in that direction. When bales are introduced as cargo into this country, they are frequently compressed, and it is quite possible that the hay may contain germs of such disease as foot-and-mouth; but when hay and straw which are used for packing are introduced, as a rule they are not pressed. When not pressed the hay and straw are nearly always subject to both light and air, and I am informed by experts that light and air are both fatal to the preservation of the virus which produces the infection. That being so, there is even very much less risk of hay and straw containing any infection when they are used as
  256
  packing material than compressed hay and straw which may be used for fodder and litter, and which come in direct contact with cattle in this country. The Committee must realise what an enormous expense the country would be put to if an army of inspectors were to follow up all the hay and straw used for packing, to see that the packing was done with care, and that the whole of the material was destroyed. The hon. Member for Newport asked me a few questions as to rat-catching. I cannot follow him into that. The very able officials of the Board of Agriculture, who deserve the highest credit for the way in which they have stamped out this outbreak of foot-and mouth disease, inform me that they employed two expert ratcatchers, and they had worked unremittingly to exterminate these animals. As to the question whether the Board were or were not to blame in regard to the month's delay in issuing the Order, I can only repeat that they thought it was absolutely essential in the interests of the whole country that "panicy" action should not be taken; and that they had followed during the few months they had been in office the policy pursued by former Presidents of the Board of Agriculture after tin's matter had been fairly weighed by them, and on the best expert opinion which they could obtain. All former Presidents of the Board of Agriculture had come to the conclusion that the expense would be out of proportion to the risk run, and that it was advisable when the risk was theoretical that there should not be any departure from the existing policy. That was the view taken by the present President of the Board of Agriculture, and if they did not act on the spur of the moment in the way they did in the Irish case, it was because the matter was not nearly so prejudicial to other trading interests in Ireland as it would have been in this country. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: No.] I understand that comparatively little hay and straw are imported into Ireland, and that a considerable quantity has been imported for years into this country, and having regard to that fact the Board decided that they should not act precipitately in this matter. I must say that the Board of Agriculture so fully recognise that their first concern is the interest of agriculture, and it was only after mature reflection

  257
  and after the lapse of two or three weeks, and having done their best to avert any chance of foot-and-mouth disease coming into the country by means of hay and straw, that they issued this Order. I, therefore, think that all credit is due to them. The hon. Member for Windsor alluded to the necessity of improving the plants grown in this country and suggested the introduction of a cross between Manitoba wheat and English wheat. The hon. Member likewise alluded to experiments which Mr. Biffen of Cambridge has made, and suggested that the Board of Agriculture should follow up those experiments. The Board have considered this matter and they have a very high opinion of Mr. Biffen and of the value of his experiments. It is hoped that next year they may be able to give a grant in order to help these experiments in which that gentleman has taken such a great interest. The sum of money at the disposal of the Board is not very large, and I cannot hold out a hope that the grant will be a very large one, although it will be an earnest of the interest which the Board of Agriculture take in this matter. The hon. Member for Cheshire might have been called to order as the hon. Member for Deptford was in regard to the introduction of cattle to be slaughtered at the port of landing. The Board of Agriculture have no alternative but to keep out the cattle which the hon. Member desires to introduce. Cattle from countries where disease exists cannot be introduced even for the purpose of being slaughtered at Deptford. An hon. Member asked what was the objection of the Board of Agriculture to the erection of a sort of abattoir in the Island of Alderney where the cattle might be slaughtered. The islands of Alderney, Guernsey, and Sark, are in exactly the same position and regarded in
  the same light as any other port in the United Kingdom; and it is on that ground that no special permission can be given to these islands to introduce cattle from infected countries for slaughter there. An hon. Member raised the question of the pay of the gardeners at Kew, and he made a very plausible case for an increase of pay to the men employed in the gardens at Kew. I had never heard of the case before, and I was somewhat impressed by it, though I thought there
  must be a good answer to it. And so
  258
  there is. From the information given to me the average ages of the gardeners at Kew Gardens are from 19 to 30. It is true that they must have four years gardening experience; that they must be men of ability, of a certain age, and must be unmarried. But those men come to Kew Gardens under special contract. They obtain an education and special facilities which they cannot obtain elsewhere. Kew Gardens are the most popular in the gardening world, and there are always many applications for the forty-nine or fifty posts there. The young men may attend classes and courses of lectures, and in future they will be obliged to attend them as part of their training curriculum. They have opportunities for rising to be sub-foremen and foremen, when they can be retained in the employment for other two years or six in all. It is really unfair that these men should protest through the hon. Member against the terms of their contract. It is quite natural that when they secure a position of this kind they should desire that it should be permanent, but when the Government are spending something like £22,000 a year in maintaining perhaps the best Botanical Gardens in the world, it is only right that the advantages derived from being employed in them should be given to the many rather than the few. It is on the ground that we do not desire to retain these men longer than two years in the Gardens, and because we desire others to come in and reap the same advantages that the pay of these men has been limited to 21s. a week. This matter was fully gone into last year when the Board placed the whole of the facts before the Treasury. The Treasury, on that occasion, came to the conclusion that no case had been made out for an increase in the subsistence money, but pointed out that these men having been employed at Kew was in itself a strong recommendation, and enabled them to obtain posts in large gardens, not only in this country but all over the Empire. I take no exception whatsoever to the action of the hon. Member in placing these claims before the Committee and in presenting the case of these men in the best way possible, but I can hold out no hopes that their position will be improved.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If I may presume to say so, the hon. Member in replying on this debate had no need to appeal for the indulgence of the House, for he has performed a task which must have been very difficult with very great ability. I now desire to detain the Committee only for a few moments for the purpose of showing why I think it is desirable to take the sense of the Committee upon the Motion I have moved. We have had one admission of great value this afternoon. It has been placed beyond all doubt by the statement of the hon. Member, that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Edinburgh was entirely due to infected fodder, which had been brought from abroad; to infected fodder which was landed in this country in November last. That bore out to the letter what I pointed out in my earlier observations, namely, the length of time for which disease will often lie dormant. That fodder was not what the hon. Member called "opened up" until 29th January, and within a week it had communicated this fell disease to our cattle. The hon. Member in answer to the request I made him to account for the long delay which took place before issuing the Order, based his reply on two points. The first was the practice of myself and others under similar circumstances in the year 1885, the other was that a good many people who had been making this demand were themselves, no doubt unconsciously, animated, by a desire for protection. Some of us were. I frankly admit it. But what kind of protection was it we were asking for in this case? We were asking for protection from the importation of foreign disease into the many flocks and herds of this country. I should have thought that that was a kind of protection in which even the most fanatical free trader that ever existed would have been willing to concur. For my own part I wish to go to the hon. Member's other ground, and absolutely and entirely to repudiate his allegation as to my practice and the practice of colleagues of mine being similar to that adopted by the Board of Agriculture in this case. Quite recently I elicited from the hon. Member, by an interjection across the Table, the fact that he was not able to state that hay and fodder was imported into this
  260
  country in 1885 in the same way as it is imported now. He was not able to dispute my earlier observation that the importation of hay and straw as fodder into this country on a large scale was only a trade of modern origin. The hon. Member was reduced to this statement: "Oh, but it might be packing straw, and with regard to the case of packing straw that was the course adopted by yourself and others." Well, I cannot remember what happened twenty-three years ago with regard to packing straw. I asked some question about it the other day across the Table, because I was then informed of the case which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Rye this afternoon—that there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which might naturally and truly be attributed to that cause, and therefore the allegation of the hon. Member opposite that in this case the Board of Agriculture followed the practice of myself in 1885 is unfounded.
  MR. J. A. PEASE (interrupting): The case quoted by the hon. Member for Eye occurred in 1885.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Then if that is so, it related solely to packing straw which is not the question in dispute at this moment. In regard to this matter, all that we have demanded on this side of the House has been that in cases of this kind, where it is known that fodder is being imported from districts which notoriously are infected with foot-and-mouth disease, the importation of such fodder should be prohibited. The hon. Gentleman, who adopted an argument used by others, showed immense anxiety that a trade amounting to £380,000 a year should not be interfered with unnecessarily. But I submit that the Board of Agriculture is to look after the agriculture of this country and not after foreign trade. What would have been the result if this disease had spread throughout the country, because of the disinclination of the Board of Agriculture to issue orders lest this trade with fodder amounting to £380,000 should be interfered with? I was talking to a farmer on this very subject only the other day, and he very truly said that it would

  261
  have cost us that amount in the very first week of the outbreak. Millions are at stake in this matter, and I desire to express my strong opinion that the argument of the hon. Member is not entitled to that weight which he thinks it ought to have with this Committee. I quite agree with the hon. Member that we ought not to have panic action but I do not think it would be panic, action to take precaution against an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease by absolutely preventing fodder from an infected district being brought into this country. The thing which, in the course of this debate, has disappointed me more than anything else, is the total absence of any reply to the questions I put earlier in the day and the suggestions which I made. I asked whether the Board of Agriculture had any idea how many other importations of fodder there had been since November which were still lying not opened up, but which, when they were opened up, might be the means of another outbreak; and I suggested to the hon. Gentleman that it was deserving of being put seriously before the Board of Agriculture as to whether it would not be possible even now to ascertain the number of cargoes of hay and straw which have been allowed to be landed in this country since, so that they might do their best to trace them. I regard this as a very serious matter, and deserving of very serious attention even now, if it is not too late. Knowing what has occurred, knowing what I did not know until this afternoon, namely, that the particular importation of hay responsible for the outbreak of this disease has been in this country since November last, I am myself honestly apprehensive that there may be hundreds of cargoes which have been landed since then which must add seriously to the danger of the situation at the present time. Under all these circumstances and in the absence of any reply to the questions which I have put on this point, and in the absence of any action on the part of the Board of Agriculture, I feel bound to take the sense of the Committee upon this matter.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTexpressed great surprise that in a matter so much affecting Ireland, so vital to
  262
  Ireland as this was, the Nationalist Members were either absent or entirely silent. He had been waiting to hear the views of hon. Members below the gangway upon this question. The Government had been goaded into action by the right hon. Member for Wimbledon and others, but he felt that the Government must be pressed still further upon the point. Reference had been made again and again to the hay and straw trade, and the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote had spoken of that trade, which amounted to some £350,000 a year, as if it were an enormous sum, but it was nothing compared to the risk that was ran by the flocks and herds of this country. It was ridiculous to mention that trade as one requiring special protection. He rose, however, particularly to protest on behalf of Ireland.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: How does this apply to Ireland? This Vote has nothing to do with Ireland.
  MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMScalled attention to the question of Sunday labour in the parks and gardens. He pointed out that in the previous year he drew attention to this subject, and the Commissioner of Works had been good enough then to take the matter in hand and had given some relief to certain of the men who had been engaged for nine years without even having a Sunday off. He would like to know whether anything further had been done in the matter.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked whether the War Office or the Board of Agriculture had received any resolution from the Agricultural Board of South Kildare, with regard to the importation of hay and straw to the Curragh and other camps of Ireland.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he was informed that the question of the importation of hay and straw into Ireland did not come within this Vote. The Board of Agriculture in this country had nothing to do with Ireland.
  *COLONEL WALKERcalled attention to the prevalence of glanders and farcy in horses,

  263
  especially in London, and to the fact that there was no appreciable diminution in the number of horses affected with the disease. Some 2,000 horses a year were contaminated, and as recent inquests in London and Edinburgh showed, the disease was contagious to human beings. There were only three inspectors for the whole of London. Instead of leaving that vast area in the care of three men, power ought to be given to the numerous army of veterinary surgeons to report cases of glanders just as medical men had the duty of reporting outbreaks of infectious diseases amongst people. In the case of glanders and farcy there was no power to compel the owner's veterinary surgeon to report the diseases to the central authority nor did he obtain any reward for so doing. When a case was discovered a policeman was sent for, who sent for the inspector, who dealt with the case, but even he was not allowed to apply the Mallein test, which was the best test known, to the other horses in the stable, without the consent of the owner of the horses. There was also considerable delay in getting the horse affected away, and even if it was removed at once it had to be taken through the streets with the risk of contaminating others. It was most important that the horse affected should be destroyed directly the disease was discovered. He hoped this matter would be taken up quickly, and the disease stamped out.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid he rose to protest against the action of the Board of Agriculture in allowing hay and straw to be used for packing articles coming from those countries where foot-and-mouth disease existed. It was a most dangerous thing, and if this disease happened to be imported into Ireland in this way it would mean ruin to many of the farmers there, who would not be able to pay their land purchase annuities.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought this Vote did not apply to Ireland. So far as this matter concerned Ireland he understood its conduct was in the hands of another Department.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I am wel aware of that.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can only discuss items in the Vote the reduction of which has been moved. What the hon. Member desires to discuss is relevant to another Vote which we have not reached.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid he protested against hay and straw coming into this country without active and keen oversight being exercised on the part of the Board of Agriculture. If it brought foot-and-mouth disease with it, the shipping trade for store cattle between Ireland and England would be stopped, with the result that the farmers of Ireland would not be able to sell their store cattle. He also protested against the Board of Agriculture approving of the name "Peark's Own" being applied to an article of milk-blended butter. The Board of Agriculture held the view that it was not sold as butter, but he contended that any person going into a shop, and seeing the article, would come to the conclusion, that it was butter and would not know that it was a blend of milk and butter containing eight per cent more of water than pure butter. He saw no reason why this, firm should be specially favoured, and it seemed to him that there was something behind the scenes. He put this matter seriously before the Board of Agriculture, because all they wanted was fair play all round. They ought not to approve of the name given to this commodity any longer, and they should do nothing which would lead the public to believe that they were buying butter, when they were buying some other article which was not butter, thus doing injury to the very-large dairy industry.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he observed that his hon. friend had raised the question of glanders. It was one which deserved consideration, and its importance should be impressed upon the Treasury, who had not dealt with it in the manner in which it ought to have done. Only a very short time ago an opportunity was afforded of dealing with this disease. London was one of its centres, but when the electric trams came into operation a great number of horses which had been used in the city were sent into the country and the disease was thus spread. His hon. friend had suggested that with the help of the Treasury

  265
  they might pay proper compensation, and he believed it was a disease which in that way might have been very adequately dealt with; but, of course, when they allowed it to spread to different parts of the country it became much more difficult to deal with. He hoped the Board, in view of the information which they had in the Reports of Committees and other evidence that the disease was dangerous not only to animals but also to human beings, would really take the matter very seriously in hand. Another subject which he wished to bring before the hon. Gentleman's notice had reference to the action of the Board of Agriculture in regard to the Act of last year dealing with the destruction of insect pests. He did not think their conduct in administering that Act had been such as to give confidence to those interested, and there was no doubt that their reluctance to act promptly had resulted in the introduction of gooseberry mildew into this country. The Board also ought to have been more prompt in their action in reference to a new disease, called black scab, affecting potatoes. He believed very little had been done by the Board in that matter. At the present time it was known fairly well where the parts affected were, and it was known very well how that disease could be checked. He considered it most important that the Board should have taken more prompt action in order to prevent the spread of the disease by not allowing seed potatoes to be sown in districts where the disease existed. At present there was no means of discovering where the disease was. The seed potatoes had been sown broad cast over the country, and there was no security for those who were growing potatoes that they would not be affected by this particular disease. He was convinced that the Board had power to deal with these matters, and that they should do more than they had been doing to check these diseases. With reference to gooseberry mildew, the Board had at first issued a strong Order for the destruction of the fruit bushes affected, but owing to the unfortunate fact that no provision was made for compensation by the Exchequer, they found, he presumed, difficulties about the carrying out of this compulsory Order, with the result that it was revoked, and there was now an Order in force only giving the alternative to spray and prune
  266
  instead of destroying the bushes. According to the authorities and those who had studied this question, spraying and pruning was in no way a satisfactory means of checking the disease. It had not proved so in Worcestershire and other parts which had before suffered from the invasion of this disease. In Kent, up to the present, they had escaped it, but as gooseberry growing was an extremely important branch in the county, they were very anxious about it. If there should be an outbreak in Kent, apparently they had no power now, even though the county council might be willing, to pay the expense of ordering the destruction of the bushes; and the Order for the spraying and pruning, in the opinion of the Kent growers at all events, was not at all satisfactory. He thought, indeed, that the administration of the Act had been unscientific and dilatory, and that the Board had not realised the importance of the matter to these smaller industries. He sincerely hoped that the Board would take the question more seriously in hand than in the past, and that, with reference to new diseases which come to this country, far more prompt steps would be taken to check them, and so prevent their getting into our midst, when it was very difficult to eradicate them. He asked whether the Board of Agriculture could issue through their journal, or in some other way, a statement of the actual districts in which these diseases existed. At present there was no means of knowing where the disease existed except where, in certain counties, the disease had been proved to exist. If it were known which were the affected districts the people would know where to obtain their new stocks, but at present there was very great insecurity in that respect. He hoped that in some way a return would be made so that everybody would be able to tell where the disease existed, and by that means some security would be afforded against the spread of infection. He believed that the disease of swine fever had already been dealt with, but he trusted as regarded other diseases which had been alluded to there might be more definite action taken.
  MR. POWERdesired to emphasise the two points brought forward by his hon. friend the Member for Limerick. Indirectly, Ireland would be affected by this question of the importation of hay and straw from infected

  267
  countries. Foot-and-mouth disease spread insidiously and rapidly, and could only be put down with great expense. It should be prevented from coming into this country, for so surely as it was introduced here it would reach Ireland, whose markets would be closed. The hon. Gentleman representing the Department had discharged his duty with a great deal of ability and a great deal of tact, but he would ask him to press upon the heads of the Department the necessity for more caution as regarded the introduction of disease. The other point to which attention had been drawn was connected with butter. Anyone who knew anything about the manufacture of this article and margarine would recognise that tons upon tons of milk-blended butter and margarine were weekly palmed off on the people of this country under the name of butter. It was not only a fraud on the people who made genuine butter, but a fraud on the consumers, who were imposed upon in a most glaring and evil way, and he certainly thought the Board of Agriculture had been remiss in this matter, and had allowed the firm to which special attention had been drawn a privilege which enabled them to violate the Act of last year, which they had hoped would do something to prevent this illicit trade.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: I may be permitted to reply to the points which have been raised. With regard to glanders, it is, of course, a very serious disease, and is regarded so by the Board of Agriculture, but I am glad to say there has been a steady diminution during the last few years. In 1904 there were 1,529 outbreaks, in 1905 there were 1,214, in 1906 1,066, and last year 854. That was the lowest year we have had for eight years. With regard to the number of horses affected, last year was the lowest for the last six years. The figures are as follows:—1904, 2,658; 1905, 2,068; 1906, 2,012; and last year 1,921; so that not only have the outbreaks been fewer, but fewer horses have been attacked. It is, however, sufficiently serious to justify the attention which has been given to it, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for alluding to it, because the more attention is drawn to a disease of this kind the more likely people are to take trouble to stamp it out, and to take the necessary steps to get rid of it.
  268
  Perhaps hon. Members are not aware that the new Order in connection with glanders was issued on 1st January this year to local authorities. It deals chiefly with two points—increasing the power of local authorities to apply tests and obliging them to slaughter animals affected. I am told the London County Council administration has on the whole been very satisfactory. They are the local authority having the control of the horses affected, which seems to be the most serious charge brought by the hon. Member, and I think anything he has to say in regard to the dangers of horses suffering from glanders being taken through the streets ought to be addressed to that authority, although it is perfectly right that the Board of Agriculture should be made acquainted with any cases of that kind as well. With regard to the question of the advertisement of "Pearksown" as a substitute for butter, it is within the four corners of the law. The Board of Agriculture has no power to interfere with the advertisement, as I understand it. They have allowed it to be registered just in the same way that they allow a large number of other names to be registered, but none of them include the word butter, and as the word butter is excluded from their nomenclature there is no reason for the Board of Agriculture to step in. Whilst some of these individuals may be ingenious in their advertisements, so long as they keep within the four corners of the law the Board of Agriculture has no administrative power to interfere.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the Board of Agriculture approve of this firm selling this article in their shops as "Pearksown" and thus lead the public to believe that they are buying butter?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: So long as the articles are properly described the public will buy the article at their own risk. "Pearksown" does not indicate to the public that this article is butter, and at any rate the same is not allowed to be associated with butter, and the public asking for butter cannot be given this article as butter. With regard to another point raised by the hon. Member for Ashford, who complained that the Board of Agriculture had not taken sufficiently prompt steps to deal

  269
  with gooseberry mildew, the Board have from time to time taken definite action. A leaflet has been issued which deals in a very comprehensive way with all the steps which must be taken to exterminate this disease, and to get rid of it whenever it is found, and an Order was issued quite recently on 10th December, in which districts affected are scheduled, and all the names of the places where the disease has occurred are included in the scheduled areas. I do not know if the hon. Member desires further information in regard to the exact places, but they are given with some detail, and I think probably steps have been taken sufficient to get rid of this pest.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Supposing the disease were to break out in Kent, would the Board be willing to issue an Order giving Kent power to destroy bushes?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: Under the Order which has been issued I understand it could be easily extended to new districts where outbreaks have occurred. Clause 5, Sub-section 2 says "no bush shall be removed from any plantation, garden, or field in which there is a bush which is diseased or suspected of being diseased and clippings from diseased or suspected bushes shall be forthwith destroyed by burning or other effective methods." In that way it is held the disease can be stamped out if the other recommendations in the Order are vigilantly followed. I am glad to say that at the present time the disease has not broken out in Kent, and it is hoped that with the publicity which has been given to the subject all those who have gooseberry bushes under their care will take every precaution to prevent the disease spreading if it does break out. The hon. Member asked me a question with regard to black scab. There are several other pests which affect this country. Under the powers given by the Act of last year it is proposed to issue very shortly regulations which will include this particular disease. I hope it will not be many days before that is issued.
  MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he would not have risen but for the unsatisfactory answer
  270
  which had been given to an hon. Member on the Irish benches on the subject of milk-blended butter. He would like to call the hon. Gentleman is attention to the fact that they had been distinctly told, both in Committee and in the House, that the Board of Agriculture would not sanction any name which did not make it clear to the buyer that the article was not butter. Nobody could say that the word "Pearksown" conveyed the impression that it was not butter or not soap or not cheese, or not anything else. Nobody could tell what "Pearksown" might be, but the supposition was, as Pearks was a large butter dealer, that "Pearksown" would be considered to be butter. It absolutely violated the promises which were given them that no name would be sanctioned which did not make it perfectly clear that this was not butter, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would do what he could to prevent at any rate in the future, names such as those which obviously misled the public, being registered.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked if he might correct the statement which had just been made. He had sat on the Committee and had followed the subject all through with great care. He thought the pledge given was that the name should in no way convey that it was butter. It was impossible to give a name which proved that it was not butter. The pledge was given and he thought carried out that the name should in no way convey to the purchaser that it was butter, and though it was quite true that by using the name of the firm over a substance that looked like butter the public might be led to consider it butter, he did not know that the Board of Agriculture could do anything once they had sanctioned the name.
  *MR. BARRIEsaid he would refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the Act of last year. Clause 9, sub-section 3, said that if any person dealt with, sold or offered for sale any article suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest he should be liable to very severe penalties. If he rightly understood the complaint of his hon. friend below the gangway it was not only that the Board had licensed the name "Pearksown" along with some other eighteen names, but that it had

  271
  taken no action in reference to advertisements which had appeared in all the leading newspapers of the country, by this firm and which read as follows, "'Pearksown' is a mixture of butter and milk, an absolutely pure wholesome food and better than the best butter.'" Again he referred to the wording of the statute to the effect that a trader was not to offer for sale substances of this kind by a description which was suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy industry. He had put several questions to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Somerset on the subject and it might be a mere coincidence, or that somewhat late in the day the Board of Agriculture had taken some indirect action, but these advertisements had disappeared from the newspapers within the last few days. He had handed a copy of
  the advertisement to the hon. Baronet, who confessed that he had never seen it, but whatever might have been the reason these advertisements had dropped. He could only express his regret that those who had opposed the legalising of this middle article did not succeed in their opposition, because it had become increasingly recognised that in licensing the sale of an article which was not margarine, which was most likely to be described as butter, and which was not butter, they had given those who were inclined to act dishonestly to the public a very great privilege which they were using freely to the detriment of the public interest.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 207. (Division List No. 42.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Fell, Arthur

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Halpin, J.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield. Ecclesall)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Cave, George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hogan, Michael

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

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

  Keswick, William

  Winterton, Earl

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Viscount Valentia and Mr.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Forster.

  Delany, William

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Meagher, Michael

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Agnew, George William

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beale, W. P.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bell, Richard

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Branch, James

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robinson, S.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rowlands, J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sears, J. E.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Seely, Colonel

  Clough, William

  Lambert, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lough, Thomas

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Cox, Harold

  Lundon, W.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Crean, Eugene

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Crossley, William J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Summerbell, T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Maclean, Donald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Crae, George

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

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

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Elibank, Master of

  Maddison, Frederick

  Verney, F. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Vivian, Henry

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Walton, Joseph

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Wardle, George J.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Waring, Walter

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmann'n

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Massie, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Menzies, Walter

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Montagu, E. S.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Grant, Corrie

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morrell, Philip

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morse, L. L.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Murray, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Myer, Horatio

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wiles, Thomas

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Pollard, Dr.

  Winfrey, R.

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Original Question again proposed.
  *SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD*SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD (Lincolnshire, Brigg) moved the reduction of the Vote by £100 in order to call attention to an important point in the working of the Small Holdings (England) Act. The
  274
  point arose from the fact that a certain landlord in North Lincolnshire had a short time ago—in December last—two farms thrown on his hands owing to the sudden death of the tenant who had been farming the two put into one. The landlord decided upon keeping one and

  275
  letting it to a tenant, the other he offered to the Lindsey County Council for the purpose of the creation of small holdings under the Act of 1907. The rent of the farm as two farms was 21s. per acre, rising in two years to 23s. per acre. The farm consisted of three separate sets of buildings recently renovated and a house. The first official offer was made to the council on 23rd January and a sub-committee of the council on small holdings visited the farm and reported favourably upon it, both as regards the suitability of the land and the price asked. The size of the farm being 240 acres, the landlord was asked to take back forty, making a round 200 acres, and at a meeting held at Lincoln on 19th February, at which Mr. Talbot Baines, the Commissioner of the Board of Agriculture was present, the following took place—
  "The whole matter was fully gone into and report was read of the Visiting Inspection Committee of their visit and recommendations as to how the existing buildings could be utilised and the land suitably sub-divided. Details as to the rent and interest to be charged tenants were fully gone into and the advance and opinion of the Commissioners withheld thereon. It was ultimately decided that it would be necessary to charge the tenants an additional rent, viz., (1) 5s. 9d. or 6s. for prepayment of interest and sinking fund on expenses incurred with respect to house and buildings, and (2) 3s. for repairs, management, collection, &c, making rent proposed as follows—Kent to landlord 20 s.; interest, &c, on buildings 6s.; management, repairs, &c. 3s., or a probable total rent of 29 s. On further consideration it was decided and a resolution carried to this effect: "That it would be impracticable to take the land offered as from April next. That if, however, the land could be offered (200 acres) including the existing house and buildings on a thirty-five years lease from April 6th, 1909, at the same rent (1), the council would be prepared to enter into an agreement to take the same, subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture, the Local Government Board, and of the county council. The Committee do not anticipate that any difficulty will arise in obtaining the required consents. The Committee were obliged for the ofter, but owing to the limited period during which it had been before them they felt that they were unable to adopt any other course than herein suggested. In the event of any agreement being arrived at for the taking of any land as from April, 1909, the Committee would require some facilities for adapting the land and premises for the prospective occupiers, previous to the commencement of the tenancy."
  The Commissioner, Mr. Talbot Baines, acknowledged that this was the first case that had ever come before the Board of Agriculture where the landlord
  276
  had voluntary offered a farm for the purpose of small holdings under the Bill of 1907. A letter dated 24th February, written to Mr. Talbot Baines with reference to the declinature by the county council of the farm except under the conditions which he had just read, was as follows—
  "With reference to the above offer which you are aware was made to the county council of the parts of Lindsey, Lincolnshire, on 29th January, I have received a letter from Mr. Scorer, the clerk to the said council, stating they were unable to accept this offer to take the land and buildings as from 6th April next. I enclose a copy of Mr. Scorer's letter, in which he further states the council would be willing to enter into an agreement to take up a lease commencing 6th April, 1909.
  "I am directed by the owner to inform you that, with every wish to see these small holdings made, he cannot undertake to reserve the 200 acres of land and buildings, for which he has already received many applications, until 6th April, 1909, but now wishes to make the offer (he has made to the county council) to you as Commissioner for small holdings (under Section 5 (2) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907), i.e., for a lease of thirty-five years to commence 6th April next.
  "Since the farm must be dealt with at once the owner cannot see his way to allow the offer to remain open for longer than a fortnight from this date, viz., up to 9th March, by which time I shall be glad to receive a definite reply.
  "I am further desired to enquire of you whether the Board of Agriculture are not in possession of public funds which could be utilised immediately in order that this opportunity may not be lost."
  In reply to that letter, Mr. Baines of the Board of Agriculture wrote the following—
  "I am obliged by your letter, enclosing copy of letter to you from the clerk of the Lindsey County Council.
  "I am sorry you cannot see your way to fall in with the views of the Committee, but I think you appreciate their difficulty, and that they are acting only prudently in declining your offer of the farm at Lady Day next. I quite understand, and I think the Committee will also, your position, and your inability to keep the farm in hand for a year in order to lease it to the county council at Lady Day, 1909, but possibly you may be able to offer some other land to the county council before that date.
  "The Board of Agriculture are obliged to you for offering to lease the farm to them, but do not think that Section 5 (2) of the Act of 1907 is applicable in this case, as it can hardly be argued that the "county council have failed to fulfil their obligations.' Even if they had the Commissioners would have the same difficulties to contend with that stand in the way

  277
  of the county council taking the land this coming Lady Day.
  "You will no doubt communicate your decision to the county council,"
  It would be obvious to anyone with a knowledge of land that no blame was attached in this matter, either to the committee of the county council or to the Board of Agriculture, or to the owner of the land; but what was to be said of the policy of the Act? Here was an instance in which the main contention put forward by the Government, namely, that a system of public hiring and letting was preferable to purchase and resale, was tested; and it was found that the system could not be brought into operation without a serious loss either to the owner or to the public authority and a heavy charge upon the tenant. No provision appeared to be made in the Act for meeting losses of this kind out of national funds; for evidently the Board did not consider that they could contribute to the loss under Section 17 of the Act. Similar questions must arise in many cases of voluntary, and in nearly all cases of compulsory, hiring; for in every case charge for management must be added, and in that event, would a sitting tenant, unless compelled, give the facilities desired? It would seem, therefore, that a serious burden not contemplated by the framers of the Act would fall upon the counties in which the hiring clauses were put into operation. He did not point this out to the Committee for the purpose of disparaging the idea of small holdings or of the Small Holdings Act. He was bound to move a reduction of this Vote on account of what seemed to him to be the absurd proposals of the Government, and also with the view of eliciting exactly what the Government meant to do in the way of meeting such cases as this one. He might say in conclusion, if it would be of any interest to the Committee to know the name of the landlord, that it was himself, and that the farm belonged to him. He would be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would inform him what steps the Government proposed to take in view of the fact that the county council could not take over a farm voluntarily offered to them even if, as was perfectly true, it was short notice. But on the other hand, supposing
  278
  a county council came to him and compelled him to give up that farm to them, he would have received a year's notice. The county council could not have come upon the land without his leave, and they would have had the same difficulties at the end of twelve months as at the end of three months. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That Item Class II., Vote 11 (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries) be reduced by £100."—(Sir Berkeley Sheffield.)
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,: The Committee are aware that I had some connection with the passing of the Act referred to, through the House last year, but they are also aware that since the passing of the Act, I have had no responsibility for its administration, and I have heard nothing of this case up to the moment the hon. Baronet rose to make his speech. I observe in passing, that the charge suggested of 3s. an acre for management seems extremely high, and I should be sorry if management generally throughout the country were likely to work out at anything like that rent per acre. The charge for houses and buildings mentioned by the hon. Baronet was 6s. an acre in this case. Of course, that would depend on the quality and quantity of buildings and the size of house to be provided.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: If the right hon. Gentleman would like, I could give him the exact sum the county council proposed to spend on buildings.
  *MR. HARCOURT: For my purpose that is not material. As far as I understand, the county council found some difficulty in taking the farm from the date at which it was offered. I do not understand that they suggested to the hon. Baronet that he should give them the farm at once, but that their tenancy should not commence until a year later than the date at which the farm was offered. [An HON. MEMBER: But they asked for access.] Of course, it is an obvious fact that they had no right of

  279
  access to land of which they had not become the tenant. I imagine that what really happened here was that the Lindsay County Council had not got their scheme for small holdings ready. No doubt they had applications, but probably the scheme was not in such a state that they were able to commit themselves in that particular district to the taking, as from Lady Day this year, of a farm of 200 acres. I am sure nobody in the House will doubt the generosity of the intention and action of the hon. Baronet, and his warm desire to meet the demand which appears to have arisen in this district for small holdings, but his offer to the Commissioners was not really a practical one, though a perfectly honest one, because the county council are undoubtedly going to fulfil their duty, though, perhaps, not by taking this particular farm on a particular day. They are obviously anxious to fulfil their duty and, therefore, it would be impossible for the Commissioners to attempt to act in default of the county council as if they had failed in their duty; and in any case they could not act in default of the county council without having given considerable notice and gone through all the forms prescribed by the Act. Again, the Commissioners could not have acted in this case experimentally, because experiments have to be made where there is no obvious demand or where such demand is not likely to be made. Neither of these circumstances existed in the case put by the hon. Member. The hon. Member says that from his own experience and that of other landlords, it was difficult to get the Act into operation. I can assure him that that is not the case. There must undoubtedly, in some cases, be a little delay in getting the Act to work, but I can only wish that there were more landlords in the country who would so willingly and so early put land at a moderate rent at the disposal of the county councils, and I hope that no difficulties may arise which will prevent those county councils immediately availing themselves of the facilities provided by the Act.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It is perfectly true, no doubt, that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Act during its passage through the House of Commons,
  280
  and who conducted it with great skill and ability, has nothing to do with its administration. But what is the position with which we are confronted to-day? Here is a matter which has been the subject of prolonged correspondence and negotiation between the Board of Agriculture, the Lincolnshire County Council, and my hon. friend behind me. That correspondence and the position submitted to the Committee to-day raise a question of the greatest possible interest and very considerable importance with regard to the whole future of the administration of this Act. Although we have the satisfaction of opposing a Cabinet which is sometimes described as a Cabinet of all the talents, it appears to me that they are unable to produce on those benches one single person who is in a position to deal with this question. I frankly admit that my right hon. friend has made the very best of what seems to me to be an exceedingly bad case for the Government. But that is not all. When a question of great importance is raised by a member of the House so lucidly as it has been by my hon. friend, there is no one here on the part of the Government who is able to give any valid or useful explanation. This is one of the most remarkable cases which has ever occurred in the House of Commons in connection with a great measure which has just been brought into operation. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."]
  MR. HARCOURT: The Minister responsible for the Board of Agriculture is absent through illness, and not the slightest intimation was given to me or to any other member of the Government, that this question would be raised.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am quite ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman is exonerated from blame.
  MR. HARCOURT: I am speaking for my colleagues as well as for myself.
  MR. CHAPLIN: That does not exonerate the Government, because the Minister for Agriculture has known of this matter for some time, and his first duty was to tell his colleagues that there had been a correspondence regarding this

  281
  peculiar and very critical action taken by the Board of Agriculture and the County Council of Lincolnshire, and that an Amendment had been put down on the Paper by the hon. Member for Brigg for the reduction of this Vote which, of course, meant that my hon. friend was going to raise this question on that correspondence. The President of the Board of Agriculture has not informed his colleagues. Why did he not submit the case and send the correspondence to my right hon. friend, who would have then been in a better position than he is now to deal with it? What I say is that there is no excuse available for the position when the case has been raised, and when the correspondence has been going on for months, that no Minister is ready to rise and advise the House of Commons upon it. I saw my hon. friend this morning just before I came down to the House. I had seen his Amendment on the Paper, and I confess I had one of my own; but from what I heard from him, and from what I have heard to-day, it seems to me that the case is perfectly clear and simple, and it is one which will arise over and over again in connection with the Act of last year. A landlord offered land suited in every possible way for small holdings. I know something of agriculture, and I know that the land is precisely of that kind adapted for small holdings, and it was offered at a rent which seems to me to be exceedingly moderate. The offer was an exceptionally liberal one, the rent asked being 2s. an acre less than the landlord had been offered from some other quarter. During the passage of this Act through the House hon. Members were deprived of every opportunity of raising points upon it, but I think that I called attention to this difficulty which might arise on more than one occasion. That difficulty has arisen in this case out of a demand for access to the land before the tenancy was agreed upon—a thing which the right hon. Gentleman himself has already pointed out cannot be asked for or expected to be allowed. I do not hesitate to say that the concession of access to a farm for the purpose of making it suitable for small holdings while another tenant is in possession would be an impossible condition. The farm
  282
  would be put into an unworkable condition for the tenant, and, moreover, when the county council or the Agriculture Commission finally made up their minds to take the farm they would still have all their work to do to put it in a condition suitable for small holdings. I cannot help thinking that when the Act was passing through Committee, it was always acknowledged as a fact that a very considerable sum would have to be paid for tenant right, and that seems to have been altogether forgotten and lost sight of. I tried to bring the matter before the members of the Committee so that provision should be made for it. So far as I could follow the right hon. Gentleman in the observations he has made, in the view of the Commissioners a very considerable addition to the rent—9s. or 9s. 6d.—would be required from the small holder before the occupation could be made to meet the charges upon it. The outgoing tenant would be entitled to claim, of course, as he is now, what is called sometimes tenant right, and sometimes an inventory on leaving his farm. Well, on a farm of this description the inventory comes always to a year and a half or perhaps two years rent, which would mean a considerable sum. I suppose this fact had dawned on the Commissioner when he was brought face to face with the case. As a man, of business the Commissioner would know perfectly well that in that event the Government or the county council would be placed in a very difficult position. During our discussions on matters of this kind we were told by my right hon. friend that that would be met by an adjustment of rent, but no adjustment of rent would be able adequately to supply a sum of this magnitude. This case only confirms my view, which I have always held, of the great mistake which was made in basing the Act almost entirely on compulsory hiring instead of on purchase. I repeat that the Government through their representative have made out no case whatever, and that as this correspondence has been going on for months between the Board of Agriculture and my hon. friend, and notice of an Amendment had been given to the Vote, and it was perfectly well-known that

  283
  this case would be raised on this particular occasion which had been specially devoted to opportunities for criticism of the action of the Board of Agriculture, it is a very remarkable thing that there is no member of the Government present to answer the case brought forward with so great moderation and ability by my hon. friend.
  MR. ROGERSsaid the passing of the Small Holdings Act had revealed that throughout the country there was a very real and genuine demand for small holdings, far larger than was anticipated by some of the strongest advocates of the movement. The first step which every county council had to take was to satisfy itself as to the genuineness of the demand and as to the capacity of the would-be tenant, his position, and his general desirability as a tenant. That was what the county councils were engaged upon at the present time, and they were not in a position this Lady Day either to take or to refuse farms. They were now engaged in holding local inquiries; interviewing the would-be tenants, testing them, and finding out whether they possessed the means of becoming desirable tenants. This was a very considerable work and was taking up a considerable amount of time. It was also costing a certain amount of money. He hoped that, under these circumstances, the Board of Agriculture would interpret the clause relating to preliminary expenses in the widest and most generous fashion. The Act laid down that the preliminary expenses in connection with the acquisition of land must be refunded by the Treasury. He asked that the expenses incurred inquiring into the means of the people and their desirability as tenants should be interpreted as costs and expenses incurred in connection with the acquisition of the land. The other day the chairman of the Cambridgeshire Small Holdings Committee went to a fruit growing village to hold an inquiry. There were there no less than 250 applications from people who wanted land upon which to grow strawberries, gooseberries, and raspberries. It took that committee a week to make these inquiries, and even then they only got through two-thirds of their work. If local committees
  284
  were willing to work like that and county councils were willing to incur expenses and send their members to remote parts of the district, he hoped the Board of Agriculture would take a generous view of this clause and see that the cost of such proceedings was remitted to the county council, and also the other expenses he had referred to in connection with the preliminary acquisition of land. When the inquiries had reached the point at which they had eliminated the applicants who were obviously no good, and when they were dealing only with the genuine applicant, that was the time for a survey of the land, and he asked that the cost of this survey should be included in the preliminary expenses of the scheme. He had been informed that the cost of the fee paid to the agent employed for this purpose to survey some particular farm would be recoverable, and he would like that privilege to be extended also to the cost incurred by an official of the council sent down to inquire and report upon the adaptability of the land for the purposes of the Act. It seemed to him that some difficulty would arise about this question of agents' fees. The salary of the land agent employed by the council would be thrown upon the small holdings fund of the county, and would be a charge upon all the small holdings in the county. When there were a large number of small holding schemes in a county embracing 2,000 or 3,000 acres, the amount charged to each holding would be small, but where there might be only about two schemes it would be impossible to charge the whole cost of the preliminary inquiries upon those two schemes without running the rent up to a prohibitive point. He therefore asked that the Board of Agriculture should be prepared to treat the county council in a most generous and sympathetic fashion. He hoped the First Commissioner would be able to supply the council with model plans for buildings and also for cottages which would not be too expensive. From what he could see the county councils were taking up the work very well, and were working very sympathetically, and what they required from the Board of Agriculture was not coercion but a good deal of that sympathetic

  285
  consideration which a central department could give.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that what they wished to discover was whether the county councils were taking this question in hand, and who was to bear the cost of the rent of the farm during the time it was being prepared for the new condition of things under small holdings, which might in some cases be a long and in others a short period. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the landlord who was giving up the land must not be expected to bear the expense of admitting the new tenant, sometimes compulsorily, into possession of the land before paying any rent. As he read Clause 17 the Government would not be able to make such a grant out of their fund. Nobody desired that the new tenant's rent should be raised permanently to cover the expenses of the transition period, which were incurred in connection with more the administration than the development of the land. In every case where the county council had to prepare the land for the new small holders the cost of the rent and other expenses ought to fall upon the county fund. That matter was not contemplated when the Act was passing through. He hoped that before this subject was passed on one side they would have some explanation from the Government for the benefit of all county councils as to where this expenditure for putting the land in order and preparing it for small holdings was to fall.
  MR. WINFREYsaid he did not think the difficulties in the way of letting land for small holdings were mainly those of preparing the land for the tenants. He thought the main difficulty was that the county councils had not had time to prepare their schemes, fully to see the applicants and generally to form date their plans. He did not hold a brief for the Lindsey County Council; he thought perhaps that that council had been a little too timid in the matter, and that if they had cropped the firm themselves and sold their crops at Michaelmas they would have been not losers, but gainers, and would have had the summer six months in which to have placed their houses and buildings upon it.
  286
  He had taken farms at Lady-Day, and farmed them for six months, and during that time he had been adapting them for small holdings, and in no case had he lost money by the arrangement. Still he was not quite sure that they could expect a public authority to do what a private individual did, and therefore he did not think they could complain of the Lindsey County Council too much. With regard to the question of who had to bear the cost while the farm was being adapted, it was only a very small part of the land that was required for houses and buildings. The land was there for cultivation. It might be a little inconvenient for small holders to farm their land until they had proper houses and buildings, but he had always found that small holders were ready to be placed at some slight inconvenience if they could get settled on the land. Only this Michaelmas the Lincolnshire Small Holdings Association had taken some 600 acres of Crown land, which was absolutely bare of buildings, and they had divided it up into small holdings of 20 and 30 acres. The men started into occupation on 11th October, but hurry as they might they could not get the houses and buildings ready for them in time. The men went into their houses at Christmas and he knew they were put to some inconvenience, but they paid rent for their land from last Michaelmas, and they would pay for their houses from Lady-Day. Therefore, he did not think that public authorities would find that great difficulty in adapting farms. And they must remember that some of these farms had houses and buildings upon them. The hon. Member had asked who was to pay the tenant right? He was rather surprised to hear that question. Of course, the incoming tenant would pay the tenant right. The small holder was always prepared to pay his tenant right. He had had to deal with some hundreds of them, and he had never heard of one who was not prepared to pay his tenant right in a manly way. He thought the charge of 6s. per acre for farm houses and buildings being adapted to the land was a very excessive figure, but he thought as to the 3s. for management that when they came to look into it they would find that it included the rates. The hon. Baronet the Member for Brigg had now left the House, but

  287
  he would take the opportunity of communicating with him, and if he would give him a fortnight to consider, he thought the Lincolnshire Small Holdings Committee would be ready to take the farm which the county council did not seem inclined to do.
  MR. HICKS BEACHthought it was obvious that there would be enormous expenditure in cases in which a county council, whether they wished it or not, would be compelled to take the whole farm for the purpose of dividing it into small holdings. The President of the Board of Agriculture had very properly written round to the county councils telling them that they should take the whole farm, and in many cases that was done. Most out-goings in the South of England were at Michaelmas, and in a great many cases a considerable time must elapse between the taking of a farm from the landowner and the letting of it to a large number of small holders, because there were not only the buildings to be put up, but the county council would have to erect cottages as well. In addition, some fields would have to be fenced to make them smaller than they were now, and there was also the question of providing a water supply and making additional roads. One could not do all these things while someone was in possession of the land, and it must, therefore, follow that a considerable period would elapse from the time when a farm was taken to the time when it could be let to small holders, and he wished that they could have had that evening some declaration from the Government as to who was to bear the cost of rent during the interval. It was quite certain that there would be a loss of rent to the county council, and it seemed obvious that to meet this expense was one of the objects of the Small Holdings Account. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Wimbledon that it was not courteous on the part of the Government when they saw various Amendments on the Paper in reference to this Small Holdings Act that they could not supply some Member of the Government to deal with the question. He was sorry that the representative of the Board of Agriculture was not present, and regretted
  288
  the cause of his absence, but one would have thought that the Government could have found some Member of it who would have devoted some time to considering the subject and the facts which had been brought forward that evening. He hoped that the information which they desired would be forthcoming. With regard to the general working of the Act, he thought it was quite true that a very large number of applicants had come forward, and a very much larger number of people than were expected. But it was likely that a considerable portion of these applicants would drop out under the scrutiny of the county council, because their applications were due to the fact that people in the country were led by Liberal Members at the last general election to believe that they were going to have free land, but when they found that they would have to pay for the tenant right and stock he thought that a good many of them would drop out. The hon. Member for Wiltshire had brought forward a good many points as to the application of the Act, and he himself thought it was obvious that, as far as they had gone at present, county councils had found that they would have to charge small holders about 10 per cent. more than they would pay the landowners, in consequence of the many expenses in connection with small holdings, and in connection with the inquiries which were being held throughout the country by the councils. They would have to take surveys of the land and employ gentlemen to look after the necessary repairs and collect the rent. Some of these preliminary expenses might very properly be paid out of the Small Holdings Account, which would enable county councils to charge small holders as low a rent as possible. In conclusion, he hoped that before the discussion was brought to an end some Member of the Government would give them some idea of the nature of this Account, and of the position of the central body in regard to it.
  *MR. HARCOURT: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon felt so greatly the indignation which he expressed as to the imaginary misconduct of the Government, or he would have remained in his place to hear

  289
  the explanation which I was ready to offer. I do not think, moreover, anyone would have been likely to assume, on an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Brigg to the Vote on Account, that he was going to attack, or intended to make an attack upon the Department on the question of the letting of one of his own farms to the county council., If he had intimated his intention of doing so, I am sure the Department would have furnished the information. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon seems to have forgotten some of the details of the Act, and he seems to treat it exclusively as an Act which contains hiring powers, and as if there were no power given to the county council to purchase land to be divided up into small holdings either by agreement or upon compulsion. It has been said that in regard to the question of tenant right, or inventory, or tillages, which are not quite interchangeable terms, that I stated in Committee upstairs that these matters could be dealt with by an adjustment of rent, but I am quite sure that hon. Gentlemen who were present will bear me out when I say that the case where I suggested that the matter could be dealt with by an adjustment of rent was where severance occurred, in taking away a field or a number of fields from a particular farm. In my opinion, these matters of tenant right, or inventory, or tillager, can be treated as part of the equipment of small holdings. The county councils may borrow on a long term for equipment, and, therefore, the rent paid for (say) six months during the process of equipment, although it will not be all lost, may perfectly fairly be charged to that head, and spread over a long term under a loan by the county council. But I have never said that that is a matter which can be dealt with by an adjustment of rent. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire has asked that there shall be a liberal interpretation of the words in the Act "the preliminary expenses of the acquisition of land." Of course, it is impossible for me to lay down any legal or exact Treasury definition of these words, but I am in a position to say that the Board of Agriculture will interpret those words in a broad and
  290
  generous sense, with a desire to give every assistance to all county councils, so as to facilitate their action in the acquisition of land and in any inquiry which it is necessary to make before the land can be acquired. I think, though I do not desire to pledge myself, that the cost of survey of the land, at all events, in many cases, may be included as a preliminary. I think also that, where an agent's remuneration is allocated to different services which he may perform, certain parts of that remuneration may well form part also of the preliminary cost of acquisition. I hope in these ways the action of the county councils may be facilitated, and that we may be able to meet them generously, and far more than half-way in so translating these words.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the right hon. Gentleman, while he stated that some of the expenses of the agent might be borne out of the central fund as part of the preliminary expenses, had not answered the question whether after the small holdings had been started the agent's expenses in regard to the collection of rent and repairs could be so borne.
  MR. HARCOURT: Oh, no, I do not go to that length, only the preliminary inquiries which may be made before the acquisition of the holding. Obviously, the collection of rents and cost of subsequent management must be charged upon the small holders.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the defence of the Board of Agriculture which they had heard raised on the other side of the House by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk. The hon. Gentleman, who had, he believed, considerable experience of this subject, being concerned with a society or association for taking land and letting it out in small holdings, had said that there was no difficulty whatever, because the county council had to take the land if the tenant went out at Lady-Day, and they could crop it until Michaelmas and make a profit out of it. But the hon. Member's conscience seemed rather to restrict him, for he had

  291
  some doubt as to whether the county council was to turn farmer. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman, who had contemplated a great many things, had contemplated that the county councils were in future to become farmers of land left vacant, for that would be a very poor outlook for the unfortunate ratepayers. He would point out to the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk that in order to crop the land, as far as his experience went, they must have horses, implements, and seed, etc., all of which the county council did not possess. When the county council took a farm in March it had to buy horses, implements, and a variety of other things necessary to crop the land. They sold the crop in September if gathered, or disposed of it afterwards. What had they to do with all those implements and horses when they were done with them? They had to sell them. ["Hear, hear."] It was very easy to say "Hear, hear," but it was not so easy to sell the things once they had got them and they had been used. A horse cost £40 or £45, and a plough £6 or £7, and at the end of six months, after they had been used, they would have to be sold at a greatly reduced price, and the loss would be far greater than the profit that they might have on the crop. The hon. Member for Woodbridge was in his place, and he was almost certain that the hon. Gentleman would admit that during the first year a tenant did not hope to make anything out of his tenancy. The landlord, if he held the land for a short time did not hope to make any profit, and if he had to hold the farm for a year before the tenancy began, he always looked upon that year as a certain loss. He himself was very often advised by his agent not to take a farm on for a short time, because he would be certain to make nothing out of it. He did not pretend to be a great agriculturist or a great man of business, but he thought he could manage a farm as well as the county council. If an ordinary farmer could not make a profit when holding a farm for a short time, he was quite sure that the county council could not. Then the hon. "Gentleman said:" Oh, the tenant is ready to pay in a manly sort of way." It was not a question of "a manly sort
  292
  of way," but whether the tenant had the money or not with which to pay. No doubt if he had the money he would pay it, whether in a manly way or otherwise. He paid a just debt if he had the money; if he had not the money he could not pay. He could not see where the adjective "manly" came in. It was the clap-trap held by the other side. The tenant might be very manly, but unless he had the money in his pocket his manliness was of no use whatever to him. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the valuations might be spread by the county council over a number of years. But where was the security of the county council? The valuations of horses, implements, etc., were made for the incoming tenant by a valuer. Supposing the incoming tenant did not keep the farm in the same cultivation as when he took it over; he was letting the farm down; he could not pay the rent; he was turned out, and the valuation payment was spread over a number of years. But where did the county council come in? If they let it again, they would not get the same valuation that they ought to have received when it was taken over by the small holder, because there was not so much value put into the land as there had been when the farmer tenant went out. Therefore, the county council must lose. It seemed to him that it was a most dangerous doctrine for the right hon. Gentleman to hold out that the county council was to be allowed to spread the valuation over a number of years. It was very hard on the ratepayers. There were one or two members of the Labour Party present. One of them had held forth strongly that afternoon on the iniquity of the Agricultural Rating Act, and of the burdens cast on artisans in towns in consequence of it. Why did not one or two hon. Gentlemen below the gangway get up and make an observation on this point, because artisans would have to pay the money which the county council ought to have collected from the small holders; and when the small holders came to grief, as in nine cases out of ten they would, the county council would be without the money of these tenants. He had a small holding farm of about forty acres, and six weeks ago

  293
  the tenant had not got his hay crop gathered. It was cut in the autumn, and it was out until the middle of February. An adjoining farmer gave him a sovereign for his ten acres of hay, which ran about two tons to the acre, in order to use it as fodder for his ewes. That was what was going to happen. The small holder would get his hay crop cut, and then a shower would come on and he would have in the intervals of fine weather to collect ten acres. He had been much struck with the knowledge of Wiltshire possessed by the President of the Local Government Board. If he went down to Crick-lade he would find that in a small holding some five miles from there the facts were as he had stated. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division, because this was an extremely important question, especially to ratepayers who did not happen to be small holders; but he also hoped that before the debate closed they would have some indication that the Act was to be administered in a businesslike manner. It was a very unbusinesslike suggestion about the payments being spread over long terms of years. It was only a short time ago that they had a debate on the extremely bad policy of spending money on military works by way of loan. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to do exactly the same thing in regard to small holdings. All that loans did was to spread the cost over a series of years. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he was advocating the policy which they had pursued in the case of the Army; but, whereas they had the funds of the country at their back, he only had the funds of the unfortunate ratepayers behind him. He hoped his arguments might have some effect, and that the right hon. Gentleman would get up and say he recognised the force of them and that he could not advocate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for War had refused to do, but would give instructions that the spreading of the payments over a series of years by the county councils was not to be carried out.
  MR. BRIDGEMANsaid it was very astonishing how little interest the Government took in a matter which certainly was the best thing they did last year, and in regard to which they had boasted all over the country. They apparently had not the least idea how the Act had been working, or how the money Parliament had voted had been spent. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked how the £100,000 voted for the purpose of the Act had been spent; he had made no attempt to reply. It really was odd, considering this was a Vote for agriculture, that it should never have occurred to any of the Government that there would be a debate on the Small Holdings Act, which they had boasted was a great measure to bring the people back to the land. Was it remarkable that they should take some interest in seeing whether that measure had worked well? Surely the hon. Gentleman could give them some instance of the way in which this £100,000 had been spent, what purposes it had been spent upon, and how much had been spent. That was what they wanted to know, and they were entitled to know it. Several hon. Members had asked, and he could not imagine a better opportunity for letting them know.
  *MR. HARCOURT: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that his question has been asked. The £100,000 has been referred to, but I have not been asked how it has been spent. It has not been spent yet. The time has not come for spending £100,000 for paying the preliminary expenses. The salaries of the Commissioners will be provided separately out of monies voted by Parliament.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many new holders there are—how many people have taken advantage of the Act to become small holders?
  *MR. HARCOURT: I suppose the hon. Baronet means how many applications?
  SIE F. BANBURY: No, I do not. A great number of people have made applications under the impression that they were going to get land for nothing or for £1 an acre or for a very small amount. What I want to know is, are there any people who have actually taken possession of small holdings at present?
  *MR. HARCOURT: The applications have not yet been sifted, and I do not know whether they have yet obtained small holdings from the county councils. They have in some cases obtained small holdings direct from landlords. I am one of them.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I alluded to county councils and not to small holdings by agreement. I do not think there is one.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: My question is, has any part of that £100,000 been spent. Are we to understand that none of it has been spent as yet?
  MR. HARCOURT: I believe none of it has been spent.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTgreatly regretted that the charge had been made, for the first time he believed in the history of that House, against his hon. friend the Member for the City of London, that he had not carefully studied the subject on which he spoke. His speeches were marked by complete knowledge of the subject on which he spoke, and he had expressed very clearly the views that a large number of others held on this subject. He thought it was hardly tactful or just of the First Commissioner for Works, although they all respected him, to bring such a charge
  against his hon. friend. He was not sure that he had correctly heard his hon. friend say that the county councils did the work entrusted to them in a businesslike manner. He very gravely doubted that. He had had five years' experience of one county council, and although' it was largely reformed since the days when he belonged to it, not because he had left its counsels, but because of an entire change in its constitution, he thought the last thing that could be said of it was that it did its work in a workmanlike and businesslike manner.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I said that so far as I knew the county councils of England were carrying out this particular work in a businesslike manner.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he accepted his hon. friend's explanation, and he felt that that largely explained what he felt to be a lapse from the hon. Baronet's usual logical description of measures before the House. He felt bound to protest against the charge brought by the First Commissioner of Works that his hon. friend had not even read the Act which he was discussing. That was a very grave charge for any member of the Government to bring against any Member. He did not suppose his hon. friend minded, but others did, and they thought it was hardly a fair or a just charge to be brought by a member of the Government, or anyone with any-knowledge of their debates against an hon. Member who was so careful in his facts, and so deeply versed in every Bill, that he discussed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 47; Noes, 167. (Division List No. 43.)

  AYES.

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Doughty, Sir George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Fell, Arthur

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Gretton, John

  Bull, Sir William James

  Delany, William

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Nield, Herbert

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Winterton, Earl

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. T. L. Corbett.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Valentia, Viscount

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Armitage, R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pollard, Dr.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hogan, Michael

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Bell, Richard

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Robinson, S.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Black, Arthur W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newmar

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rowlands, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Sears, J. E.

  Branch, James

  Jowett, F. W.

  Seely, Colonel

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Brodie, H. C.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Summerbell, T.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore, C. (Radcliffe

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Lupton, Arnold

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Verney, F. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Vivian, Henry

  Cox, Harold

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wardle, George J.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  M'Killop, W.

  Waring, Walter

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Elibank, Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Marnham, F. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Massie, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Menzies, Walter

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wiles, Thomas

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Glover, Thomas

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morse, L. L.

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

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Grant, Corrie

  Murray, James

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Winfrey, R.

  Griffith, Ellis, J.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he rose to draw the attention of the Committee to the administration of the Post Office in regard to political societies allowed within the postal service. He wished also to draw attention to certain Answers which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General upon this particular subject. Perhaps it would be the most convenient course if he drew attention to the way in which this matter first came forward. In the autumn of last year certain servants in the Post Office had their attention drawn to a Socialistic League, which had its existence in the Post Office, and they wrote to the Postmaster-General in October drawing his attention to the existence of the Socialistic League, a society which consisted more or less of advanced Socialists. The opening letter came from a Mr. Read, employed in the Central Telegraph Office, to the Postmaster-General, on 18th October, 1907, in which he said—
  "I venture with respect to draw your attention to a state of things which exists in this great branch of His Majesty's Civil Service. There exists in the Central Telegraph Office a society of more or less advanced Socialists. The increasing activity of this society is producing a feeling of considerable alarm and apprehension in many of us, and it is considered desirable, nay, necessary, that an educational movement be inaugurated with the object of dissipating, if possible, this danger to the service."
  It was admitted that this was an educational movement and not a political one. The answer of the Postmaster-General to this letter was—
  "As you are doubtless aware, Post Office servants are not forbidden to join political societies, but at the same time they are expected to maintain a certain reserve in political matters, and they must not publicly put themselves forward on any side."
  In a further letter sent to the Postmaster-General on 7th December, 1907, by Mr. Read, the conditions were distinctly laid down upon which it was proposed to form a branch of the Primrose League in connection with the Central Telegraph Office, London. That letter stated—
  "With great respect I beg to point out the following, in the hope that you may see your way clear to modify your decision:—(a) That
  300
  the branch of the Primrose League which it is proposed to form in connection with the Central Telegraph Office would be somewhat unique in its character, as its activity would be directed against the organised league of Socialists-existing in the Central Telegraph Office, apparently with your permission, (b) We have no intention whatever of taking part in political matters except so far as Socialism is a political danger or force. (c) That our efforts would be solely of an educational and social character. (d) That we should impress upon all who might become members the necessity for taking no prominent part in political matters.
  "Feeling earnestly that the Civil Service and particularly the Post Office, as part of the constitution of the country, are in danger from the rapid growth of Socialism, our hope and desire is that we may be able to do something to arrest its growth; at any rate in the Central Telegraph Office, and as Socialism is an organised force there, it seems to us that it can only be met by an organised force; hence our desire to form a branch of the Primrose League. May I also be allowed to point out that so far from overlooking the reference contained in your reply of the 19th ult. as to holding office under the League, I merely expressed the hope that in electing our secretary, etc., from our membership we should enjoy the same privileges as the Pioneer Socialists League, a political society the officers of which are, and always have been, postal servants. This, of course, presupposes the fact that we shall not hold office under the League, but only in our own habitation. In conclusion I should like to lay emphasis on the fact that the attitude of other branches of the Primrose League does not concern us. In educating our colleagues in the maintenance of religion, the estates of the realm, and the Imperial ascendancy of the British Empire we cannot reasonably be considered as allying ourselves with any political party. We pledge ourselves to maintain the strictest reserve in political matters, except as far as the above aims are concerned."
  That letter laid down very distinctly that what was proposed by the Primrose League in the Post Office was that they should exercise the reserve which the Postmaster-General had laid down in his rules and regulations, and that they would not adopt the attitude of supporting any particular candidate at an election. After Parliament met this year some one or two Questions were put to the Postmaster-General with the object of eliciting what were the aims and objects of this Socialistic League, and whether it had been formed with the right hon. Gentleman's sanction Mid approval. The reply he gave to a Question put by him on 6th February last was as follows—
  "As far as I am aware there is nothing in the programme of the League to connect it with, party politics."

  301
  He had in his hand the organ of the League for last year, published in August, which distinctly stated that the Pioneer Socialistic League had for its object the propagation of the principles of Socialism, its field being primarily, but not exclusively, the personnel of the various postal services. This organ also went on to explain what they meant by Socialism. [LABOUR cries of "Read it."] All right, he would read it if hon. Members wished to hear it. [Cries of "Yes."]
  "By Socialism is implied that system of society in which the land and the means of production, distribution, and exchange are collectively owned, their administration and control to be exercised and controlled by the democratic State in the interests of the entire community."
  That was the object of a society which the Postmaster-General allowed to exist in the Post Office. To show whether it was intended to be a political society or not he would mention that there was a reference made in the same organ to the Colne Valley election, in which the hope was expressed that that election was but the first of a series of triumphs for social democracy. He would like to ask the Postmaster-General whether he considered that political or not, and whether he thought that that was exercising the certain reserve which he had laid down in the rules and regulations of the Post Office should be observed. The same organ of the League further stated that—
  "A congratulatory telegram was sent to Comrade Grayson on the success of his fight for revolutionary Socialism."
  And it was further announced that Comrade Grayson telegraphed back—
  "Thanks to all for the splendid collection towards my election expenses."
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: How much?
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that at the end of the pamphlet it was stated that every member of the League should consider that it was his duty to subscribe to one of its war-chests, and fresh subscribers could hand in their names to the divisional collector. He would like to ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing what the avowed
  302
  object of that society was, and seeing that they were deliberately collecting money for the support of particular candidates, it was being continued with his sanction. Replying to a further Question on 23rd February last, the Postmaster-General said—
  "It is specifically stated that they may not serve on a Committee having for its object to promote or prevent the return of a particular candidate to Parliament, nor support or oppose any particular candidate or party either by public speaking or writing."
  The organ he had been quoting from was not writing, but it was a printed document which was allowed with the right hon. Gentleman's sanction to be published in the Post Office service. He had in his hand the rules issued to the House last Friday for the guidance of servants in the Post Office. They were very simple and repeated what had been said in the replies previously given to Questions in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his Memorandum by quoting what Mr. Gladstone said in 1893, when he laid down that—
  "The only restriction by the custom of the public service on persons employed is that persons in the permanent employment of the State shall not take a prominent or active part in political contests and it is not intended in future that any other restrictive rule should be imposed on the service of the Post Office."
  The Postmaster-General had tried to add to these rules, and as far as he could understand the nicety of the distinction which had been drawn, it was as to whether these societies in the Central Telegraph Office were branches connected with outside bodies. He supposed that most of these societies were connected with outside bodies. He knew the branch of the Tariff Reform League was. He was not, however, making any complaint as to the existence of these societies; what he did complain of was that the right hon. Gentleman allowed some societies but not others. There was a feeling in the Primrose League that the Postmaster-General had acted rather hurriedly in this matter, and that he had given his Answers to Questions without considering where they would lead him. The Primrose League was not a party organisation. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might think it was, but it was

  303
  formed specially for the purpose of supporting religion, the estates of the realm, and the Empire. [Laughter.] Did hon. Members who laughed not support those principles. The object of the promoters was to confine the work of the League to those three principles. The proposed branch of the Primrose League at the Central Telegraph Office gave a pledge to the Postmaster-General that they would strictly conform to his rules as to exercising a proper reserve and not support the funds or the candidature of any particular Members of this House. And yet the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his refusal to allow a branch of the Primrose League to be formed at the Central Telegraph Office. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to reconsider the whole question. He begged to move a reduction of this Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—"That Item Revenue Departments, Vote 3, be reduced by £100."—(Mr Samuel Roberts.)
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that they did not raise this question from any political motive nor in order to make an attack on the Socialists. They raised it in order to get equal rights for all political organisations. When the question was formerly raised in the House the right hon. Gentleman, replying to a Question put to him, said that the Primrose League was a political organisation identified with party politics, and that Post Office servants ought not to hold office in that league. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had stated that Civil servants could individually or collectively subscribe to any political organisation they chose. On 18th February the subject was raised by a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, and on that occasion he said that the decision which he had come to with regard to the Primrose League was founded on the existing rules governing the conduct of Post Office servants. He held in his hand the existing regulations, which were given on Friday last in Answer to a Question. The very first words were—
  "There are no regulations specifically dealing with political associations."
  304
  He did not see what right the Postmaster-General had to make the reply he did make to the Question put to him. He noticed that one of the rules said—
  "Nevertheless, it is expected of them as public servants that they should maintain a certain reserve in political matters, and not put themselves forward on one side or the other."
  Yet the right hon. Gentleman had openly admitted that he had allowed a political organisation in the Post Office to identify itself entirely with a Party in that House. The right hon. Gentleman had told them on several occasions that the Civil Servants Socialist League was not a political league. All that he and his friends asked was, if it was not a political league—What was it? Would the right hon. Gentleman get up and tell the Committee what the constitution of the league was. Beyond that, as the right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly well aware, there was another association in the Post Office which was just as strongly identified with a political Party as the Civil Servants Socialist League, known as the Fawcett Association. It was an association which was openly acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman. It was openly identified with the Labour Party. He held in his hand the balance sheet, which showed that the association contributed during last year to the Labour Party as subscription, as sustenance, and for affiliation, £63 10s. 4d. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the balance sheet, and whether it had been passed by him. There it was laid down that the Fawcett Association was affiliated to the Labour Party in that House. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that met with his approval or not. The Committee must recognise that the right hon. Gentleman had not behaved in a wise manner with regard to this question. He and his friends demanded that political associations of every sort should receive equal rights in the Department which the right hon. Gentleman represented.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,: I am very glad that this question has been raised in this form, and I have certainly no quarrel with the hon. Gentlemen who have raised it, if they have done so honestly,

  305
  as I am sure they have. I have in this matter been accused of dealing with various associations in a different manner—of recognising the status of one and refusing to recognise the status of another, although they are equally political. That is the case sought to be made out against me. I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, I have had no politics in my mind at all. I have endeavoured as far as I can to mete out even-handed justice among all the various societies, and if I have failed, that, at all events, has been my desire. Hon. Gentlemen are perfectly entitled to raise the question in the form they now propose. I would ask the Committee to consider what the position is in regard to this matter, and what are the existing rules. They are rules which were drawn up many years ago and are to a certain extent antiquated, and in some ways ambiguous, and I am obliged to interpret them to the best of my ability. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has already read extracts from the rules, and it may be as well to read the main substance of the rules. I put them again in possession of the Committee in order that they my see what the regulations are. The hon. Member for the Holderncss Division said that these rules did not apply to associations.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I quoted your words.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Member said that these rules apply to individuals, but in interpreting them I have to see, if individuals aggregate themselves, what will be their conduct as associations. As a matter of fact, these particular rules apply to the individual. It is the individual officer, and not an association, who would come under disciplinary action if, in any case, an association, or a member of it, infringed the rules of the Post Office. I hope hon. Gentlemen do not think that I was quibbling in that respect. I was only using ordinary terms, and it is quite clear that I have no power as head of the Post Office to act against an association as such, but I have power to act against any individual officers who may form an association and
  306
  commit a breach of the Post Office rules. The rules are thus really just to them. The only parts of which I need seize the House are contained in one or two sentences. I gave them in full on Friday or Saturday, and I will quote the point which really affects the present discussion—
  "Rule 42 (a.) Officers of the Post Office, having been relieved of the electoral disabilities to which they were formerly subject, are now eligible to be placed on the Parliamentary register, and to vote at a Parliamentary election. Nevertheless, it is expected of them as public servants that they should maintain a certain reserve in political matters, and not put themselves forward on one side or the other."
  The two substantial rules are—
  "That no postmaster, sub-postmaster, or other servant of the Department shall serve on a committee having for its object to promote or prevent the return of a particular candidate to Parliament."
  "That he shall not support or oppose any particular candidate or Party either by public speaking or writing."
  These are the regulations which really affect the matter. Then there is also the principle laid down by Mr. Gladstone in 1893 when, as First Lord of the Treasury, he was dealing with the Civil Service as a whole. He said—
  "The only restriction by the custom of the public service on persons employed is that persons in the permanent employment of the State shall not take a prominent or active part in political contests, and it is not intended in future that any other restrictive rule should be imposed on the service of the Post Office."
  That is to say, Post Office servants can vote or join any association they like, and they can either individually or in the aggregate subscribe to any association or society they choose; they can practically take an interest in party politics so long as they maintain a certain reserve in political matters. That is the rule that governs the action, not only of Post Office servants, but the whole of the Civil Service. I confess that the guidance of these rules is not very great, and they have to be interpreted partly by common sense, as far as I am able to exercise any amount of that quality. I quite agree that the Postmaster-General has to interpret them with equity and impartiality, and the policy I have laid down for myself in regard to this matter is this—to give the maximum amount of

  307
  liberty to Post Office servants as Civil servants which is consistent with the words I have read, namely: "that they should maintain a certain reserve in political matters." I confess that I see no objection whatever to Post Office or other Civil servants forming themselves into associations or societies. I do not think it would be a disadvantage to encourage them to take an intelligent interest in the problems of the day which they have, with others, to decide by their votes when the election comes. The more interest they take in politics generally, perhaps the less they will be inclined to take in the permanent officials of the Department, and, in particular, the Postmaster-General. We are not dealing, of course, with benefit and other societies, but with political societies. [AN HON. MEMBER: The Fawcett Association.] That is an association of Post Office servants which is in a totally different position from the trade union societies of the Post Office, and it is in a totally different position from the organisations to which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred. They are associations of Post Office servants to deal with Post Office questions, and I think that everyone will admit that they are in quite a different category from political associations, and accordingly they are entitled to recognition.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Would they be entitled to affiliate themselves with organisations outside?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Some of these associations have been going on for twenty years and it has never been held that being solely associations of Post Office servants for Post Office questions, they should not be allowed to become affiliated with organisations outside. I mean with the Trade Union Congress and other associations of that sort.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSWhat is the subscription?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not laying down rules and regulations out of my own head. I am endeavouring
  308
  to deal with a matter which has always been dealt with by the Post Office and other Departments of the Civil Service which considered whether the State ought to interfere with the discretion of individuals and associations.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this association contributed £53 10s. to the Labour Party. Does that involve the association as connected with a political party?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: What I say is that I do not propose to lay down the rule that subscriptions from individuals or associations in the Civil Service constitute in themselves any infringement of the rule against taking part in politics outside. Of course, a more difficult question is that to which reference has been made by the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote, viz., the question of political societies or associations not for Post Office purposes, but for educational purposes inside the Post Office. I am not, as a rule, asked for permission for these associations to be formed, and when they are formed the only question that arises is whether or not they carry out the regulations of the Post Office. Anyone may form such an association in the Post Office, but they take the risk, if they break the regulations, of being brought under the disciplinary observation of their superior officer. The rule I have endeavoured to carry out in this matter is that a certain reserve in political matters should be observed. If these associations appear to me to be what they profess, and are carried on for educational purposes inside the Post Office, they are treated as non-political if they do not take an active part in politics, but carry out the regulations I have referred to. It appears to me that a pretty clear line can be drawn in this matter. If an association is merely a branch of an existing association outside and takes part in party politics, and cannot be dissociated from the parent body, and must therefore take an active part in party politics outside, it comes within the rule; but if the association is constituted for purposes

  309
  inside the Post Office and exercises in the Post Office its, functions with due discretion and does not take part in active party politics outside, it seems to me that a distinction can be drawn under the regulations, and as long as that association does not contravene the regulations I should propose that it be allowed to continue. I have laid down exactly the same rule for all associations, although the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote did not think I had. It seems to be thought that I have dealt out a different measure to the Primrose League than to other associations. I was asked whether I would object to a branch of the Primrose League being formed in the Post Office. I pointed out that the league, being as I believed, a political organisation, it did not seem right that officers of the Post Office should take office under it, because by doing so they would be breaking the regulations. I understood that the habitation could not be formed without their taking office under the Primrose League. I am glad to think that those persons who are interested in the matter, recognising that by so doing they would be breaking the regulations, have done what I should have expected. They have formed inside the Post Office a constitutional society with a constitution which is, I believe, the constitution of the Primrose League. This body, however, is not connected with the Primrose League, and, therefore, it is not brought into contact with active party politics. So far as I am aware, the position is the same in the case of the Socialist organisation called the Pioneer League. That league was started before I came into office and I am not responsible for its creation, but the hon. Member has perhaps, hardly given a fair account of it. My attention was called to it after the House met, and on making inquiries I found that that particular league had been wound up, and that the members had joined another Socialist association within the Civil Service, the basis of which is found in the principles laid down in the 3rd Rule of that body, viz.:
  "The object of the society is to educate the members of the service in the principles of Socialism; political action is to be outside its province, and the general funds are not to be used for any other organisation."
  AN HON. MEMBER (on the OPPOSITION Benches): They are.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It appeared to me under these circumstances that that association came within the interpretation which I have ventured to give to the regulations. Those who desired a habitation of the Primrose League have formed such an association and will be able to carry on their very excellent work within the Post Office. The Socialist League has come within the regulations and formed a self-supporting, independent body instead of the old society. The same principle has been followed in the case of the Free Trade League. As to the Tariff Reform League, I drew attention to the fact that it was affiliated outside, and I understand that the secretary has undertaken to lay the matter before the committee, and I expect from what the secretary has said that they also will bring themselves under the regulations. Therefore, whether hon. Members agree or not with me in the interpretation I have given to these rules, which are not very easy to interpret, I say I have dealt exactly in the same way with the Primrose League as with the Socialist League, the Free Trade League, and the Tariff Reform League. An hon. Member urged that I ought to have admitted the Primrose League at once, because it was not a political organisation taking an active part in party politics. I do not desire to discuss the constitution of the Primrose League, because hon. Members opposite know more about it than I do. However, on Saturday last, I was reading Sir H. Drummond Wolff's "Memoirs," in which I found the following passage which disposes of the allegation that the Primrose League is not a political organisation—
  "After leaving finally in 1881 we founded the Primrose League with the details of which I was concerned. In 1884 matters were sufficiently ripe to invite the co-operation of the two leaders in promoting the prospects of the Conservative Party. We offered Lord Salisbury, and Sir Stafford Northcote the highest offices in the league, and these offices were accepted."
  That shows that those who founded the league intended it for the purpose of promoting the success of the Conservative Party, and yet hon. Members will say it

  311
  is not an association which takes an active part in party politics! The hon. Member who spoke last alleged or insinuated that the constitution of the Socialist League, which provided that they would take no political action outside its province and that the general funds were not to be used for any other organisation, was a mere blind. The same might be said as true of the Constitutional Society, and that that society is also going to take a part in party politics.
  MR. RAWLINSON: I ask why we should have unequal treatment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have endeavoured to explain to the best of my ablilty that I have treated all the associations exactly in the same way, and that they have all brought themselves within the regulations. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Primrose League?"] The Primrose League is a constitutional movement which exists in the Post Office at the present moment. They have chosen the right way to do it; they have brought themselves under the regulations, and I have treated them in exactly the same way as I have treated other organisations. I am prepared to believe that the Post Office servants in dealing with these matters are not putting before me mere paper constitutions or making use of their professions as a blind, but that they intend these societies to be genuinely what they profess to be, educating societies; but at the same time if in any particular case my attention is called to a breach of these regulations I shall not hesitate to take disciplinary action against any of these societies. I apologise to the Committee for detaining them so long, but I have had to explain all these matters more than once. I may have failed, but as far as I am concerned my object has been to do even-handed justice to all these associations, but they must conform to the rules and regulations of the Post Office and endeavour to carry them out.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: It gets more and more difficult
  312
  as we go along to analyse the principles of the Postmaster-General's action, or indeed to discover if there are any underlying principles at all. The right hon. Gentleman claims that he has acted with justice and impartiality, but his action is so enshrouded and surrounded by a nebulous vapour of confused principles that it is almost impossible to discover if there is anything lying behind. The fact is, as I believe, that the right hon. Gentleman has got hopelessly away from the fundamental principles of the rules laid down by Mr. Gladstone. The groundwork of the fallacy of the right hon. Gentleman is to be found in the use of the words: "inside the Post Office." I do not believe that the old regulations were intended, or in the early stages had the effect, of permitting Post Office servants to use either Post Office organisation, or Post Office titles, or premises as a basis of political operations. There can be only two supreme tests. One is to ask what other use can the titles of Post Office Socialists, or Post Office Conservatives, or Post Office Primrose Leaguers have, except the purpose of getting that added prestige, that superior organisation, that higher power of raising subscriptions which possibly arises from the fact that the members meet constantly in the same place by virtue of their being employed in the same service. It is not for the benefit of the State that this should be permitted. The fullest liberty should be given to them off duty to organise themselves as private citizens as they think proper. I mentioned two tests. The other test is when individuals or associations begin to attempt to affect the composition of this House by promoting the return of a Member or a group of Members. It is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to maintain in these days that Socialism is not a political agitation. The mere fact that the Socialist Party and the Socialist propaganda are opposed to the two old Parties of the House makes it obvious that it is a political party on the same footing as other political parties, even if there were no other equally cogent reasons for seeing how its operations and aims stand in relation to those of the old political parties. I think I have indicated with much respect where the

  313
  fallacy of the right hon. Gentleman lies, and I think all these political parties ought not to exist in the Post Office at all, and that the employees ought not to be allowed to do anything to use their official position to further their political ends.
  *MR. MADDISONconsidered that the right hon. Gentleman had disposed of any grievance hon. Gentlemen opposite might think they had in regard to partial treatment, as before the Postmaster-General spoke he thought that the Primrose League had been debarred while the Socialist League had been called into being. That, however, had not been the case, because the Primrose League now took the form of the Constitutional Association, but it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the whole thing to an absurdity. Here was the Primrose League wanting to get inside the Post Office. Why they should do so he did not know. They could not get in because they had a parent body outside, but the right hon. Gentleman helped them to get out of that: they became the Constitutional Association, and were doing exactly the same thing as the Primrose League. By some sort of metaphysics he could not understand they were to be allowed as a Constitutional Association to go on educating Post Office officials in Primrose League doctrines and the principles of Conservatism. How the right hon. Gentleman could go on telling the Committee that the Socialistic League was non-political he could not for the life of him understand. Its purpose was to educate. Was not that the purpose of all political organisations, although he was aware that some of them did a little more than that. What did they educate in? The economics of Socialism, which they could not separate from its politics. The proof of that was that when a certain comrade of theirs was returned as a revolutionary Socialist they at once sent him a congratulatory telegram, and he at once replied, and they subscribed to his election expenses. Was that education? Putting aside philanthropic and charitable organisations and trade unions as arguable from another standpoint—leaving them out of view altogether,
  314
  he thought it was altogether against public policy to allow a political association or organisation to use the name of any Department of State in any form whatever. Let them suppose that this principle were applied to trading firms. They would have a Peter Robinson Primrose League, or a Whiteley Socialist League, or a Wallis Free Trade League, or a Marshall and Snelgrove Tariff Reform League. They did not expect a Government Department to be carried on on such business lines as private concerns, but still they thought a Government system should have some approximation to the methods of business men. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was getting, himself more and more tied up every time he dealt with the subject, and the best, indeed the only way, was to clear out of the Post Office and every other Department, all political associations, whether they were Socialist, Primrose League, tariff reformers, young Liberals, or old Tories, or anything else. That would not interfere with individual liberty. There were many other associations—two of the best and gentlest men he ever met were philosophic anarchists who did everything by propaganda—which could come crowding in and say their objects were educational and not political and would equally send congratulatory telegrams to their colleagues on their return to Parliament.
  EARL WINTERTONsaid he was afraid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was one of those philanderers to which reference had been made. [Mr. MADDISON: What is a philanderer?] He did not know, but the right hon. Gentleman had used the phrase in speaking on Saturday last. No one could complain that there was anything in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was in the least unfair or to which anyone could object, but their argument was that either no organisations should be allowed in the Post Office, or they must have equal treatment. He rather dissented from the view of his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield in thinking that the Primrose League was not political. He dissented from his view; he thought that it was wholly party and

  315
  political. But that was not the point. Let them say it was party and political; what was the Socialist League? Therefore they demanded equal treatment for any political league if it was allowed to exist inside the Post Office. They had not the least objection to the Pioneer Socialist League, because if they carried on their propaganda they would make more Conservatives in a month than they on that side could in a year; but if they were allowed to form associations in the Post Office the party on that side of the House should also have an equal right to do so. He was sure that not a single hon. Member opposite who listened to the speech of the Postmaster-General could tell the Committee what the right hon. Gentleman meant. He was quite at a loss to understand the distinction the right hon. Gentleman appeared to draw between a branch and an affiliation. It seemed to him to be a quibble. Here was the Pioneer Socialist League formed for the propagation of Socialist views, which had practically taken part in an election, and the right hon. Gentleman said that that was not political; whereas another of a similar character was said to be political. Here was this association which was political, and the right hon. Gentleman could not allow another association to be formed, because it was political. That was exactly how the position stood. The right hon. Gentleman had done nothing to show what was the difference between the two, and he thought it would be far better had he admitted that he had added another act of gaucherie to those which were committed by this Government every day.
  MR. BRODIEsaid he could not refrain from responding to the challenge which had been thrown out by the noble Lord that nobody on that side of the House who had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman could possibly understand what he meant. It seemed to him perfectly clear, though hon. Members opposite had entirely failed to catch the point which the right hon. Gentleman had again and again endeavoured to drive home. As far as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman desired to differentiate between general political associations which were well
  316
  known throughout the country and leagues or associations formed inside the Post Office for propagating various principles. The right hon. Gentleman had also made it perfeetly clear that the Pioneer Socialist League was simply an association within the Post Office itself, intended to propagate Socialist principles, and that under the rules previously laid down there was no reason to interfere with that society. He had shown himself perfectly willing to allow similar associations to propagate other principles. There was now formed within the Post Office an association which, though not a Habitation of the Primrose League, propagated the principles, such as they were, of the Primrose League, a Free Trade Association, and apparently a Tariff Reform Association, but not one of these associations had any direct connection or affiliation with outside bodies.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I have listened to the remarks of the last speaker, and I do not understand them at all. If that is the interpretation of the speech of my right hon. friend opposite there is not much to be said. I hope the Postmaster-General is going to say something more. The issue is a very clear one. As the hon. Member for Burnley put it, it is a question of excluding all political combinations in the Post Office, or allowing all of them. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that? What does he propose to do? It appears to every Member of the Committee that the distinction he endeavoured to draw between the Primrose League and the other associations is too flimsy to be maintained for a moment. I am quite certain that he is not satisfied with it himself. It has been shown that all those other associations are, if not affiliated, in direct connection with outsiders. I am not blaming the Socialistic Party, but to say that they are not political is as absurd as to say that the Primrose League is not political. Of course they are. What else do they exist for? Are they to be a sort of debating society? They are political, and what we want to know from my right hon. friend is, is he prepared to mete out equal treatment to all? Is he prepared to admit them all or to

  317
  forbid them all? My right hon. friend the Member for the Hallam Division put the matter very fairly when he said that the strength of these associations inside the Post Office is their governmental character. They are Post Office associations, and therefore have a value and power that they would not have if they were mere outsiders. Will my right hon. friend tell the Committee whether he is prepared to do away with all these associations inside the Post Office, which I think is the best plan, leaving them as individuals absolute freedom to do what they like outside their business hours, or if he is not prepared to do that, is he prepared to admit them all on equal terms? I am sure my right hon. friend is the last man in the House that we would like to worry in any way. I have always felt that he is so superior to us, that his political righteousness is a standing reflection to the ordinary Parliamentary sinner. But gold is not much use for everyday work unless it has a little alloy in it. Whenever I think of my right hon. friend I think of some lines by Mr. Seaman, the gifted editor of Punch, when speaking of another important character he said—
  "It is not given to everyone to be wise, but they should be good."
  I hope my right hon. friend will not allow this debate to be of no service. If the matter rests where it is, the difficulty will be continued, and we shall have question after question addressed to him, whereas it lies in the right hon. Gentleman's power now to say in language which the Committee can understand and with which it will be satisfied: "I will abolish or forbid political associations inside the Post Office, as we should do in any mercantile or other business undertaking; or if I do permit one I will permit all, and treat them all alike." If my right hon. friend will in a few words, without mixing it up with all the verbiage of which he is somewhat a master, say one of these two things, he would settle the question for all time. I believe the abolition of all these associations inside the Post Office would be the best solution of all. If the members of the Post Office want to engage in party politics
  318
  they have perfect freedom to do so, but not to take the prestige of a great public department to back them up. If the right hon. Gentleman would do that he would save himself a great deal of trouble, he would lay down the principles of Post Office management on the only true lines, and he would settle this question altogether.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: After the very kindly appeal of my right hon. friend the Committee will let me say one or two words in reply. I can assure my right hon. friend that I had no desire in what I said before by verbiage to cover the point. I made it perfectly clear that as far as I am concerned I have endeavoured and shall certainly in the future endeavour to treat all those associations on identically the same terms. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would either prohibit them all or admit them on the same terms. I said in my speech that I do not think these associations when they are carried on on proper lines make for harm. I think on the whole they make for good. After all, these Post Office servants have votes, and I do not see why they should not be encouraged to discuss political matters from an educational point of view as Post Office servants and to form associations amongst themselves. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think they do it in Post Office time. They do not. If they did that they would not remain long as Post Office servants. But meeting together day by day, I do not think it is unnatural that they should desire to form associations of this kind, and I for one do not think them harmful. Therefore, I am not disposed to prohibit them, especially as, after all, I have not been the first to admit them. They have been there a good many years, and it would be a totally new departure for the Civil Service to prohibit them. It has been my intention to maintain absolute equality, and I desire with regard to this matter that the Postmaster-General should know no politics whatever. I have not said one is more political than another. I have said they must all come under the regulations which say they must maintain a certain, reserve in political matters, and I judge

  319
  each case on its merits. If my attention is called to a breach of these regulations I can assure my right hon. friend I will carry them out with full impartiality. I hope I have answered the question as kindly and as shortly as possible.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he could not help feeling astonished at the speech made by the Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman kept reiterating that he was endeavouring to treat the question with impartiality, and yet he absolutely refused to do so. What they should do now would be to demand that he either withdrew the restrictions he had placed on the Primrose League or exclude every other sort of political organisation from the Post Office.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Have I imposed on the Primrose League any restrictions not imposed on any other organisation?
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had allowed two associations in the Post Office which were affiliated to a political party. He had told them that the Fawcett Association took no part in political discussions of any sort, but he had a copy of the Post, the organ of the Fawcett Association, which, he had no doubt, was known to the right hon. Gentleman. He found that the association sent to the National Conference at Hull delegates from the Post Office. That must show that it was distinctly affiliated to the Labour Party. There was a report in the paper, signed by the delegates who went to the Conference, and with the permission of the Committee he would read their concluding remarks. They said—
  "We strongly recommend adhesion to the Labour Party as the one to which we can as a right look for help when needed. Its record is one to be proud of, and it will undoubtedly do much to improve the condition of the workers in the days to come, and in that improvement
  320
  we will share if only we maintain our right to a voice and a vote in the policy of the party."
  Could the right hon. Gentleman therefore tell them that the Fawcett Association took no part in political discussions of any sort? They demanded either the withdrawal of the restrictions imposed on the Primrose League, or the exclusion of the organisations which existed at the present time. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman mete out the same treatment to them all? He did not know whether he would be in order in saying: "Let them all come." Let the Socialist League, the Primrose League, the Free Trade League, and the Tariff Reform League have equal rights and privileges. That was their demand and that was what they asked the right hon. Gentleman to do.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that he would not have intervened in the debate only he thought, as a Civil servant for some thirty-five years, he had a right to speak on this matter. He would not, however, detain the Committee more than a few moments. It was perfectly well known in the Civil Service that any one whose opinion had any weight was strictly precluded from taking part in political life. For thirty-five years he himself never gave a vote, and never took any part in any political organisation, and never attended any political meetings. Anyone knew that a person occupying a responsible position in the Civil Service would not be allowed to take such a part. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the same rule applied to every public office. He distinctly traversed that statement. In not a single public office, except that over which the right hon. Gentleman presided would such organisations be permitted. What would have happened if the Education Office, to which he belonged, had had a Primrose League, a Socialist League, a Tariff Reform League, and a Free Trade League?

  321
  The thing would have been stamped out at once, and rightly so. Everybody knew that the Post Office stood on a totally different footing from any other Public Department in the State. It was the largest employer of labour in the country, and what could interfere more with the administration of the Post Office and with the rights of the taxpayers as compared with the employees of the Post Office than the existence of an organisation which was in strict alliance with the Labour Party below the gangway? They said boldly that that was the reason for the preference given by the right hon. Gentleman. It was only in that office that these societies were allowed to exist. Everybody knew what was the aim of the Labour League, and that it would increase the burden upon the taxpayers. Everybody knew that the right hon. Gentleman himself had
  been compelled to yield to the demands the Labour leaders had forced upon him. It was for that reason that they declined to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. He asked him to exclude from the Post Office as from every other office under the Crown these political organisations of whatever colour. He was perfectly certain that the concession, defended in whatever specious phraseology, was chiefly made in the interests of the Socialist League, which was really in alliance with the Labour League, which was prepared to fight the right hon. Gentleman when he stood up for the interests of the taxpayers.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 63; Noes, 206. (Division List, No. 44.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gretton, John

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hills, J. W.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Keswick, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Earl Winterton.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  NOES.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brigg, John

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Beale, W. P.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Agnew, George William

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

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

  Alden, Percy

  Bennett, E. N.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Armitage, R.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Branch, James

  Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Clough, William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Robinson, S.

  Corbett CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George

  Roche, John (Galway, East

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cox, Harold

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowlands, J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Runciman, Walter

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Maclean, Donald

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Crae, George

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Summerbell, T.

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Maddison, Frederick

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Findlay, Alexander

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Tomkinson, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Verney, F. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gooch, George Pea body

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Massie, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Menzies, Walter

  Waring, Walter

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Murray, James

  Watt, Henry A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Myer, Horatio

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, J.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hogan, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williamson, A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Idris, T. H. W.

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

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Radford, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—West London, Barnes, and Richmond Tramways [H.L.].
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Cambrian Railways—(Petition for Bill).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Standing Orders Committee.—Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction; and East and West Junction Railways (Amalgamation) Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that a clause be inserted in the Bill to the following effect, viz.:—That no sale of the amalgamated undertaking shall take place without the consent of the Memorialists Charles William Bartholomew, Richard Donald Bain, and William Howard Gray, which does not provide for the payment to the said Memorialists of the sum of at least £5,000 in cash in respect of the debenture stock mentioned in Section 4 of the Act of 1901, or in respect of the stock of the new Company incorporated by the Bill to be exchanged therefore under the provisions of the said Bill.
Read, and agreed to.
Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]—Reported from the Select Committee, with amendments.
Madras Railway Company (Annuities) Bill.—Read 2a, and committed for Wednesday next.
Great Western Railway (Superannuation Scheme) Bill [H.L.]—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, 1907, VOL. XLII., PART II).
  Returns of produce of crops in Great Britain, with summaries for the United Kingdom.
  EMIGRATION.
  Report on the Emigrants' Information Office, for the year ended 31st December, 1907.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Board of Education—(Education Bill, 1908)—Print of the enactments proposed to be amended or repealed in the schedules to the Bill. (Welsh Department)—Regulations and conditions affecting the recognition by the Board of Education under Section 48 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, of elementary schools in Wales and Monmouthshire (being neither public elementary schools nor schools applying for recognition under any other Act of Parliament) as certified efficient schools.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 27th February, 1908, amending the terms of Paragraph 2 of the Minute of 27th April, 1899, providing for the distribution of the sum available for secondary or technical (including agricultural) education under the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898.
  CHARITY COMMISSION.
  Fifty-fifth Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales.
  EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report and tables for the year 1907.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (SUPPLEMENT TO ANNUAL REPORT OF CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR 1906).
  Returns of persons employed in 1904, in non-textile factories, and summary

  103
  of annual reports of Medical Officers of Health for 1906.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Two Orders in Council, dated 29th February, 1908:—Applying Section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to deserters from Roumanian ships; and Revoking the Order in Council of 2nd November, 1907, relating to the same subject.
  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
  Orders in Council approving memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to:—The continuance of payment of command money heretofore paid to the Captains of the Gunnery Schools at Sheerness and Devonport, and allowances to gunners at those schools on their amalgamation with the Royal Naval Barracks at Chatham and Devonport; Improvements in the pay and position of commissioned warrant officers and warrant officers, and in the pensions of chief and head schoolmasters in His Majesty's Navy; The payment of prize money for proficiency in torpedo practice; Certain modifications in the rules respecting allowances for gunnery and torpedo and the application to men in the service of the regulations abolishing re-engaged pay.
  SPRING ASSIZES ACT, 1879.
  Two Orders in Council, dated 29th February, 1908, constituting Spring Assize Counties, Nos. 2 and 3, for the purpose of the ensuing Spring Assizes.
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1907.
  Act of Sederunt, regulating the fees payable in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, and prescribing the form of books of account to be kept by Sheriff Clerks.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF ESSEX).
  Order made by the council of the county of Essex altering certain polling districts in the Mid or Chelmsford Parliamentary Division.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Order made by the council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the Sowerby Bridge Urban District.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 15th March, 1908, granting a retired allowance to James Ranyard Lee, First Class Attendant, British Museum, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I beg to move the First Reading of a Bill to amend the Official Secrets Act, 1889. I desire to say only two or three sentences in connection with it. The Bill relates to the difficult subject of official secrets—that is to say, documents and information which it is contrary to the public interest should be made public. The Bill will be circulated at once, and will, therefore, be immediately available to your Lordships. I take this notice of it on First Reading because I hope that in the interval before the Second Reading those who are interested in this subject will be so good as to pay attention to it, in order that we may have it thoroughly considered and discussed on the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed (No. 28).

MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY moved an Amendment providing that the Act might be

105
adopted, not "for any borough," but for "any metropolitan borough" by a resolution of the council, passed by a majority of three-fifths of the members present and voting. He said that on the Second Reading of the Bill he had ventured to point out the very great difference between provincial councils and metropolitan councils. In the case of the latter the elections were triennial, the whole of the councillors being elected every three years, and it undoubtedly did happen occasionally that all the councillors elected were of the same way of thinking. But in the provincial boroughs one-third of the councillors retired each year, and in almost every case the boroughs were divided into wards returning three members each; the result was that one member in each ward retired annually. His noble friend Lord Courtney would admit that his scheme would not work to the best advantage in a constituency returning only three members; it was framed mainly for constituencies returning five or more members, and there undoubtedly was something to be said for giving an opportunity to the minority to return a member. In the case of a three-member constituency the scheme would work out not very differently from that of the cumulative vote or the arrangement made in the Act of 1867 for three-cornered constituencies in Parliamentary elections. In those cases the minority had an opportunity of returning one member, and he thought if it were desirable to give an opportunity for the election of a minority member in a constituency returning three members then the cumulative vote or the scheme in the Act of 1867—namely, that of giving two votes instead of three to each elector—would work very much simpler and better than the elaborate scheme proposed in this Bill. Not a single witness who appeared before the Select Committee on this Bill made any complaint in respect of provincial boroughs. The evidence was to the effect that the system of election now in existence, whereby one-third of the members retired annually, gave general satisfaction, and the Municipal Corporations Association, representing the corporations throughout the country, were unanimous in favour of the existing system and against that proposed in Lord Courtney's
106
Bill. He thought, therefore, the weight of authority was very greatly against extending the Bill to provincial boroughs. The effect of his Amendment would be to confine it to metropolitan boroughs.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'any borough' and to insert the words 'any metropolitan borough.'"—(Lord Eversley.)
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHhoped their Lordships would not entertain the Amendment. His noble friend had been very brief in his explanation of the Amendment; so brief that he had left out one most important fact in connection with it. Lord Eversley had forgotten to remind their Lordships that this was a permissive Bill. It enabled boroughs to adopt the alternative scheme if so disposed, but the effect of the Amendment would be to provide that metropolitan boroughs might adopt the scheme, but provincial boroughs might not. It was admitted that the case of the provincial boroughs was not so strong as that of the metropolitan boroughs; but, nevertheless, it was not so weak as his noble friend supposed. There was evidence of the imperfection of the working of the present system in the country boroughs, and he had had representations from one or two provincial boroughs with respect to the application of the Bill to the provinces. He had even received communications from Scotland and. Ireland asking for the extension of the Bill to those countries; but he would not dwell upon that point. He hoped their Lordships would not curtail the freedom allowed by the Bill to municipal bodies generally to adopt for their elections a system of proportional representation.
LORD ASHBOURNE, while admitting the force of what had been said by Lord Eversley, thought there was a good deal in the point brought out by Lord Courtney that this was a permissive and not a compulsory Bill. As the measure was an experimental one he thought it desirable that it should be left in its present elastic form, and he hoped Lord Eversley would be satisfied with having made his protest.
LORD BELPER, as Chairman of the Select Committee, said the Committee had fully before them all the circumstances mentioned by Lord Eversley, but it was to be remembered that this was, after all, to be an experiment. Many of the provincial boroughs might not care about trying it, and therefore no harm would be done; but if any of them wished to try it, why should they be prevented? He thought it would be rather unreasonable to cut them out of trying the experiment if they wished to do so. The Committee certainly made no proposal to limit the Bill in the way proposed, and he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
LORD AVEBURYalso opposed the Amendment. Lord Eversley had said that in the country districts there was ample protection for the minority, but he did not explain how that came about. Let their Lordships imagine an election in a provincial constituency where one side had a majority. They carried their candidate one year, the next year the same majority returned another candidate, and the third year the same majority again returned their man. Therefore, although the majority might be a comparatively small one, it secured the whole of the representation. Lord Eversley had expressed the opinion that if this Bill were extended to the provinces, the cumulative vote or the three-cornered system would be preferable to the system set out in the Bill; but he could assure their Lordships that there was hardly anyone who had studied this question and was in favour of proportional representation who did not believe that the system in the Bill was preferable.
LORD ALLENDALEsaid that if the Bill was adopted, the Local Government Board were of opinion that there was no reason why the provincial boroughs should not have the same freedom of making a choice as the metropolitan boroughs. The Local Government Board were not aware that there was any great demand for the Bill, but if the Amendment was carried it would necessitate many alterations of a consequential character. In these circumstances he hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH moved an Amendment in the same clause providing that the Act might be continued in force for any borough by a further resolution of the council passed within six months before the expiration of the further period of three years by a majority of the members present and voting: "and after any such further resolution this Act shall remain in force without any limitation of time." He explained that this Amendment and the other Amendments standing in his name hung together, and were simply intended to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee. It was thought that the Bill in its present shape failed to do so exactly. The Amendments fully carried out, in the opinion of Lord Belper, its Chairman, the intentions of the Select Committee.
Amendment moved.
"In page 1, line 21, to leave out from the word 'voting' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'and after any such further resolution this Act shall remain in force without any limitation of time.' "—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
LORD BELPERsaid this Amendment and the others standing in the name of Lord Courtney were for the purpose, as the noble Lord had stated, of bringing the Bill in conformity with the scheme recommended by the Select Committee. Therefore their Lordships could safely accept them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 21, after Subsection (7) to insert the following new Subsection: (8) When this Act ceases to be in force in any borough, one-third of the councillors of which would, but for the adoption of this Act, have retired every year, the particular councillors to retire on the two ordinary days of election next after this Act ceases to be in force shall be determined by lot, in such manner as the mayor may prescribe.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'expiration of six months from the passing of the resolution,' and to insert the words 'adoption of this Act.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 4."—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to, and Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.
Re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 29.)

SMALL HOLDINGS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the sum of £100,000 is placed to the Small Holdings Account and at the disposal of the Board up to 31st March next, with the prospect of further grants from the Imperial Exchequer in succeeding financial years, the Board have it in contemplation to take any proceedings under Section 16 of the Small Holdings Act, 1907, to demonstrate the feasibility of the establishment of small holdings in some parts of England where they do not at present exist; also whether the regulations laying down the conditions under which financial assistance will be given to county councils towards the costs of valuation, and the expenses of a local inquiry, etc., promised in the Board's Circular of 1st January, 1908, have yet been issued.
Your Lordships will recollect that one of the principal objects which the noble Earl declared that the Board of Agriculture had in mind was the institution of experiments in different parts of England in small holdings where small
110
holdings did not then exist. That, I think, was founded on the Report of the Departmental Committee, and, inasmuch as a considerable sum of money will be at the disposal of the Board, I am in hopes that the noble Earl the President will be able to inform your Lordships that it is their intention to make use of some portion, at any rate, of that money in the direction I have indicated. Your Lordships will remember that one of the objects of the Act was to stimulate county councils who appeared to be somewhat disinclined to carry out the duties imposed upon them by the Act. I think it will be found that there will be many county councils who will not be very desirous of entering into rash experiments, lest it would involve a charge on the rates; and therefore I very much hope that, wherever the noble Earl finds there is that disinclination and where his Commissioners and the Board report to him that in their belief an experiment might be tried with success, he will be inclined to try the experiment with the funds at the disposal of the Board provided by the Treasury rather than compel county councils to undertake work which they may think will throw a burden on the ratepayers. With regard to the second part of my Question, I merely wish to know whether the regulations have been issued, and, if not, how soon they will be sent out. There is a great deal of anxiety on the part of county councils to know in what position they stand in the matter.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, in answer to the Question of my noble friend, the House will be glad to hear that, so far as we can make out at present, there will be no difficulty whatever in making experiments with regard to small holdings. The county councils and landowners generally are meeting us in every possible way, and there is every reason to thank them for the zeal and energy they are showing. Of course, the Small Holdings Act of last Session has been in operation for hardly twelve weeks yet, and the preliminary inquiries are not yet complete, but it is hoped very soon to ascertain

111
the approximate demands of the country, and then we must find out how far the demands are genuine, and how many of the applicants are of the right sort. A great many have already applied, and in Kent, Lord Darnley, the chairman of the committee of that county, reports that 134 applicants have been interviewed, and he and his committee were enabled to approve of 119 at once. Up to this morning 141,008 acres, or 236 square miles, had been applied for. There are over 9,000 applicants on the list, and the applications are coming in every day. In referring to the support which county councils have received from landowners, perhaps I might be allowed specially to mention Lord Dartmouth and Lord Hare wood, whose action has been prominently brought before the Board; and also the Marquess of Anglesey and Lord Boston, who have rendered great assistance in this direction in North Wales. I hope that in the next few years thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hard-working, industrious men will be making an honest and, I hope, a profitable livelihood on the land. As regards the second question, the regulations referred to have not yet been issued, but we are in communication with the Treasury on the subject.
EARL ROSEBERY: I am exceedingly glad to hear from my noble friend his unsolicited tribute to the zeal, energy, and intelligence shown by the English county councils. I suppose he is not prepared at this moment to state off-hand, in behalf of the Government, their reasons for thinking that the Scottish county councils would act differently if they had the powers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Scottish county councils are, under the Bill which unfortunately was rejected by your Lordships the other day, not included because what that Bill was concerned with was taxes, whereas under the English Act it is rates.
EARL ROSEBERY: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, and would only point out that under the Bill of Lord Camper-down, still before your Lordships, the Scottish county councils are so entrusted.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War the following Questions: (1) How many of the 15-pounder guns for the armament of the Territorial Force have now been converted. What further number will be available for distribution at the end of the month; (2) what County Associations have already been supplied with a gun or guns; and (3) in what order will guns be supplied to other County Associations? There is a subsequent question which has recently been brought to my attention, and of which I have given the noble Earl the Under-Secretary private notice—it relates to riding schools. I am informed by one of those gentlemen who have most patriotically come forward to raise a battery of field artillery in my county that it is absolutely necessary that the men should be taught in a riding school; and my own scanty knowledge of horsemanship certainly suggests that in the early stages privacy is of some advantage. I do not know whether anything has been settled, but I hope the noble Earl will be able to answer my Question, namely, whether, if riding schools are absolutely necessary, assistance will be given to the County Associations to provide them.
With regard to the guns for the armament of the Territorial Force, the noble Earl told us the other night that the distribution would depend on the rapidity with which garrison artillery are converted into field artillery. Since that answer was given we have had an interesting debate raised by my noble friend below me, Lord Midleton, in the course of which the opinion of Lord Wolseley was quoted. We also had a very interesting speech from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the cross benches, Lord Roberts, and this morning there is a letter in The Times from Lord Denbigh who has had considerable experience in connection with the Honourable Artillery Company. All these opinions go to prove that there are considerable difficulties awaiting those who are contemplating the creation of a large force of artillery on the conditions proposed, and that badly-trained artillery might be even an actual danger. I do not wish

113
to question what has been said. I have no experience to justify my doing so, but, speaking as a representative of a County Association, I do realise that one of the heaviest duties which has been imposed upon us is the raising of this force.; and, if the Government insist on our endeavouring to raise this large number of men, we shall want all possible assistance from the military authorities. One of the districts in my own county, which we had looked upon as promising ground for raising a battery of field artillery, has, as a result of the debate in your Lordships' House the other day, come to the conclusion that it is most undesirable to raise a force which might be "a positive danger." That is the difficulty in which we are placed.
The point I particularly wish to emphasise in regard to the distribution of guns is this. We are told that the distribution will depend on the rapidity with which garrison artillery are converted into field artillery. I am informed by an officer of considerable experience who will command the brigade in the north of my county, and who has to raise 23 officers and 919 men, that he cannot get the men to convert, or secure recruits, until they get the guns. The guns are not to be given till the men are converted or raised, but the men will not convert or join until they get the guns. The men are hesitating because they have been frequently promised that the new guns are to be given to them; those promises have been so often falsified that the men do not believe in the new guns at all. I am told that one of the converted 15-pounders was seen to-day in the vicinity of your Lordships' House. I did not see it, but I understand it was on view. I hope the guns will be distributed to the County Associations as soon as possible. The Artillery Volunteers have always been handicapped in this way, and I hear that they are threatened with having to do this year's training with the old guns—guns which were old when they were distributed nineteen years ago. If some thing is not done speedily it will be quite impossible for the County Associations to raise the numbers expected of them.
114
I do not know how far the noble Earl has influence with the Government he represents, but I should like, on behalf of the County Associations, to suggest that he and his colleagues should be a little careful about the legislation they introduce. In one district in my county the people are unable to think of anything but the Licensing Bill and what its results in that particular locality will be, and as we had hoped to raise a considerable number of men of various Arms from that district we are again considerably handicapped. If the noble Earl could induce his colleagues to be a little more careful about what they do in regard to general legislation it would be very much better for the Territorial Force. In Staffordshire we have five excellent battalions, one of which will have to go, and it is difficult to say which ought to be sacrificed. A Report was drawn up as long ago as the end of January, but it is still somewhere in the War Office; no one in the country has heard anything of the matter since. I would point out that it is essential that it should be known which particular unit is to be disbanded. We have had instructions from the War Office as to the character of the flag which we who double the part of President of the County Association and Lord-Lieutenant may fly, and as to the character of the cuff to be worn by deputy-Lieutenants when in undress uniform. These are very interesting, but they are not, if I may venture to say so, essential to the success of this scheme, and I think it is more important that these unfortunate men who are to be disbanded should be given that information before we interest our selves with regard to minor points.
EARL FORTESCUE: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to put to him one or two Questions of which I have given him private notice. First, I should like to ask whether the equitation allowance of £1 will be given to mounted men of the Territorial Artillery as well as to the Yeomanry. The desirability of this is obvious. The artillery driver is more skilled than the Yeoman, and if one is deserving of the equitation allowance the other is deserving also. We are not to be allowed, as I understand, to enlist in the new

115
Territorial batteries, artillerymen who are in the Reserve. Therefore, we shall have to rely for drivers either on civilians or on men who have left the artillery for five years at least, and who probably in that time will nave got pretty rusty. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will be able to tell us that the equitation allowance will be granted to all mounted men in the Territorial Artillery. I hope he will be able to tell us, also, that the guns of ordinary batteries when they are issued will be issued complete with a suitable proportion of range finders and signalling apparatus of all kinds. Officers tell me that it is impossible to train a battery properly unless these appliances are there with the guns. Next, I should like to ask whether the compensation for loss of horses announced by the Secretary of State on Thursday, will be given under the same conditions as those stated in the existing Yeomanry Regulations, Paragraphs 303 and 304; and whether veterinary expenses, which are laid down in Paragraph 308 of the Yeomanry Regulations, will still be allowed.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should like to put to the noble Earl before he rises to reply, a question concerning the Volunteer regiment in the north of England, which I have the honour to command. We have converted ourselves from heavy garrison artillery into field artillery, and I gather, from what the noble Earl said the other day, that those regiments that most speedily convert themselves into field artillery will be the first to receive the guns. In the county with which I am connected we have already formed our three field artillery batteries with headquarters at our own drill hall. The question I wish to ask the noble Earl is this, when can we hope to be provided with modern guns? We have loyally undertaken the new duties in our desire to support the Territorial scheme, but there must obviously be a certain amount of lukewarmness until we get the guns.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): Will the noble Marquess tell me the name of his corps?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The 2nd Durham Artillery Volunteers.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Before the noble Earl replies I should like to say that I hope he will take care that the noble Marquess does not get more than one gun before the other County Associations get their guns.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I think it would be as well if, at the outset of my reply, I give the information which I promised to Lord Midleton. The figures for the Reserve of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery on 1st March last were as follows: Total Royal Horse Artillery Reserve, 1,707; total Royal Field Artillery Reserve, 9,815; combined total, 11,522.
In reply to Lord Dartmouth I have to say that forty-eight 15-pounder guns have bean converted and are now being inspected and issued as rapidly as possible. Conversion of these guns is proceeding at the rate of about nine a week. Twelve guns have been issued to twelve brigades in the Western and Scottish Commands. These have been allotted, on the recommendation of the general officers commanding-in-chief, one each to the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th Lancashire Garrison Artillery, and one each to the 1st Shropshire and Staffordshire Garrison Artillery, the 1st Forfar, the 1st Aberdeen, the 1st Lanark, the 1st Mid Lothian, and the 1st Ayr and Galloway Garrison Artillery. In addition to these, orders have already been given to issue one gun each to the 1st, 2nd, and 4th West Yorkshire Garrison Artillery, the 1st Cardigan, the 1st Monmouthshire, the 1st Cheshire, the 2nd East Riding of Yorkshire, the 1st Durham, and the 1st Northumberland Artillery. The issues will be continued at the rate of at least six guns a week, and if possible nine a week, but the general order of the units to which these issues will be made will be governed by the information furnished by the general officer commanding-in-chief of the command in which the unit is located.
As to the provision of riding schools for the training of men and horses for field artillery, expenditure of that kind,

117
as in the case of drill halls, ranges, gun sheds, etc., will be met by grants from Army Funds, wherever the Army Council consider such provision necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of the Association. For instance, if the acquisition on lease or other agreement of property of this kind is sanctioned by the Army Council, a grant would be made on the basis of the rent for which the Association is liable. I gathered from the remarks of my noble friend that he had some complaint on the ground of having received no reply from the War Office as to the five existing Infantry units in Staffordshire, one of which is to be disbanded. I am afraid that in regard to this matter there must be some misunderstanding. I have made inquiries, and I cannot trace that any reply is due from the War Office to my noble friend on this subject. I presume that my noble friend drew up a report for the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the northern command, and he, in the ordinary course, would embody that report in the statement forwarded to the War Office in regard to the whole of his command. Any reply from the War Office would be sent to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, who is the proper person to communicate with my noble friend, and to whom in regard to this matter I must refer him. All I have been able to ascertain is that the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Northern Command was informed on 3rd March that he might inform the County Associations of the allotment of units.
As regards Staffordshire, it is proposed that there shall be four infantry battalions of 1,000 strong under the new organisation, instead of the existing five. This will necessitate the amalgamation of two of the existing battalions into one after 31st March, and this duty will devolve upon the County Association. Lord Fortescue has asked whether the capitation allowance of £1 will be given to the mounted men of the Territorial Artillery as well as to the Yeomanry. I understand that the answer to that is no. The second Question asked by Lord Fortescue was whether the compensation for loss of a horse, which has
118
been announced, will be given under the same conditions as those stated in the existing Yeomanry Regulations. New Regulations are about to be issued, but I am not able to speak definitely upon them because they have not yet received Treasury sanction. The maximum compensation for the loss of a horse will be £40. My noble friend's third Question was whether veterinary expenses would be allowed. No allowance beyond £5 will be allowed for veterinary expenses.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I should like to explain the object of my last Question, which was not on the Paper. I had no intention of bringing any complaint against the War Office. I am reserving complaints for a future time. I quite understood that we who represent the County Associations were to indicate the battalion to be disbanded or merged, and that that information was to go, in the first place, to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. In this case that was done; we drew up the Report together. But when I went to the War Office I was told that the Report of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief was somewhere in the building. I now gather that it is by the allocation of units, about which we have been inundated with telegrams during the last few weeks, that the disbanded battalion is to be merged, and we shall get no formal intimation as to which it is to be. As to the guns, I gather from the noble Earl's Answer that one gun has been allotted to Shropshire and Staffordshire. By this scheme these counties have been divided, and I am afraid Shropshire has got the gun. Can the noble Earl tell me whether the gun has gone to the Shropshire side?
[No Answer was returned.]
EARL FORTESCUE: The noble Earl has not answered my Question as to whether range finders and signalling apparatus will be supplied with the guns.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: If the noble Earl will give me notice of any Questions I will give him an Answer.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Where is my gun? Cannot the noble Earl tell me whether Shropshire has got it.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I believe Shropshire has got it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I rise to ask the Under-Secretary to take one matter into consideration. The Earl of Dartmouth stated that he believed one of these guns had been seen to-day in the precincts of your Lordships' House. That was not so. The gun was supplied for the inspection of Members of the other House, and I rise to ask the noble Earl if he will give us an opportunity of seeing what Members of the other House have been able to see. Very many of your Lordships are desirous of seeing this gun, and I would also suggest that one of the new quick firers should be sent down at the same time in order that we may compare them. A similar request was made in the House of Commons, but the Secretary of State replied that the new quick-firing gun could not be got into Palace Yard, and therefore he was unable to show it to Members of the House of Commons. It need not go near Palace Yard in being brought down for the inspection of your Lordships, and I therefore hope that we shall be allowed an opportunity of seeing and comparing these guns.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I will communicate at once with the military authorities and see what can be done in the matter.

LADY CATHCART AND HER TENANTS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask when the correspondence between Lady Cathcart and the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord-Advocate will be presented; and what has occasioned the delay in circulating the letters. I moved for this correspondence on 6th February, and late in that month I asked Lord Hamilton of Dalzell when the letters would be presented, and he replied that they were with the printers. The ordinary meaning of the answer which the noble Lord was directed to give to me was that we were to have the correspondence in two or three days.
120
As the Return had not come to hand, and as there was no information to be obtained from the Scottish Office, I thought it as I well to inquire of the printer, and he informed me that he had returned the correspondence to the Scottish Office on 18th February in print. Therefore for a month these letters have been undergoing a process of incubation in the Scottish office, for what purpose the Secretary for Scotland alone knows. It was stated in another place that permission had been asked of the County Council of Inverness to publish some document. What connection the Inverness County Council can have with a correspondence which took place between Lady Cathcart and the Secretary for Scotland I do not at present understand. If we ever get the Papers I suppose we shall see; but, in the mean while, I should like to know why all this delay has taken place.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl I beg to state that the correspondence is actually in the hands of the printer, who will be told to use all possible expedition in printing it. The delay which has occurred has arisen owing to the following circumstances. As the correspondence referred to transactions extending over a period of years it was thought advisable to print with it certain illustrative documents. It was therefore necessary to consider what documents should be included in the correspondence to be presented, and to ascertain whether all such documents were available for publication. A further delay was occasioned by a question being asked on 26th February, in another place, as to whether the Secretary for Scotland would include in this correspondence the Report of a Committee which had been appointed by the County Council of Invernesshire to consider whether land should be take for allotments in the island of Vatersay. These are the reasons for the delay. As I have already stated, the Papers will very shortly be laid on the Table of the House.

THE ARMY.
Order of the Day read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Motion of Viscount Midleton that an humble

121
Address be presented to His Majesty for any Minute of the Army Council approving the further reduction in the numbers of the Regular Artillery, and the Report for 1907 of the late Inspector-General of the Forces so far as it affects "the training and efficiency of the troops under the control of the Home Government, and the readiness and fitness of the Army for war."
*LORD LUCAS: My Lords, the debate of last Thursday covered practically the whole ground of the reforms which are at present being carried out in the Regular Army and in what are at present the Auxiliary Forces. But perhaps I may be allowed to trespass on your Lordships time in an endeavour to reply to one or two of the chief points brought forward in Thursday's debate. The point most reiterated in that debate was that of the present strength of the Army as shown by the Return on the Table. Attention was called by Lord Midleton to the strength of the Army as revealed in that Return; but, with a true perception of the causes of the existing weakness of the Army, he did not attach the blame for that to the present Government as was done by subsequent speakers. I must say I thought the noble Earl the Under-Secretary provided a very complete answer on that point, but it did not deter other speakers from repeating the attack.
If I may be allowed to do so, I would give your Lordships the figures showing how the three years system has affected the particular battalion—the 2nd Durham Light Infantry—which was singled out by Lord Midleton. The three years system was in force from April, 1902, until October, 1904, and that meant that from April, 1905, to October, 1907, not only were the seven years men of from 1898 to 1900 passing into the Reserve, but also the three years men. There was a double drain going on at the same time, and the way in which that affected the battalion in question is shown by the following figures referring to rank and file. In February, 1904, the strength, not including recruits at the depot, was 701, and there were 442 men over twenty years of age. There were at that time 455 three years men in the
122
battalion. The draft required for India in that year was 155; the following year it was about the same. At that time 137 three years men had had to go out to India. In 1905 the three years men began passing out; in 1906 the strength had fallen from 701, two years previously, to 562. The number of men over twenty years of age had fallen to 348, and the draft that had to be sent out had risen to 209 men. The following year the strength fell to 461; the draft requirements rose to 290, and the battalion was unable to meet them all. The men over twenty in the battalion were only 241. The draft required this year was 257, and 232 men have gone, the actual number of rank and file over twenty left being 56. Fortunately we have now passed the worst time, because the three years men are done with and we are gradually climbing up again.
The attack made last week upon the policy of the expeditionary force of 160,000 men was not so much in reference to the size of the force as to the doubt if the number could be realised. I may here parenthetically remark, with regard to a point raised by the Duke of Bedford, that the actuaries do not count as passing to the Reserve every man who enters as a recruit; they took the actual number in normal conditions—estimated over a long period of years and it works out at roughly, one out of every two recruits. The calculations are made on the establishments, and it is quite possible that the number will not be forthcoming; but I cannot see how Lord Midleton's proposal to add 10,000 of the three years men would improve matters. He says, I think rightly, that you can sometimes raise three years men when you cannot raise seven years men. How far the raising of three years men interferes with the getting of seven years men is a question that is difficult to decide offhand. But suppose you do not get sufficient recruits to give you the full 160,000 men, surely you are not going to make things better by increasing your establishments and asking for more recruits still. As I have shown in the case of the Durham Light Infantry, the strength fell so greatly below the establishment that the reducing of the establishment was a

123
mere paper transaction which did not affect the strength of the Army.
I maintain that the reductions in the strength of the Regular Army which have been the subject of so much criticism can only fairly be considered in relation to the whole scheme of Army reform. The idea of an expeditionary force is not a new one, as was indicated in Mr. Wyndham's letter to The Times of last Saturday, in which it is stated that the noble Marquess opposite also had the idea of organising the whole of the troops at home into a large expeditionary force of about the same size as the expeditionary force which Mr. Haldane proposes to organise; and at the outbreak of the South African War we had to despatch about the number the noble Marquess proposes to organise. Having sent that expeditionary force abroad we then were compelled to raise new units of every sort. Fifty-six new batteries of field artillery were raised, and numerous expedients were resorted to in regard to infantry. Those units had to perform double functions—to train drafts for South Africa, and at the same time to provide for home defence.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: What about the Militia?
*LORD LUCAS: I speak under correction, but apparently the Militia was not considered adequate defence for the country at that time. As I say, you were calling upon these units to perform double functions—to train drafts for South Africa, and at the same time to provide for home defence. Fortunately they were not required to discharge the latter duty. Experience of the South African War shows that when you have a force abroad you must also have the machinery in this country for training drafts. This is one of the advantages of the new scheme that may be said to have been bought by the reductions made in the Regular Army. It is a great asset from a military point of view that for the first time in the history of this country we shall be free from the necessity of having to improvise in the face of the enemy.
124
There is another point of view from which we ought to look at these reductions. It was argued on Thursday that if you reduce infantry battalions you thereby reduce the value as a fighting machine of your Regular Army. As a matter of fact the value from a purely military and fighting point of view of an infantry battalion per se is a very indefinite thing. It may be of no more use to you than a bottle of Worcester sauce would be if you had no cold mutton to eat it with. It is fair to regard these reductions from the point of view of divisions, and not from that of single units. The noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, on Thursday drew a lurid picture of the position of a battalion coming out of action with only 300 men and having to be filled up with 700 or 800 Special Reservists. He asked what would be the fighting value of that unit. That raises a very important point, but it only touches on the fringe of it. I believe the usual military procedure in the case of a battalion which has incurred disaster and been cut up is to send it down the lines of communication, and replace it by another battalion. The noble Duke spoke of the men not knowing one another. But what about generals commanding divisions not knowing the officers under them, not knowing who are trustworthy and who are rash, not knowing the men who are slow and those who are quick? That is a part of military organisation to which no attention has been given hitherto. It is not the object of Army organisation to produce a number of single units; but hitherto the British Army has always gone out to fight as a scratch crew. In South Africa there was only one brigade whose units had trained together in peace time. If a proper organisation and a training machine for the army in the field can be secured, the country will have obtained an important military asset very cheaply at the price of these reductions.
I pass to the speech of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the cross benches. I think anyone reading that speech could not fail to interpret it as a sweeping condemnation

125
of the whole idea and the whole principle of the Territorial Force. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal confined his remarks to the artillery, but I think he will agree that what he said about the artillery applied equally to the other branches of the Territorial Army.
EARL ROBERTS: No, certainly not. The artillery is the most scientific branch, and requires a training that is not necessary to the other branches to the same extent. You might raise infantry quickly if you had the officers, but you could not do that with artillery. In saying that, I was supported, not only by artillery officers, but by every officer in this country who has seen service. I hope it will not be thought that I was condemning the whole of the Territorial Army. I thought the framework of that Army was what we wanted, but you must fill it up properly, and you cannot fill it properly with untrained artillery.
*LORD LUCAS: Would the noble and gallant Field-Marshal say that a fortnight's annual training is enough for cavalry having to operate in the most difficult country in the world? And what about the Staff? After all, that requires more training than any other part of the Army.
EARL ROBERTS: If you are going to have a fortnight's training for the cavalry and for the staff, you will have no Army at all.
*LORD LUCAS: Then I do not think I was wrong in saying that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal's speech implied a sweeping condemnation of the whole of the Territorial Army. Because that Army cannot beat off a surprise attack at the outset of a war it is to be condemned. But that is not the function of any second line army. Mr. Haldane and his advisers have no delusion on this head. They have maintained all through that you were not going to get a Territorial Army that was fit to face the enemy at once on the outbreak of war. I think I am not overstating the position when I say that it is impossible for a man to combine a strenuous civil profession with the necessary amount of
126
military training to enable him to go out straight from his home and face a highly-trained enemy. The Army Council realise the absolute truth of the statement of the Norfolk Committee, that if the purpose is to produce a force which can be relied upon to turn out at short notice and defeat an invader, then improvements in the Militia and Volunteer Forces will not be sufficient. This scheme amounts to improvements in the Militia and Volunteer Forces, and therefore, Mr. Haldane and his advisers do not anticipate that the Territorial Army is going to be able to turn out at once, without further training, to resist the best-trained troops that could be put against them. If you contend that a second line Army is going to be of no use you must, to be consistent, show that the Militia has never been of use in this country all through its history. I do not think anyone will go as far as that. The only possible solution of the position raised by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal seems to be this, that if you cannot defend your coasts from invasion during the early months of a war it is absolute madness to send the whole of the Regular Army out of the country. You must keep two or three divisions at home, and, if you do that, you will still have as big a force capable of being sent straight away as it took five months to send to South Africa. But that was not the solution given by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. His solution was that you should give up the idea of raising Territorial Field Artillery and keep Regular Field Artillery in this country. According to his view, therefore, the idea of raising field artillery for the Territorial Army must be abandoned. That means that the Territorial Army can never be an Army in the true sense of the word. However long a war may last, however long the Territorial Force may remain embodied it will never be able to defend this country without the help of Regulars because it will have lost all semblance of being an Army.
EARL ROBERTS: If it is only a semblance it is a sham Army.
*LORD LUCAS: If that view is to prevail the County Associations may as well be disbanded at once, and the Volunteers

127
be allowed to slip back into the slough of disorganisation from which we are raising them and abandon the idea of a second line Army to be gradually moulded and trained so as to be fit in the great crisis of war to defend this country and to fight side by side with the Regulars. Last year the noble Field-Marshal gave a qualified blessing to this scheme. Now, when a critical stage in its development has been reached, and every one was looking for a few words of encouragement from the noble Field-Marshal, he passes this heavy sentence on a yet unborn child because it cannot carry out functions which it was never intended to carry out. I can only regard that as likely to make the task of the County Associations heavier and more difficult than it is at the present time.
LORD WYNFORD: My Lords, as one who has served in the horse and field artillery for a period of sixteen years I ask your Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words on this matter as affecting field artillery. Notwithstanding the explanations which were given by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary last Thursday, and by the noble Lord who has just sat down, I think that this Return which has been the subject of debate shows a very unsatisfactory state of affairs as regards that branch of the service. According to this Return we have at the present moment only 9,800 rank and file Regular field artillerymen fit for service. Our expeditionary force will consist of sixty-six field artillery batteries, and their complement at war strength of rank and file, including brigade ammunition columns and first line reinforcements, is 18,600. Now suppose we had had to mobilise on 1st February this year, and suppose, too, that we had had sufficient special reservists to man divisional ammunition columns, we should have had to make up the expeditionary force with 8,800 rank and file Reservists—nearly half the force—and, in addition, denude the remaining thirty-three batteries.
How, my Lords, can we afford to de duct from our present number of efficient men 2,400, the number which the Government contemplate reducing? I think
128
the margin is far too narrow already, when we consider that we have to allow further for reinforcements to India and for the wastage of war, and, in addition to this, that our Reserve will be decreasing annually. Are we to infer that these Special Reservists will be employed in the brigade ammunition columns as well as in the divisional ammunition columns. If so, I think it is dangerous, as it brings them one step nearer the firing line, and I am of opinion that these men will never be fit to take their place in the firing line. They may not be intended to do so, but they are bound to as casualties occur, and it must be remembered that in our latest experience of war we had no trained artillery opposing us and few casualties to replace compared to what we may expect in a campaign against trained gunners. The artillery of the Special Contingent will prove useful in the divisional ammunition columns, and I think the country should be grateful to Mr. Haldane for this provision; but to expect these men, with six months' or even a year's training, to take their place in the firing line is absurd.
I hope the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord Roberts will not think me presumptuous, bearing in mind the smallness of my experience compared to his, when I say that I entirely agree with him that partially trained artillery will only be a danger to their own side. I have no faith whatever in artillery which is not properly and fully trained. The noble Viscount Lord Midleton referred in his speech to a lecture given by a very able officer—Captain Vincent—at the United Service Institution in December last, and he quoted some remarks made by General Sir Ian Hamilton at the conclusion of that lecture. Sir Ian Hamilton disagreed with an opinion expressed by the lecturer, but—and this is a point I do not think the noble Viscount brought out—he concluded his remarks by saying that he gave his opinion merely as an infantry officer. A battery in the field is, or should be, the highest trained unit in our Army; it is a machine in which each man forms one of many essential component parts, and any little mistake on the part of one of those men may render the whole machine absolutely useless, and mean disaster to the force of which it forms a unit.

129
In the Memorandum presented to this House last August, entitled "The principles to be kept in view in training the Territorial Force and Special Contingent," it is directed that gun practice for the Artillery Special Contingent is to be carried out in four years out of every six. That is very false economy; but I pass that over because a more important point follows. The training of specialists is very casually laid down. These specialists consist of layers, signallers, range-takers, observers, patrols, etc. They form a considerable portion of a battery—in fact, nearly 50 per cent. of the gunners in the firing line. Now, these specialists cannot possibly be trained in six months with a casual rubbing up every year for fifteen days. To be of any service at all these men require continual training. It is of no use saying that we are going to have four or five times as many men. Five men cannot combine their mental ability and training at will in one of themslves, they cannot all look through one telescope at one time or all wave one flag. My Lords, too many cooks spoil the broth, and it is quality we want rather than quantity. It is for this reason that I view with much concern the reduction of these 2,400 trained men whom we now have. We are told they are not reduced yet, and I hope the Government will see their way to retain these men, if only on the three years service system as suggested by the noble Viscount Lord Midleton. We should then have them continually going through the mill and passing to the Reserve, having learnt, in addition to their drill, those habits of discipline which are so essential to an efficient Army.
There is a point as regards the Special Contingent which I do not think has been touched on yet. These training brigades are already being reduced to mere skeletons, and I presume will be further reduced when there are five partially trained men to every one of those 2,400. May I ask whether the officers are going to be eventually reduced in the same proportions, and, if not, how are these Regular officers, with practically no men and no horses, to keep themselves up to that pitch of excellence which is expected of them? If they are to be reduced, is it possible
130
that His Majesty's Government intend to replace each of them by five officers of the Special Contingent? I have the greatest admiration for those officers of the Special Reserve Artillery who attempt to become efficient, but to become an efficient artillery officer one must start young and devote one's whole service to it; and I do not see how it is possible for these officers, with the best will in the world, to reach that standard which will enable them to take their place in a battery on service. I notice, however, that the supply and training of these officers is still under consideration by a Committee dealing with this subject, and I shall look forward to a further Memorandum at a future date. I would not have addressed your Lordships but that I feel considerable misgiving about the policy of His Majesty's Government as regards the field artillery, and I am firmly convinced that a very large majority of artillery officers hold the same views as myself. I must apologise for going into a few technical details, but I have endeavoured to put the importance of this question before your Lordships to the best of my ability.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest possible interest to the speeches that have been, delivered from both sides of the House, and I venture to think the noble Lord who addressed us last from the Government Benches endeavoured to do what we on this side have tried to prevent—namely, to switch off the discussion from the Regular Army to a panegyric on a force which does not exist, and which, in my opinion, never will exist, at any rate in the numbers the Secretary of State imagines. The noble Viscount Lord Midleton drew attention to three matters of great importance: (1) The loss of numbers in the Regular Army; (2) the loss of quality; and (3) the very serious position in which the country is now placed by being deprived of all assurance that there is any military approbation behind these changes. A reduction of 30,000 men and 500 officers would be a serious question for any Army in the world, and it is particularly so in the case of a small Army like our own. And when on the top of the reduction in numbers there is a great

131
falling off in quality, then the position becomes dangerous. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary, in endeavouring to answer my noble friend, said that this was entirely my noble friend's fault, and was due to the introduction of the three years system. I cannot agree with that, because a considerable time has elapsed since the three years system of enlistment came to an end, and there has been ample time to have recovered from that experiment.
When we examine the White Paper laid before your Lordships and to which the noble Viscount has drawn attention, we cannot fail to see that the numbers of the Regular Army have been allowed to fall to a very dangerous point; and I think it is most unfortunate that no attempt seems to have been made by the War Office to rectify this state of things, although they saw it happening. The noble Earl, replying to the criticism regarding the reductions in the artillery, said that no reduction had been made in horse and field artillery. He avoided all allusion to garrison artillery, in connection with which there has been a reduction of something like 5,000 men. The garrison artillery are physically and intellectually the picked soldiers of the British Army, and as long as you have these men behind the field artillery it was always possible to utilise them in filling up deficiencies. But this reserve will be lost to the field artillery in the future. I am credibly informed that the permanent staff of the Militia artillery is to be very largely reduced if not done away with altogether, and I wish to know if this reduction is to be over and above the present reduction or to be part of the 2,400 of which we have heard so much. The noble Earl repeated the misleading statement with regard to the forty-two batteries; over and over again it has been explained that the fact that those batteries had been but recently raised had prevented them from creating their reserve. Notwithstanding that, however, the noble Earl repeated the statement that such was the state of of the Reserve that no more than forty-two batteries could be raised.
Lord Lucas made some attempt to answer the very serious speech of the noble and gallant Earl on the cross
132
benches. I venture to think that that speech was one of the most serious made in your Lordships' House for a considerable time, and I hope something will yet be forthcoming from His Majesty's Government to mitigate the effect of that speech and to reassure us a little more. Lord Lucas said that if the noble and gallant Earl did not think a fortnight's training sufficient for artillery, how was it possible to train cavalry and infantry in that period? I venture to think that that part of the noble Lord's speech was one of the strongest indictments of the Territorial Force as a whole. I will not labour the point of the Territorial artillery, for I do not think anything I could say would add to the effect of the very serious words which fell from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. I have never yet come across any soldier who believes it possible to form batteries of artillery with the absolutely inadequate training proposed. Lord Lucas made the remarkable statement that no previous attempt had been made at the organisation of the British Army. My memory is not quite so short as that. I remember the attempt that was made by my noble friend below me to organise the Army in Army Corps, and the contempt which was poured upon his efforts by the then Opposition, now His Majesty's Government. Therefore the noble Lord is not correct in saying that the organisation of the Army had not been attempted before.
Then the noble Lord said it does not matter whether you disband battalions, because the important thing is to have divisions and brigades fully organised for war. Well, I would much rather have a scratch brigade composed of well-organised battalions than I would have a well-organised brigade composed entirely of scratch battalions. I cannot help thinking that that must be the inevitable effect of the new organisation as proposed by the Secretary of State for War. Lord Lucas also said that it was for this system of organisation and for this magnificent Territorial Army that we had paid the price of these reductions. We have paid the price, but we have not got the article for which we have paid; and I have extreme doubt

133
whether we shall ever get that article. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary, in the course of his remarks, made some reference to the duty of the military members of the Army Council. I am always sorry that in these debates we do not have the advantage of the presence on the cross benches of the noble Viscount who was at the head of the celebrated triumvirate to which reference has been made in the course of this debate; because it is possible for two people to read the same passages and arrive at exactly opposite conclusions as to what they were intended to convey. I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Earl that if the military members are not satisfied with the proposals of the Secretary of State, then it is their duty to show their dissatisfaction by resignation. That is all very well, but they do not resign. The Army Council appear to have blessed with equal unanimity the scheme of Mr. Arnold-Forster and the scheme of the present Secretary of State. They are complete changes in half a dozen different ways, the present scheme constituting reversals of all previous military advice given to the Secretary of State. After the statement of the Under-Secretary, I suppose we must assume that these officers approve of these kaleidoscopic changes, for they do not resign.
In my opinion it is the business of the Inspector-General to act as the auditor of the nation in regard to our land forces, and the doctrine laid down by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary that the Reports of the Inspector-General were for the private information of the Army Council is not my idea of the duties of an auditor. The auditor of a company is appointed by the shareholders, and it is his business to certify to the accuracy of the accounts. What would be said of a company who contended that the auditor was the servant of, and worked under, the directors, and that his report on the state of the company was entirely for the private ear of the directors? That seems to me to be the War Office idea of an auditor. All I can say is that it is not mine. We have paid the price; there have been destroyed 30,000 men of the Regular Army, and 90,000 of the Militia; what are we going to get for it?
134
We have got nominally a saving of £1,000,000. Will any one on the Treasury Bench assure me that that £1,000,000 has not been obtained by starving the stores? Are the mobilisation stores in a complete state? Is there any surplus ammunition? We have paid the price; are we ever going to get the article?
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I would like to occupy a few moments of your Lordships' time to call attention to one or two points on which we differ from the Secretary of State for War. It has been inferred from the other side of the House that we have changed our opinion on the subject of the Territorial Army, and that what we backed at one period we now condemn. I think the boot is on the other foot, and that some of the promises in regard to training and organisation which were held out when the Territorial Army was being thought of have not materialised. On the subject of training I do not think it is necessary to say anything as regards the artillery, because that point has been admirably dealt with by my noble friend on my right.
As regards the Yeomanry, we were told that enormous strides were to be made in the matter of training, but I maintain that the Yeomanry now will not be as well trained as under the old state of things. As to mobilisation, one of the reasons why we were all anxious to see the scheme come into operation was that we felt that the question of mobilisation was going to be definitely tackled. Many noble Lords twitted the late Government with the fact that, although a mobilisation scheme was promised every year, no scheme arrived. Not only have we not got a mobilisation scheme now, but I do not think we have any chance of ever getting one. May I give your Lordships a statement of what the mobilisation arrangements are? The other day a document was received by the County Associations to the effect that the Army Council consider it most important that the Territorial Force should not, in the event of a general or partial mobilisation, start their horse purchasing operations until the units of the expeditionary force have been completed with the

135
horses required. That means that the mobilisation of the Territorial Army cannot begin until the whole of the horses of the expeditionary force are purchased. It is no good mobilising an Army without horses, and if you have to wait until the whole of the 59,000 horses required for the expeditionary force have been procured, how can you say that any advance in regard to mobilisation has been made? Yet, as I have said, one of the reasons why many persons have been anxious to see the new scheme put into operation was precisely their belief that the mobilisation question was to be definitely tackled.
We were told that the deficiency of from 8,000 to 11,000 officers was going to be dealt with, and £50,000 was put into last year's Estimates in connection with the matter. I believe, however, that not a farthing of that money has been spent on officers, apart from the expenses of the Commissioners who sat to elaborate a scheme. Then I understand that the whole of the benefit of the scheme which was formulated was cut out by reducing the pay the officers were to get. I speak as one who is a believer in the Teritorial Scheme if it is given a chance. If it is going to be starved for money I do not believe in it. I fear that at the present moment the Secretary of State for War is looking, not to those who are backing up his scheme and trying to carry it through—and none are more prominent in this direction than Members of your Lordships' House—but to the extreme Left of his own Party. But is he getting much help there? Are the trade unions coming forward to give him the men? I doubt it. If Mr. Haldane wishes to carry out his organisation and get his men he would surely do better to look to those who have helped him.
There is another point on which we have a difference with the Secretary of State. I refer to the promise which was given that nothing should be taken away until some definite substitute could be put in its place. I agree with the noble Lord opposite as regards the deplorable state in point of numbers of the British Army at the present time. There is some limit to the power of men serving with the colours to absorb
136
Reservists and keep up the efficiency of the unit as a whole, and the only class who could give trustworthy information on this matter—the captain or subaltern of a regiment—was not represented by the witnesses called before the Elgin Commission. If inquiries were made among that class it would probably be found that the opinion is that when a limit of 50 per cent. is passed the decrease of efficiency goes down at a rate which is geometrical rather than arithmetical. Then, as regards the question of the numbers in a battalion and the efficiency of each unit at war strength, what is important is not only their value per se, but as compared to, say, the most efficient unit of the German Army. After all, the point of consideration in regard to a battalion at war strength is that it has to fight somebody, and therefore, it is reasonable to ask how those men could compete with battalions they may have to face.
In the German Army all the men join after their twentieth year—from twenty to twenty-three years of age. The battalions on a peace basis are from 590 to 630, and in one case, that of the rifles, from 630 to 683. Then they have men who have done their term with the colours, and go on and serve as sort of minor non-commissioned officers, and they add to the efficiency of the corps. Then they have their Reservists; they are not brought out in driblets to be trained, but 345,000 are brought out in the year. These matters are thoroughly gone into in Germany and not left to chance. Moreover, they have added enormously to their number of subalterns and have excellent classes for training them. If one of our attenuated battalions was asked to compete against a German battalion, can you expect them to meet on anything like equal terms? I do not wish to touch on the subject of the artillery, but there is one question I should like to ask regarding the actual conditions under which the Regular Artillery is trained. The artillery officers tell me they have only sixty horses per battery. Yet our artillery is the most essential part of our forces. I understand from a statement made in another place by Sir Charles Dilke, who is always well informed on

137
Army affairs, that our horses have gone down by some 800 as compared with last year, and from what one hears it is clear that 1,500 artillery horses are long passed casting age.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer. The Secretary of State for War, speaking in another place, said that in certain circumstances we might require two divisions for service at home in case of invasion. That would at once lower the expeditionary force, but the statement shows that we are at last approaching some point of sanity on the subject of the possibility of invasion. We have arrived at a point when, apparently, the possibility of invasion is to be believed in. Then we have been told that we cannot expect the Territorial Force to be ready at once to act. I believe, however, that the infantry and cavalry could give a very good account of themselves. After all, the question is whether the force will be sufficient, with its small battalions and artillery not trained, to cope with the possibility of an invasion. I venture to think that His Majesty's Government are incurring a grave danger by taking a single man off the Regular Army, or reducing a single unit, whether Territorial or Regular.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I hope that before this debate closes, or at some early date, we may get some more satisfactory reply from the Government to the criticisms of the noble and gallant Earl on the cross benches, with regard to the use of the Territorial Artillery. I am sure we must all sympathise with the noble Lord on the back benches opposite, Lord Lucas. The noble Lord complained of the change as regards the treatment of this beloved child of the present Secretary of State for War, which, he said, started on its career with so many congratulations last year, but now suddenly, at a most critical period of its existence, found itself severely criticised. The noble Lord's evident enthusiasm for the scheme arouses one's sympathy; but I hope he will not think me uncomplimentary if I say that his answer to the criticisms of the noble and gallant Field-Marshall was a feeble one.
138
The noble Lord fell back upon the Report of the Norfolk Commission, who stated that our Auxiliary forces were not fit to be put in the field against first-class troops. He fell back upon that as an excuse for not improving the Auxiliary Army at all. If the noble Lord thinks that, as regards the training of troops and their use in the field, any orders that have been issued are going to change the character of the Auxiliary Army, I can assure him he is very much mistaken. There is not a single order that has been issued that is going to alter one iota the character or utility, as far as units go, of the present Auxiliary Army. In fact, in one small point their efficiency is likely to be reduced. The Secretary of State is being criticised by his own Party for being extravagant in regard to the Territorial Army. Well, he has effected one or two small economies. He has cut down the Yeomanry by a day, and though a field officer is entitled to forage for three or four horses he will only get railway carriage for one, so that he will be discouraged from bringing more than one horse.
I protest against the idea that, at any rate, two branches of the Territorial Army are of no use in case of sudden attack. That may have been said by the Norfolk Commission, but I do not agree with it. I maintain that a Yeomanry regiment, composed of men who can ride and shoot and look after horses in camp, would be of use even in a sudden emergency. What chance under the present scheme has the War Office of horsing either the Territorial Artillery or the Yeomanry in case of sudden engagement? I protest against the noble Lord's assertion that the Territorial Army is not meant for the purpose of resisting sudden invasion. Why, the whole object of raising the Yeomanry and the Volunteers was to resist sudden invasion, and the conditions of service show that that was the intention. To suggest now that this Auxiliary Army has never been of any use for the defence of the country and that the Territorial Army is going to be of use, is an assumption in favour of the scheme of the War Office which I most decidedly refuse to accept.
I remember asking Lord Wolseley what he would do in the event of a sudden

139
raid on the shores of England, and he replied—
"I would pour Volunteers on them."
That would be the use of these bodies all round the coast. They could be on the spot quicker than Regular troops in a great many cases. I ask what are the chances at the present moment of the War Office being able to horse either the Territorial batteries or the Yeomanry? The instructions we have received, one of which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Lovat, show that we are to do nothing. I have never been a believer in the County Associations. The War Office could have done everything by Royal Warrant; they had no occasion to set up any of these petty War Offices. I hold His Majesty's Commission, and it is my business to carry out orders and try to make a success of this scheme. One order issued is that we are to do nothing with regard to horses until the Army is satisfied. That is discouraging, and I hope we may receive some instructions from the War Office which would enable us to set about a practical scheme of registration for the mounted branches of the Territorial Army. I believe it would be perfectly feasible without interfering with what the Regular Army may want. I believe it would be feasible for the Association to set on foot within its own area a scheme which would not be expensive, but would enable officers commanding mounted units to lay their hands upon the horses that are wanted in so short a space of time that their units could be mobilised and put into the field at least two days quicker than under the present mobilisation orders of the War Office.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the debate which has been continued to-night from last week must, I think, be regarded by most of your Lordships, and I think it will be so regarded by the public outside, as distinctly discouraging. I share the hope expressed by my noble friend who has just sat down that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has some expert knowledge of Army matters, will be able to give us information more satisfactory than that which we have up to the present moment been able to elicit from the representatives of His Majesty's Government.
140
I am not going to travel again in detail over the points which have been so well dealt with by my noble friends behind me. Some of their comments have not been traversed, and are not likely to be traversed. There is, in the first place, the question of the reduction of the strength of the Regular Army. It is admitted that the Army has been weakened by something like 36,000 men, including 500 officers and some 2,000 or 3,000 non-commissioned officers, and that nine or ten valuable units disappear from the Army List. The noble Lord who spoke from the second bench opposite in support of the War Office said that these reductions must be considered with reference to the whole scheme of Army reform, and we are quite ready to consider them with reference to the whole scheme; our object is to look about and see in what part of the scheme we are to find compensation for this undoubted weakening of the fighting strength of the Army.
Then there is the reduction of the establishments of the home battalions from 800 to 720 men. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government told us that we ought not to fix our attention too much on single units, that the value of a single unit is a very indefinite thing, and that the reduction of the unit beyond a certain number of men does not after all matter very much. I recall a statement made by the Under-Secretary the other evening when he gave us much valuable information as to the duties and functions of the home battalions, of which he spoke with thorough knowledge. These home battalions have to supply drafts to the battalions abroad, they have to train men, and have on occasion to appear in the rôle of fighting units when duly reinforced by their proper quota of Army Reservists. These are very heavy duties, and I have always believed that if you impose them on a battalion of insufficient strength, you run a fair chance of breaking the heart of the battalion. We were, at any rate, firmly convinced that an increase in the strength of these battalions was essential, and I very much regret that His Majesty's Government propose to undo what we did.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I stated distinctly, in the course of my speech, that upon this question the Government were quite prepared for reconsideration, and, if necessary, for increase of the establishment when recruiting became normal again.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I was about to refer to that. I understand from the noble Earl that the Government are not wholly committed to this reduction, and that when the prospects of recruiting become better, the War Office, with an open mind, will be prepared to consider a return to the old strength. I am glad to have elicited that statement from my noble friend. There is another matter, upon which I do not wish to dwell too much, and that is the effect of these reductions on the strength of the Army Reserve. The Commission presided over by the noble Earl opposite was, if I remember right, emphatic as to the need of a strong Reserve and as to the value of these Army Reservists when they took their place in the battalions which we sent out to South Africa. I therefore greatly regret any changes which will tend in the direction of reducing the strength of that Reserve. It is quite true that at the present moment the Reserve is very strong, but we have to look ahead to the time when the three years men brought in by my noble friend behind me will terminate their period of service End when the strength of the Reserves must drop suddenly and to a very marked extent. All the changes the Secretary of State for War is introducing tend, and must tend, to reduce the Reserves. The matter is capable of mathematical demonstration, you cannot have weaker units and fewer units with a longer term of colour service without automatically weakening the Reserve-producing power of those units.
We are told to look for compensation to the new Special Reserve which His Majesty's Government will call into existence, bat the statements to which I have listened with regard to the Special Reserve, I must say, fill me with considerable misgiving. In point of numbers, they will be fewer than the old
142
Militia, and what will they be in point of quality? Their functions will be to feed the Line, for which they will require some 10,000 men per annum; they will have to make good the wastage of the Reserve, which will require about 11,000 men annually; and, in addition to these functions, they are expected to maintain a somewhat precarious existence as a unit of a kind.
And what kind of a unit will they be, recruited as they are to be recruited? The best men will pass out, and there will remain in the battalion a residuum of the least fit of the lads who enter. Besides this, you are going, I understand, to get rid of all the men over thirty, a change which will still further add to the youth of these so called battalions. When I am told to look for compensation to the Special Reserve, I ask myself what sort of recruits will the Special Reserve pour into the fighting line in the place of the seven years men, thoroughly trained, seasoned and disciplined, to whom we were accustomed in the past? The Secretary of State for War has told the public that the fighting first line of the Army is now organised as it has never been organised before, and that when, in time of need, a great commander steps forward he will find an instrument to his hand at least scientifically more perfect than it has ever been before. Well, I do not know what may be the scientific perfection of the instrument, but when I consider its practical value I fail to see how there is a great improvement on the instrument we have known in the past.
I wish in particular to say a few words on the subject of the artillery. When the Government of the late Lord Salisbury were in power the question of the artillery was very carefully considered by His Majesty's then advisers. Before the South African War we had added fifteen batteries, and by the time we went out of office we, had added in round figures, about sixty. I know I shall be told that these batteries thus suddenly called into existence were without their full complement of Reserves and that consequently it was impossible to mobilise them. But no one ever pretended that you could call a battery of artillery with

143
the necessary Reserves into existence by a mere stroke of the pen, any more than His Majesty's Government can call a new Territorial Army and Special Reserve into existence by merely preparing a paper scheme for the purpose.
I was rather amused when the Under-Secretary revealed to us as a new discovery that the proper complement of guns was five to every 1,000 men. The discovery is a very old one. I have in my possession a copy of a Minute which I prepared for Lord Salisbury's Government, in which I applied—advised by Lord Wolseley who was then Commander-in-Chief—for the increase of artillery to which I just now referred, upon the ground that it was necessary, in order to give us the very proportion of five guns per 1,000 men which apparently now finds favour with the military advisers of the Crown. We instituted this important increase of artillery, and I cannot help regarding it as most unfortunate that a large proportion of the batteries then added to the artillery are now to be reduced, to mere training batteries with only two guns apiece. I understand there are to be something like forty men per battery, and the gaps are to be filled up by men trained on a Militia basis, who must naturally be unfit to take the place of skilled men in the field.
I will not refer to the matter further, for it has been thoroughly dealt with by Lord Wynford, who has addressed us this evening for the first time with a knowledge of the subject derived from the fact that he had for some time the honour of holding a Commission in the Royal Artillery; but I desire to say a few words in regard to the artillery of the Territorial Army. I understand that the same proportion of five guns per 1,000 men is to obtain in the Territorial Army, and that 196 batteries of artillery are to be created. I can only describe this as a most tremendous plunge. Are we sure that we can get the men? Are we going to get officers? Are we sure of getting horses? Are there reasonable grounds for believing that ranges will be available? And when you have got all these things, are there sufficient reasons for believing that under the conditions
144
that will prevail you will attain that degree of efficiency without which artillery is not only useless, but much worse than useless? The speech of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal holds the field. Lord Lucas treated my noble and gallant friend not quite fairly, because he represented him as having denounced the whole Territorial Force, lock, stock, and barrel. But, if I remember aright, my noble friend went out of his way to express his obligation to Mr. Haldane for having created the Territorial Force, and it was only with regard to the artillery of that force that he spoke strongly. My noble friend voiced the general uneasiness of the public in regard to this question, and he voiced, not only that, but I believe the unanimous opinion of every officer who has ever made public his view with regard to the artillery question, and of every soldier of eminence, from Napoleon I. down to the present Army Council.
What was the noble and gallant Earl's description of the Territorial Artillery? He said that, even if we could get them and mobilise them in time, they would be useless against professional troops. Surely we must make our calculations on the assumption that it is professional troops that they will be called upon to meet. But I may be told that after all this Territorial Artillery is the best that we can get and that we must be grateful for it, and that they will make up in point of number for what they lack in point of quality. I am afraid that that statement cannot be reconciled with the statement of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal; for he told us that not only would these insufficiently trained artillerists be useless, but that they would be a source of positive danger to those with whom they serve. And he went so far as to say that the penalty they would pay in action for their want of sufficient training and discipline would be the penalty of annihilation. That is a serious statement coming from so high an authority, and we have a right to ask whether that statement is seriously challenged, and, if so, on what authority it is challenged. All that I and my friends, who have also served at the War Office, can say on that point is that our military advisers gave us

145
a clear and unambiguous opinion on the value of this partially trained artillery.
Unless the noble Earl's statement can be challenged, and unless the impression which that statement created can be removed, then I venture to say that His Majesty's Government can scarcely do otherwise than reconsider their whole position with regard to this question of the Territorial Artillery. I say that they should do so not only because it is due to the public generally, but because they are bound to do it in fairness to the County Associations which they have called into existence all over the country. You have given these County Associations a very hard task, but the hardest nut you have given them to crack is this formation of batteries of artillery. If they are to approach that task without a reasonable prospect of success, I say you are imposing on them a burden which you ought not to ask them to bear. I can scarcely resist repeating a conversation which I had the other day with a friend of mine to whom it was suggested that he might aid a County Association, with which I am connected, in raising artillery. He said—
"I will do anything that the Association asks me to do; but if you ask me to raise artillery, I cannot help asking myself what kind of artillery I am likely to be able to raise in this part of England, and whether I may not produce something which is of no value."
That feeling prevails in many parts of the country.
The Secretary of State for War the other day announced that it was impossible to put heart into the Territorial Forces unless we showed that we relied on them for all arms of the Service. I think that is a statement that requires careful examination. I endeavour to project my mind into the future and to imagine a body of Territorial troops engaged with the enemy, and I ask myself whether it would put more heart into them to know that they were supported by, let us say, a brigade of Regular Artillery, or, let us say, by two brigades of the home-made article. I will ask a question on this point. Are noble Lords opposite able to point to any foreign country in which an experiment anything like this is being tried? I think I can tell them of one, if not of two cases, which scarcely fit in with their
146
theory. I am told on what I believe to be good authority that in Austria it has been thought desirable lately, to attach Regular Artillery to the Territorial troops, and I am told that in Switzerland the artillery has lately been taken away from the Cantons and placed under the Federal Government for the reason that the Cantonal Artillery was thought to be not sufficiently trained or qualified.
I am not going to suggest to His Majesty's Government that they should drop their scheme. But what I do suggest, and earnestly beg that they will take into consideration, is that before they commit themselves beyond recall to this colossal project of raising 196 batteries of Territorial Artillery, they will try the experiment in a few carefully selected districts. If it succeeds, by all means let them push the experiment further, and no one will be better pleased than the noble and gallant Field-Marshal if he finds that his anticipations are mistaken.
There is only one other point on which I need say anything more. My noble friend has moved for Papers. The Under-Secretary gave a two-fold answer. He said, in the first place, that he would not produce the Papers, and, in the second place, that there were no Papers to produce. He said that there were no decisions, no records, and no minutes.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I said that the matter was discussed at a meeting of the Army Council, but that there were no minutes.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If there is no official document which can be given to the House, is it impossible for the noble Earl to find some means at any rate of informing the public how it is that this tremendous revolution in military opinion has been produced? If there are grounds for such a complete departure from the old traditions, let the public know them, and, above all, let the County Associations know what the grounds are.
As for the Report of the Inspector-General, of course if that is a privileged document we shall not press for its production. But there, again, I must say, that it seems to me a little

147
hard that nothing should be given to Parliament and the public. I ask you to remember that the appointment of an Inspector-General, who was to be regarded as the Auditor-General of the public in regard to military questions, took place concurrently with the abolition of the appointment of Commander-in-Chief. In the distribution of duties that prevailed before that abolition, the Commander-in-Chief was entrusted with the general command and inspection of the Forces. The Commander-in-Chief was usually a Member of this House. He frequently took part in our discussions, and it was always possible for him to reassure the public, or perhaps sometimes to alarm the public, if he thought it necessary. But the Inspector-General is a much more remote and impalpable person, and if we are to get nothing from him, I do think that those who take an interest in the efficiency of the Army have some cause to complain. At any rate, I trust that some means will be found to give to Parliament and the public a general idea at all events of the grounds on which this new departure in the artillery has been decided on.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I shall at this hour of the evening say what I have to say in as few words as possible; and partly for that reason, and partly because I do not feel that I am competent to answer Questions of detail, I am afraid I cannot attempt to reply to some of the many questions which have been put by noble Lords on the other side of the House. But I wish to reply definitely and distinctly to one of them—to the question of stores for the Territorial Army. I have to say that there has been no reduction in the stores of the Regular Army, and the guns and ammunition for the Territorial Force are surplus to the requirements of the Regulars. I was surprised to hear what Lord Harris said on the subject of the provision of horses, because I myself, as president of a County Association, have already been consulting with the chairman as to the provision of horses in my county. I have no doubt the noble Lord is correct with regard to the Papers issued, but I
148
think it stands to reason that the County Associations would be well advised as soon as possible to exert themselves in regard to the provision of horses.
LORD HARRIS: We have been distinctly told we are not to do anything with regard to horses until the Army is satisfied.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: I do not mean that we should interfere with the Army The noble Marquess appealed to me on the ground of my having some acquaintance with military affairs to say whether the Reservists who were called into the ranks in the South African war were fit for the purpose to which they were put. I certainly can endorse the statement that this was the opinion of the Commission. As far as the numbers of the Reservists were concerned, they were then supplied under the system of enlistment now again in force, and the Special Reserves would, at any rate, have as much training as, if not more than the Militia. In the opinion of those who are qualified to judge, we ought to have in the Special Reserve men as capable of serving with the Line as the Militia Reserve formerly was. The noble Lord who opened this debate was not quite fair to the Secretary of State. He said that the Secretary for War was drawing away the public mind from the Regular Army, his references to which were an oasis in the desert of references to the Territorial Army.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Hear, hear.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: But the noble Viscount has forgotten how long it is since he has been out of office, because if my right hon. friend is able now to argue the case of the Territorial Army with energy it is because in 1906 he dealt first with the Regulars. I think also that the noble Lord is not quite fair in asking for the views of the expert advisers of the Government. After all, these officers are responsible to the Government. Their advice is freely given to the Secretary of State, but if it was made public that responsibility would become unbearable. The phrase "Auditor-General" was merely a phrase which has

149
been taken to indicate the general position which the Inspector-General should occupy, and not to lay upon him in any sense the special duties which the auditor of a company discharges. But if the noble Lord wants to know how this matter has been dealt with in the past, I would remind him that, in reply to a question in the House of Commons on 15th March, 1905, as to whether he had received the Report of the Inspector-General of the forces for 1904, and whether it was intended to lay it before Parliament, Mr. Arnold-Forster said that the Report had been received by the Army Council, but that it was not intended to make it public, that the essence of a Report of this kind was that it should not be made public. It seems to me that the Secretary of State must necessarily act on the advice he receives from his confidential officers, and that it is impossible to hold that they should be questioned in any way.
A good deal turns on the question, What is expert evidence? Noble Lords know very well from the practice in private Bill Committees how, when expert evidence is produced on one side, it is almost certain to be contradicted by expert evidence on the other side. Military experts are really in the same position. In this connection I can quote the noble and gallant Lord on the cross benches (Lord Roberts). I had once the honour of examining the noble and gallant Lord as an expert, and of putting a question to him which was so essentially for military expert advice that we only consulted three field-marshals. The noble and gallant Lord and another field-marshal gave opinions which were diametrically opposed to each other, and when the third field-marshal was asked for his opinion he declined to give any opinion at all, on the ground that the two former opinions showed that strategy was not an exact science. I never undervalue any opinion which is given by the noble and gallant Lord on a question like this now under discussion. If I did I should stand alone, not only in your Lordships' House, but in the country; and I accept what the noble and gallant Lord stated, that his one desire was to use his experience for the benefit of his country.
150
Not only as a Member of the Government, but as president of a County Association which has been considering what, if any, artillery is to be introduced, I have been personally interested in this question. If it was so clear as it seems to be now to many noble Lords, why was not the question raised during the debates of last year? The main point of the noble Lord's criticism is an expression of his belief that the men would be insufficiently trained. In proof of that contention reliance is placed on the period of training found in the regulations to be observed in ordinary circumstances. Before, however, I accept this proof I would ask whether or not it is a reasonable hypothesis in the case of invasion? I admit that it is not impossible to argue on these lines, but I also hold that it may be represented as going beyond the bounds of reasonable calculations. What does it mean? It means the concurrence of three ex-ordinary events. There must be at one and the same time the despatch of an expeditionary force of 150,000 men; secondly, a disaster to the Fleet which must be sufficiently serious to leave it hors de combat; and, thirdly, there must be an invasion. There is no precedent in the history of this country for a concurrence of these three events.
As far as I know there is only one precedent, viz., that of the South African war to illustrate the first contingency of the despatch of so large a force as 150,000 men. But that is subject to qualification. Lord Lovat suggested that it might turn out to be possible to use only four divisions and to leave two divisions at home. That may be so, but I am considering the case put forward in the debate, and assuming that the whole of the expeditionary force of 150,000 men is to be used. But in this matter events must follow in a sequence. There could be no expeditionary force despatched if the Fleet was disabled before that step was taken. If the Fleet was disabled first, the force would remain at home and become a garrison. If there was no disaster to the Fleet, are we to anticipate a serious invasion? The noble Lord said that we must always expect to have an invasion.

151
Without using the word "raid," may I not put it in this way? Supposing there was an invasion and a foreign force was landed: if the Fleet still held the seas, how would that force be able to get supplies and reinforcements? But, suppose that all went against us, and that the disasters of which I have spoken followed each other in their order. In the first place, the first step to be taken is the despatch of the expeditionary force. How long would it take to despatch a force of 150,000 men across the sea? I think I could ask the noble Marquess to give an opinion on that point with great confidence. In the South African war the pressure to send out troops was enormous. The first troops left this country on 1st August, 1899, and it was not until 31st July, 1900, that 150,000 men were in South Africa. What is to happen during this year? During this year the future garrison of the country, according to the scheme of the Government, will be embodied and trained. Before the last man sailed, therefore, and before any serious disaster happened to the Fleet, there would be in this country a force trained for several months. The force would not only be ready, but would be posted in the position, it was called upon to occupy. No doubt I may be told all this is unproved. How can it be otherwise? But, if anyone accuses the Government of want of preparation, surely it is at least a reply to some extent to say that we have done our best to form a scheme for meeting the emergency, and that we believe, on the strength of our advisers, that it will work.
I should like to say one word to noble Lords opposite. I know that many of them speak and feel with great affection of and belief in the Militia Force in which they have served and which they know so well. I entirely appreciate and sympathise with that position. But may I put it in this way? Parliament has deliberately determined otherwise. Your Lordships' House, joining with the other House of Parliament, has decreed that there should be a new order of things, and His Majesty has enjoined upon us, who represent him in the counties, that we should undertake the duty of organising
152
the new force. Is the course taken by some noble Lords calculated to assist us in that duty? It appears to me that some of the observations, some of the bitterness, which I find in some of the speeches may rather create obstacles and deter men from entering the force. And if I wanted a good illustration of my meaning, I could not have wished anything better than what was said by Lord Dartmouth at the beginning of the debate, when he showed that already he, as Lord Lieutenant of his county, has encountered difficulty, owing to that very cause.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I should not have troubled your Lordships again, but there were one or two statements made by the Colonial Secretary which I can hardly allow to pass unchallenged. The whole course of this debate, so far as it has been conducted by the Government, has been to some extent disappointing to us on this side of the House. Even the noble Earl who has just sat down directed his remarks, not so much to justifying the heavy reductions which have been made in our effective forces, as to endeavouring to show your Lordships and the country that there was no cause for alarm, because some further period of training would be possible for the less effective forces. We have entirely failed in this debate to obtain from the Government any assurance that they will take steps of any sort to improve the condition of the infantry. We welcome from the noble Earl the statement that they have not said the last word; but they speak as if there were only one method of enlistment—the seven years method, and that there were no other men to be got under any circumstances. I hope they will think better of that.
With regard to the artillery, I believe I am expressing the opinion, not only of every noble Lord on this side of the House but of every man who has read this debate, when I say that profound uneasiness will be the result of it. The noble Earl said that I had not been fair to the Secretary of State for War in asking for the opinions of the expert advisers. The last thing in the world I should wish to do would be to be unfair, or even unreasonable, in regard to my inquiries; and if, in asking for the

153
opinion of the expert advisers, I have done anything unfair, I can only say it is a discipline to which I have myself been subjected night after night at the hands of the noble Earl's colleagues in the House of Commons. I have been made specifically to say whether Lord Wolseley was in favour of such and such a course, whether Sir Redvers Buller had given his authority to it, and whether in proposing either an increase, or, in some cases a decrease, we could cite military opinion in favour of our proposal. This debate terminates without any military opinion whatever having been set against the opinion of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, and the opinion I cited from Lord Wolseley. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary told us, with regard to a particular officer on the Army Council, that he accepted full responsibility; but the noble Earl guarded himself from saying that the officer approved of these reductions.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: As a matter of fact he took full and complete responsibility for the step that was taken. Sir. W. Nicholson joined the Army Council on 18th December, immediately after the Government was formed, and therefore he understood the whole of the change and everything that led up to it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I really do not wish to push this particular point any further, but it is one thing for a man to say that in view of the whole position placed before him, which includes an amount of money which the Government are going to give—it is one thing to say that in those circumstances we must dispense with this, that, and the other, and it is another thing to express the opinion that the country is safe if that is done. The noble Earl says an officer ought to resign if he does not agree, but we have before us something which is impalpable, a body which sits without minutes and without recorded decisions. I think the opinions of the military advisers will be found to vary very considerably when they are tested from a different standpoint. I only wish to refer to two other points. Lord Lucas did a considerable injustice to the efforts which were made in the War Office under the noble and
154
gallant Field-Marshal when he said there was now an organisation which there had never been before, and that, thanks to that organisation of the Regular troops, it was no longer so material if some of them were reduced. So far as I know, there is absolutely nothing with regard to the expeditionary force which has been changed or improved since the organisation which had the sanction of Lord Roberts.
LORD LUCAS: My point was, first, that there had been an enormous improvement in regard to the organisation of the expeditionary force, so that the units that would train together in peace would go out together in war. That was, I said, a great improvement as compared with what happened before. Secondly, I said that nothing had been done by the Conservative Government ever since the war to make any provision for that training machinery which they had to set up very inadequately and in a hurry after war had broken out.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I quite see what the noble Lord means, but it does not meet my point. The noble Lord told us that there was no halfway house, and that you must either trust the Territorial Force or it is no use at all. After our expeditionary force had gone we left behind a sufficient body both of infantry and artillery, to form a stiffening of the Territorial Force as it then existed. I say that that makes the whole difference. You will have no battery of Regulars left which you can mobilise in case of invasion. The noble Lord spoke as if we should never send the whole of our expeditionary force abroad if there were any apprehension of invasion. The Secretary of State the other day pointed out that circumstances might arise in which it would be very difficult for the Fleet to defend this country, and he added that in that event we should have to rely on our Territorial Force for defence against invasion. I will not at this late hour enter into that point, but I submit that to take the experience of the South African War as in any way a criterion of the pace at which we should send troops abroad, as was done by the noble

155
Earl the Colonial Secretary, is entirely misleading. We did not set out to send more than 30,000 or 40,000 men. We did not begin to do that until December, and the press came later. There are men in this country and on this side of your Lordships' House, who believe that if there were to be a raid on a large scale, we should not have six months, not six weeks, perhaps not even six days, in which to mobilise, and I think that the proposal to denude this country of all the Regular troops on whom we can depend, especially in the case of artillery, is one on which we should be granted further explanation. One satisfactory feature of the debate is that the opinions given will make it impossible for the Government to continue their reduction of the artillery. As the Government have stated that the production of such Papers as I have moved for would not be in the public interest, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.