Sitting of 20 June 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Great Grimsby Gas Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill,
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill,
Rhondda Urban District Council (Tramways Extension, &c), Bill.
Read the third time, and passed.
Shirebrook and District Gas Bill,
Southend Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Havant Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
City of London (Tithes and Rates) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Glasgow University (Chair of Clinical Medicine and Chair of Clinical Surgery) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Muirhead Trust Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
St. Mungo's College Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Message from the Lords:—
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Railway Passengers Assurance Company to the North British and Mercantile Insurance Company; and for other purposes." (Railway Passengers Assurance Company (Transfer) Bill [Lords].)
Railway Passengers Assurance Company (Transfer) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Malta Legislative Council.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention had been called to the published decision, bearing date 31st May, 1910, of five of the eight elected members of the Malta Legislative Council, to the effect that they would resign their seats not later than 14th October next unless the present state of affairs was remedied; and whether, seeing that elected members who contemplated taking such an extreme step must have had some real grievance, he would cause full inquiry to be made, to see if it would be at all possible to grant them the fuller representation they desired?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the declarations to which my hon. Friend refers. It would be a matter of regret if the elected members should carry out their intention of resigning their seats, but as it is less than a year since His Majesty's Government after a very careful review of the situation, made an important concession to the claims of the elected members by advising His Majesty to appoint two of their number to the Executive Council the Secretary of State is not prepared at present to consider the question of any further change in the Constitution.
  Mr. POINTER: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a letter from a prominent citizen of Valetta pointing out the reasons why the existing system is not working satisfactorily?
  Colonel SEELY: I have seen a great number of letters, and I cannot know what letter my hon. Friend refers to unless he makes his meaning more specific.

  Malta Customs Department.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Undersecretary for the Colonies whether, seeing the character of the Report by Mr. R. H. McCarthy, C.M.G., on the Malta Customs Department, in which he declared that there were in Malta highly-paid officials who were not rendering their country an hour's work daily, and that the department was generally overstaffed and mismanaged, any steps had
  4
  been taken to remedy the same; and, if not, whether any were contemplated in the immediate future?
  Colonel SEELY: Steps have been taken to remedy the defects in the organisation of the Customs Department of Malta, under the supervision of Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Marrable, an officer lent by the Imperial Customs, and, as a result of their efforts, a net saving of some £7,000 in the cost of the department is anticipated during the current year.

  British Guiana Drainage.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Undersecretary for the Colonies whether, in view of the difficulties of cultivation met with by the farmers on the coast lands of British Guiana because of the complete absence of natural drainage for the flat front lands, consideration would be given to the advisability of giving a substantial grant to be utilised exclusively for improving the drainage of the principal villages lying on the flat coast lands of the colony?
  Colonel SEELY: As I informed my hon. Friend on 10th March last, "the Colonial Government has had under consideration a Bill dealing with the promotion of schemes for irrigation and drainage, and the Secretary of State proposes to await the receipt of their proposals for dealing with the matter."

  British Guiana Railways.
  Mr. POINTERasked whether the Colonial Office had under consideration a scheme for a railway to run into the interior and gold bearing regions of British Guiana; and, if so, whether any statement could be made with regard to it?
  Colonel SEELY: Proposals to construct a railway into the interior of British Guiana have from time to time been made to the Government, but no definite and acceptable scheme has as yet been laid before them. On the last occasion certain preliminary proposals were put before the Governor by a gentleman interested in the development of the Colony, but no definite offer has resulted.

  Carriage of Bananas from Jamaica.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he had any further information to give to the House relating

  5
  to the contract with Messrs. Elder, Dempster, Limited, for the carriage of bananas from Jamaica to the United Kingdom; and whether it was still pro-to renew the contract?
  Colonel SEELY: I have no further information to give on the subject. No decision has been taken as yet with regard to a renewal of the contract. The whole matter is being carefully considered in all its bearings.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: When will the existing contract come to an end?
  Colonel SEELY: If my hon. Friend will put down a question I shall be able to give him precise information.

  Northern Nigeria Land and Taxation.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Undersecretary for the Colonies whether he was able to state if it was the intention of the Secretary of State to sanction legislation connected with the recent proposals as to land and taxation contained in the Report of the Northern Nigeria Lands Commission?
  Colonel SEELY: In the despatch of the Secretary of State, dated the 22nd of March last, which has been laid before Parliament, the Governor was requested to submit a draft of the legislation required to give effect to the decisions arrived at. I understand that the draft is in course of preparation.

  Dinizulu's Place of Residence.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether, in fulfilment of the pledge given by Lord Crewe after the decision of the special court at Greytown, the Colonial Office has been consulted by the Natal Government regarding Dinizulu's place of exile; whether it agreed that the Northern Transvaal was a just or otherwise proper selection; and whether it is proposed to lay Papers showing the negotiations that have taken place between the Home and Colonial Governments on the subject?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not quite clear to what my hon. Friend refers as the pledge of the Secretary of State. I assume, however, that he refers to the telegram published on page 49 in Cd. 4585, in which confidence was expressed that suitable provision would be made for Dinizulu after he had served his sentence. I am glad to be able to inform the House
  6
  that the Governor-General has informed us that on the day when Union was proclaimed the new Ministry authorised the immediate release of Dinizulu, the payment to him of £500 a year during good behaviour, and the provision for him of a residence on a farm in the Transvaal. Steps are being taken at the instance of the Prime Minister of the Union for collecting information respecting all available farms belonging to or under the control of Government, and when the information is complete the selection of the most suitable farm will be made by the Prime Minister himself. It is not proposed to lay Papers on the subject.

  Shooting Case Compensation (Nigeria).
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked what compensation, if any, has been given to the relatives of the man shot by Edward Tressing in Southern Nigeria?
  Colonel SEELY: On seeing my hon. Friend's question on the Paper I telegraphed to the Governor, and have just heard from him that Tressing paid the relatives £3.

  Deportation of English Emigrants
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if his attention had been directed to the statements of English emigrants deported from Canada; and if he will consider the advisability of legislation with the object of making societies or persons who induce British subjects to emigrate responsible for their admission into British Dominions?
  Colonel SEELY: The statements referred to have received my attention, but I do not think legislation on the lines suggested would be practicable.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Were no steps taken to bring under the notice of these societies and of the railway companies the terms on which emigrants are allowed to enter Canada?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes. Steps are taken and every effort is made to prevent these hard cases arising, but in the cases to which reference has been made there was an alteration made and the notice was not sufficient to enable the railway companies and the emigration societies to take steps which I think they otherwise would have taken. The whole matter is under consideration.

  Commercial Agreements (Canada and Foreign Countries).
  Major ADAMasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether, in view of the announcement that all the agreements of commercial reciprocity recently made between the Government of the Imperial Dominion of Canada and the Governments of foreign countries have been made with the full knowlede and consent of the Colonial Office, the Government will apply the principles of this policy to the other parts of the Empire?
  Colonel SEELY: Whatever course has been adopted with regard to Canada in the matters referred to would be adopted under similar circumstances with regard to the other self-governing Dominions.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in referring to the Dominion of Canada as the Imperial Dominion of Canada?
  Colonel SEELY: I think that that question should be addressed to the right, hon. Gentleman opposite?
  Major ADAM: Will the Budget for the coming year, which we are going to have this month, embody some of those principles?
  Mr. PAGE CROFT: Is it with the full knowledge and consent of the Colonial Office that these treaties have been made?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes; that has been stated several times here.
  Mr. PAGE CROFT: Was this treaty made with the full knowledge and consent of the Colonial Office?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes; that has frequently been stated here.

  Pecuniary Claims' Agreement (United States).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington had been authorised to sign a pecuniary claims' agreement with the Government of the United States; what were the provisions of this agreement; and when Papers would be laid?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. We are in communication with the United States Government with regard to the publication of the Treaty.

  Putumayo Valley (Alleged Torture and Murder).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether His Majesty's Government has received information from either the Peruvian or Colombian Governments regarding the fate of David Serrana, of La Reserva, and Ildefonso Gonzalez, who, with a number of their employés, are reported to have been first tortured and then murdered by the agents of a British company; and, if such information has not been received, will His Majesty's Government direct inquiries as to these two cases to the Governments of Peru and Colombia; (2) whether the Colombian Foreign Minister publicly denounced, on 3rd June, 1908, the Peruvian Amazon Company for crimes committed in the Putumayo Valley, South America, and warned them that full compensation would be demanded on behalf of the surviving relatives for such crimes; and will he request the Colombian Government to place the information it possesses at the disposal of His Majesty's Government; (3) whether he will ascertain the fate of the widows and children of David Serrano, Ildefonso Gonzalez, and some of their employés; and, if they are still held prisoners by the agents of the British company exploiting the Putumayo Valley, will he request the Peruvian Government to secure their early release from their captors, and take steps to compensate them for outrages to which they are reported to have been subjected by the agents of the Peruvian Amazon Company?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Commission of Inquiry, which is shortly proceeding to the Putumayo Valley, will doubtless investigate this matter, with a view to ascertain to what extent, if any, the officials of the Peruvian Amazon Company were implicated in the alleged atrocities. As the persons who are said to have been murdered or held prisoners in the manner described are understood to have been Colombian citizens, the matter concerns the Colombian Government. We are inquiring whether they have any information. We are not aware of the action of the Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has any reply been sent to the Colombian Government? Have you wired?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We have not wired as yet.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: In view of the fact that this Commission is going out very soon, will His Majesty's Government take steps to find out from the Colombian Government at the earliest possible moment what did happen to these people at the hands of the British company?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman is rather assuming as facts what are subjects for inquiry.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether this is a British company or not, and what would be the action taken? Does the Government propose to pursue wrong-doers for that reason in foreign territory?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: So far as I understand, the charge by the Colombian Government is that these atrocities were committed by Peruvians.

  Consular Service (Appointment of Foreigners).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether the. Foreign Secretary will consider the advisability of restricting, as far as possible, the appointment of foreign subjects as British Consuls in important centres and the replacement of the present holders of these appointments by officers of the salaried service as the appointments become vacant?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Unsalaried consular officers are appointed only at places where British commercial, or other, interests do not appear to be of sufficient importance to justify the expenditure attached to the appointment of an officer of His Majesty's salaried consular service. Any representation that an unsalaried consular officer should be replaced by a salaried consular officer at any particular post will always receive careful consideration on its merits. I may add, with regard to unsalaried consular appointments, that British subjects are invariably given the preference over candidates of foreign nationality in cases where an equally suitable candidate of British nationality is available.

  British Consul at Dresden.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether a foreign subject has recently been appointed British consul in Dresden; and whether he has received a memorial from the British residents in Dresden on the subject?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The answer to
  10
  the second part of the question is in the negative. This is a case in which no salary is attached to the position of Consul. In such cases, as I have already stated in reply to a previous question, British subjects are invariably given the preference over candidates of foreign nationality whenever an equally suitable candidate of British nationality is available. I would remind the hon. Member that there is a British Minister resident at Dresden who was best able to judge how far the applicants were suited by position and personal qualifications to render assistance to the British community.
  Mr. G. A. LLOYD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that British subjects are always more suitable candidates for consular appointments than foreign subjects?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; that is a proposition to which I do not think anyone would subscribe.

  Labour Exchanges (Appointment of Clerks).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will substitute open competition for patronage in the appointment of clerks to Labour Exchanges?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I do not at present propose to make any change in the method of filling these positions.

  Newport Dock Dispute.
  Mr. HAY MORGANasked whether the superintendent of the Newport Labour Exchange undertook to find men on the morning of the 14th instant to load the steamer "Indian Transport" in place of the members of the National Amalgamated Labourers' Union and the Dock, Wharf, Riverside, and General Labourers' Union, who had refused to abide by the award of the Board of Trade arbitrator defining the conditions of employment; that the Mayor of Newport, on the strength of this undertaking, refrained from giving an assurance to the owners of the vessel, although requested to do so, that the necessary protection would be afforded to the men whom they had employed to load the cargo; whether he is aware that only three men from the Labour Exchange presented themselves at the vessel, all of whom were quite unsuited for the purpose for which they were required, one being an old man who had done no work

  11
  during the past two years; and whether he will issue instructions that in supplying men for employment through the Labour Exchanges some regard shall be had to their fitness for the work for which they are required?
  Mr. BUXTON: The facts are not correctly stated in the question. On Monday, 13th June, the manager of the Newport Labour Exchange received an application for sixty men to load the steamship "Indian Transport," it being specified that the men would be engaged under the terms of the award made by the Board of Trade. No special qualifications in respect of these men were specified. Forty-four men applied at the Exchange for employment on Tuesday, 14th June, and of these twenty-eight local men, after being duly informed of the situation, were sent to the "Indian Transport" between the hours of 9 and 12·30. None of these men were engaged owing, as I understand, to the fact that the stevedores did not consider the number sufficient to make a start. It is the duty of Labour Exchange managers to endeavour to notify vacancies to suitable applicants, but obviously they cannot compel workmen to accept situations.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is it not the fact that the original dispute arose out of the refusal of Messrs. Houlder Brothers to accept the agreement entered into by the employés with the Newport branch? Is it true, also, that at the present time a large number of police are occupied at Newport in playing cards and following other pursuits at the expense of the ratepayers, without any necessity for it whatever?
  Mr. BUXTON: I would rather not go into the merits of the case in reply to a question. The matter is a very complicated one, and I would prefer not to go beyond the answer I have given. In regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question I am glad to know that the work is going on peacefully and without interference on the part of those connected with the dispute in reference to the loading of the "Indian Transport."
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the police protection provided by the local authorities in connection with the Newport dock strike is limited to the dock in which the "Indian Transport" and the Shipping Federation depot ship upon which the imported labourers are housed for safety are
  12
  lying, and to the premises of Messrs. Houlder, Brothers, and Company's (Limited) Newport office; and whether he has advised the local authorities that protection should also be afforded to foremen tally clerks and others concerned in the loading of the vessel and Messrs. Houlder's business, not only while at work, but at their places of residence and while going to and from their work?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill):The points mentioned in the question— the "Indian Transport," the Shipping Federation's depot ship, and Messrs. Houlder's office—are the principal points protected by the police at Newport; but I am informed by the Mayor that police protection is given whenever the police have reason to believe it to be necessary to persons employed by Messrs. Houlder. The Mayor further reports that the police have had no information about the foremen mentioned in the question except a statement in the newspapers that they had been persuaded by unionists not to work with the imported labourers, and had returned to Bristol; and that they heard nothing of the alleged molestation of the tally clerks until after the occurrence, when summonses were taken out. The police are ready to protect anyone who requests assistance, but it is manifestly impossible to find an escort for every person who goes to or leaves the docks.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will see or endeavour to induce the Mayor to see that in future he is acquainted with the cases which are likely to lead to assault and intimidation before they arise instead of after, as apparently has been the case?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the Mayor of Newport and the Watch Committee have been dealing with a situation of extreme delicacy and difficulty, and so far have dealt with it with great success.

  Brussels Exhibition (British Section).
  Mr. BARNES (for Mr. Ramsay Macdonald)asked what previous qualifications the officers in charge of the British section of the Brussels Exhibition have had in this kind of work; whether he has received complaints from exhibitors regarding the bad arrangement of the British section compared with that of other sections, particularly that of Germany; whether his attention has been drawn to criticisms on this subject; and whether, before finally

  13
  settling the details of the exhibition which is to be held in Italy next year, he will consult some artist or architect with experience in such matters so that the British exhibitors may reap the full advantage of their outlay?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade have received no complaints from exhibitors regarding the organisation of the British section, but, on the other hand, a large number of the exhibitors have expressed their entire satisfaction with the arrangements which have been made, and their gratitude for the assistance which they have received from the Department. In my judgment, the officers in charge of the British section have thoroughly proved their competence by the way in which they have carried out their duties, and I have every hope that the arrangements made in regard to the exhibitions at Turin and Home next year will be equally satisfactory. Naturally, the advice of competent artists and architects has been, and will be, sought so far as necessary.

  Deptford Victualling Yard (Hired Men).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that hired workmen are discharged from Deptford Victualling Yard upon reaching the age of sixty, without pension, although in other Departments they are allowed to remain in employment until they reach the age of sixty-five; and whether he can see his way to arrange that in future the latter practice shall prevail in the Deptford Victualling Yard?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The practice at Deptford Victualling Yard is to give each hired labourer, on reaching the age of sixty, if he is of good character and physically fit, the option of remaining.

  Submarines (Safety Helmets).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether safety helmets are provided in submarines sufficient in number for the entire crews?
  Mr. McKENNA: Forty-seven submarines are provided with safety air helmets in sufficient number for a full crew.

  Australia and New Zealand (Naval Construction).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether orders have as yet been given for the construction of the armoured vessels provided by Australia and New Zealand; and, if so, when they were laid down, and what names have been allotted to them?
  Mr. McKENNA: The orders have been placed. The ships are to be laid down on 23rd June and to-day respectively. No names have yet been allotted to them.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether orders have yet been given for all the destroyers of the present programme, inclusive of the three vessels destined for service in New Zealand waters; and, if so, where they are to be built, and what names have been allotted to them?
  Mr. McKENNA: Orders have been placed provisionally for the vessels referred to, except for the three destined for service in New Zealand waters, as follows:—

  Clyde district

  8

  Tyne district

  5

  Southampton and Isle of Wight district

  4

  Barrow and Birkenhead district

  3

  Names have not yet been allotted to them.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when these three ships are likely to be ordered?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not state at this moment the precise date, but the orders will be given in time for the vessels to go out with the rest of the ships in 1912.

  Torpedo Destroyers (Special Designs).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the six destroyers, tendered for upon special designs, differ in any material respects from those designed by the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: For reasons, which I am sure the hon. Member would appreciate, it is not considered desirable to publish any details of these vessels at this stage.

  Cordite (Heat Test).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the Government have accepted from Waltham Abbey cordite for issue to the Fleet which has failed to pass the heat test laid down as necessary; and, if the heat test has been found superfluous, what test is now employed in order to ensure the safety of His Majesty's ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the Noble and Gallant Lord's question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I am informed that the heat test has not been found superfluous.

  Gibraltar (Admiralty Inspection).
  Mr. FELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman proposes at an early date to make a visit of inspection of the dockyard and fortress at Gibraltar?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I have no immediate prospect of finding time for a visit to Gibraltar?
  Mr. FELL: As his visit was unfortunately interrupted, is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to visit Gibraltar in a short while or within a reasonable time?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should do so if I had the opportunity. I could not answer as to the future.
  Mr. FELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman has had any recent reports made on the condition of the fortress of Gibraltar and its powers of resisting modern guns and explosives?
  Mr. McKENNA: Any report on the fortress of Gibraltar would be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

  Woolwich Torpedo Factory Employés.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked whether it is intended that the 500 torpedo factory employés of Woolwich are to be transferred to Greenock within three months; whether he is aware that at present in Greenock there is only available accommodation for about 160 families; whether, in view of this, steps will be taken to ensure that men are not transferred to Greenock until there is proper house accommodation for them; and whether, seeing that the cost of living in Greenock is at least as high as in Woolwich, the decision to impose reductions in the remuneration of the men shall be reconsidered?
  Mr. McKENNA: As at present arranged the transfers will take place approximately as follows:—In July, 100 men; August, 150 men; September, 175 men; October, 120 men. So far as the Admiralty are aware, sufficient accommodation is available in tenements such as are usual in the Scottish manufacturing centres. To encourage the building of cottages on the English system for the torpedo factory employés, the Admiralty have agreed to guarantee on certain conditions the rent of 100 houses which are to be commenced forthwith, and to be completed by the end of this year. The rates of pay for the
  16
  men transferred from Woolwich will be considerably higher than the corresponding local rates at Greenock.

  Civilian Officers (Navy).
  Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether civilian officers employed at Home and Abroad in His Majesty's naval establishments are given the same facilities for qualifying as interpreters in foreign languages as officers in the Service afloat; and, if not, will he grant the same facilities or state what is the reason for drawing a distinction between them.
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Naval officers are encouraged to acquire an expert knowledge of foreign languages, firstly, because such knowledge can usefully be employed in times of peace on the occasion of visits by His Majesty's ships to foreign ports; and, secondly, because it would be extremely valuable in time of war. These considerations do not apply with the same cogency to the case of civilian officers in dockyards and other naval establishments.

  Admiralty Harbour Works, Dover (Engineers' Wages).
  Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of Admiralty whether he is aware that the superintendent civil engineer, Admiralty Harbour Works Division, Dover, is now employing one or more assistant engineers on dredger at the wages of 35s. a week of seven days, of 12 hours each day, or 5d. an hour; that an assistant engineer is a skilled fitter, possessing a practical knowledge of marine work, evidenced, if possible, by a Board of Trade certificate; that the current rate of wages for a fitter in shop or ship at Dover is 36s. for a week of not more than fifty-four hours, or 8d. an hour, and at Chatham for a similar week 38s.; and whether he will at once take steps to see that the current rate of wages, in proportion to the hours' work, is paid to assistant engineers or fitters employed at Dover, in accordance with the undertaking given to the House?
  Mr. McKENNA: The terms of service are not correctly stated by the hon. Member in the first part of his question. When twelve hours are worked during any day, pay for a day and a quarter is allowed. Moreover, 35s. a week is the minimum rate, the maximum being 42s. a week. The assistant engineers referred

  17
  to are not engaged as nor required to be skilled fitters, and it is not considered that their duties are comparable with those of a skilled fitter.
  Mr. HOHLER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state the rate of wages per hour of engineers at Dover?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no regular number of hours worked daily, and, as I have stated in reply to the question, when the hours are worked the pay would be at the rate of 35s. per week, plus a quarter per diem.
  Mr. HOHLER: Would the right hon. Gentleman give me the number of hours worked and the rate of pay, and I will work out the sum per hour?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no exact rate which can be worked out because these men are engaged by the week, and the number of hours they work per diem varies. If they work twelve hours they are paid one day and a quarter.
  Mr. HOHLER: Could not the right hon. Gentleman state the rate of pay and the minimum number of hours, and the rest of the calculation is easy?
  Mr. McKENNA: That would imply that I should be able to say how many hours per week these men are called on to work. As the number of hours varies it would be impossible for me to say the number of hours they would be required to work.

  Portsmouth Harbour (Fairway).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is a twenty-five-foot patch in the fairway into Portsmouth Harbour; if so, how long has this obstacle been known to exist; whether the fairway was dredged some years ago to an average depth of thirty feet; whether he is aware that the fairway has silted up to an average of twenty-six to twenty-seven feet low-water springs; and why, in view of the increased draughts of the new type of battleships, any part of the channel has been allowed to silt up to the extent indicated?
  Mr. McKENNA: Two patches of twenty-six feet exist on the outer bar, but no depth of twenty-five feet is known of in any part of the fairway. The inner bar has been dredged to a depth of twenty-nine feet, and this depth is maintained throughout. I have not yet been able to verify the statement as to the dredging carried out some years ago.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not the fact that a battleship can only get into Portsmouth Harbour or out of it either at high tide or half flood?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; these are the depths at low-water springs, and low-water springs are not a constant occurrence.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: No, but they come.
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.

  Official Certifying Surgeons.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he contemplates taking any steps to prevent the official certifying surgeons acting privately for trade unions or insurance companies in any capacity wherein fees are paid for medical decisions or reports?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It would not be possible to lay down any general rule on the subject because in industrial districts it is often difficult to find a well-qualified medical man who does not hold some appointment in connection with employers or associations of workpeople. The consideration, however, is borne in mind in making appointments, and the Department is always prepared to inquire into any case of grievance that may be brought to its notice. I may add that an appeal lies from decisions of a certifying surgeon under the Workmen's Compensation Act to the medical referee appointed under that Act.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask it is not possible where there are several certifying surgeons to arrange that some of those surgeons shall be whole time officials, and thereby not have any private practice or any private interests?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. Friend will make a special local case I will give my best attention to it.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is desirable that doctors who act either for employers or for trade unions should not also be employed as certifying surgeons in compensation cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I have already answered that.

  Factory Inspectors (Knowledge of Welsh).
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked how many factory inspectors and sub-inspectors are engaged in Wales; how many of them, respectively, are conversant with Welsh; and whether, in accepting nominations for the examination of candidates for such posts, the Department pays any regard to the demand that such posts should in Wales be filled by persons acquainted with the Welsh tongue?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Five inspectors and two inspectors' assistants are stationed in Wales, of whom four inspectors and one assistant speak Welsh. The superintending inspector of the division, which includes the chief industrial centres of Wales, also speaks Welsh. In the selection of candidates for nomination consideration is given to Welsh, and also in filling vacancies, in accordance with the provisions of Section 118, Sub-section 2, of the Act; but my hon. Friend will understand that no inspectors are appointed to the staff solely for service in Wales, and that there must be interchange on promotion with other parts of the country. If this were not so, the prospects of Welsh-speaking inspectors might be prejudiced.

  Public Refuges (London).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the rest erected recently at the east end of Mount Street; whether he is aware that the position is considered dangerous by the police authorities; that no conveyance can draw up opposite the rest without great danger to the occupants, if any, that when a conveyance does draw up opposite the rest the entire traffic of the street has to be diverted to the wrong side of the road; and that, for a public conveyance of any kind to draw up opposite the rest for the-purpose of setting down or taking up passengers is regarded by cabmen as a breach of the police regulations; whether he will say by whose authority the rest was erected in its present position; whether the police authorities were consulted; and whether any correspondence has passed between the Westminster City Council and the police authorities on the subject, and with what result?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The provision of a refuge at the junction of Mount Street and Berkeley Square was required in the
  20
  interests of pedestrians on account of the considerable volume of fast wheeled traffic; but it is doubtful if the exact spot chosen was the best available, having regard to the interests also of residents of houses facing the refuge. The Commissioner of Police has suggested to the Westminster City Council a change in the position of the refuge, which would, in his opinion, make it equally effective for the protection of pedestrians, while removing a hardship felt by certain residents, before whose doors carriages cannot under existing circumstances set down The Westminster City Council at present do not see their way to comply with this recommendation.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform the House whether the rest as now placed is dangerous to the public, and whether it does not interfere with the public and is a public nuisance and danger?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no knowledge of the particular refuge in question, but the question on the Paper, I think, is already answered.

  Registry of Deeds, Ireland (Increase of Work).
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNNasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware of the discontent which had long existed among the permanent officials of the Registry of Deeds in Ireland owing to the great increase of work thrown on the staff by recent legislation; and whether any steps were being taken to remedy their grievances?
  The SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am aware that representations on this subject have been received from the Registry of Deeds, and the matter is under the consideration of the Treasury.
  Mr. GWYNN: In view of the fact that the grievance has been permitted to exist for several years, cannot some hastening be effected?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A representation was made on the last day of January this year —not several years ago.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a letter was received at the Treasury dated 4th May last, addressed to him by Mr. Edward M'Fadden, solicitor for Mr. William M'Fadden and forty-five

  21
  other old age pensioners in the Letter-kenny, county Donegal, district, asking for the restoration of their pension books, of which they were deprived by the postmaster at Letterkenny on 29th April, informing him that appeals were pending in these cases, which were the subject of proceedings in the King's Bench, Ireland, and stating that the immediate proceedings would be taken for the restoration of the books unless their return was ordered; whether any reply was sent to this letter; and whether any of the books had since been returned to the pensioners?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state on what legal grounds the pension books of seventy-six old age pensioners of Letterkenny, county Donegal, district were, on 29th April last and subsequent dates, taken from the pensioners by the postmaster; on whose authority were the books thus taken; whether, in all these cases, legal proceedings as to the validity of appeals in the cases were then pending; whether it was proposed to return the books to the pensioners pending the decision of the Local Government Board in the question of the validity of the appeals; and whether an immediate refund of the arrears of the pensions in these cases would be made in the event of the pensions being restored to the claimants?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I fear I am not in a position to give full answers to these questions at the moment. I regret that any delay should have occurred in dealing with this matter, which is a very important one. It was in any case necessary to wait until a decision was given by the Court of Appeal on the application of the Local Government Board for a mandamus to compel the local sub-committee to deliver up the documents required in these cases, and that decision has only just been given. The matter will now be further considered at once, and I will let the hon. Member know what is being done.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Kelly)asked whether, in the case of the Local Government Board against the Letterkenny, county Donegal, pension sub-committee, in which both the King's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal in Ireland have unanimously held that the contention of the Board in asking the committee to deliver up to them certain papers was not justified and in which the committee were awarded costs against
  22
  the Board by the King's Bench Division, but deprived of them, although succeeding in that contention, by the Court of Appeal, he will give directions that the Board should pay the costs incurred by the pension committee in defending the case in which they were proved to be all along right in their contention?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked whether an application was made in the King's Bench Division in Ireland in the month of May last, at the suit of the Local Government Board for Ireland, against the Letterkenny pension sub-committee for an order for a mandamus for the delivery up to the Board of certain papers in connection with alleged appeals in the cases of seventy-six old age pensioners, and in which the committee alleged the service of the notice of appeals was not given within the prescribed time; whether the application was unanimously dismissed with costs by the King's Bench Division; whether an appeal was taken from this decision by the Local Government Board; whether the appeal was, on 13th June last, unanimously refused by the Court of Appeal; whether before the appeal was decided the old age pensioners were deprived of their pension books; whether the conduct of the Local Government Board in these proceedings has his sanction; and whether he will see that in future the public money is not spent for no useful purpose in such a manner?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not at present in a position to reply to these two questions, as the Local Government Board have not yet received a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case referred to.

  Colonies and Overseas Dominions.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the confusion that arises owing to the wrongful application to Australia and other overseas dominions of the terms "Colonies" and "Colonial," he would undertake such a reconstruction of the office of the Secretary of State for the Colonies as would enable a Secretary of State to deal with all mutual affairs between His Majesty's Government and that of Australia and other overseas dominions of the same status and another Secretary of State to deal with matters relating to the Colonies?
  Colonel SEELY: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I fear that I can add nothing to the answers which have already been given to him on

  23
  this subject. I have no reason to think that the suggestion made in the second part of the question would be acceptable to the dominions.

  Kingstown Harbour (London and North-Western Railway).
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury had had under their consideration the question of the dues to be charged to the London and North-Western Railway Company for the use by their steamers of Kingstown Harbour since March, 1908; could he now state when a decision in this matter would be arrived at; and, in the event of the Treasury deciding that a Royal harbour maintained by public moneys was not to be used by a private company at a merely nominal charge, such dues as might be decided upon would be chargeable against the London and North-Western Railway Company from the date upon which this company first used this harbour?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question of the dues to be paid by the London and North-Western Railway Company for the use of Kingstown Harbour is engaging my attention, and I hope to be able to arrive at a conclusion very shortly.
  Mr. MOONEY: As the matter has now been under consideration for two years, is it not time a decision was come to?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question is not so easy as it appears on the face of it, the matter being complicated by other payments for quite different services.

  Income Tax (1908–9) arid Death Duties (1909–10).
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he could now state for the financial year 1909–10 the number of estates paying death duties, the total amount of the duties paid, the total amount of capital whereon those duties were paid, and the average aggregate rate per cent., corporation duty being represented by the annual value upon which the duty was paid in the year; and could he now state for the financial year 1908–9 the total income in which tax was paid, the abatements allowed, life insurance premiums allowed, income, including abatements and life insurance premiums, increase per cent, over the preceding year, net produce of Income Tax, and average virtual rate of tax per cent?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I regret that the information necessary to enable me to answer the first part of the hon. Member's question is not yet available. As regards the second part of the question, the figures for 1908–9 are as follows:—

  Total income on which tax was

  £

  raised

  693,323,082

  Abatements allowed

  120,274,508

  Life insurance premiums allowed

  10,460,051

  Income including abatements and life insurance premiums

  824,057,641

  Increase per cent, over the preceding year 3·10

  Net produce of Income Tax

  33,408,754

  Average virtual rate of tax percent 4·05

  National Debt (Return).
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he could explain why he proposed to make a Return of the National Debt under the heading of Dead Weight Debt, other Capital Liabilities, and Gross Liabilities of the State, giving that debt as it stood on 1st April of each year at the beginning of the financial year, instead of giving it, as in the National Debt Return long annually issued, as it stood on 31st March or at the close of each financial year; could he say what advantage or extra information was derived from making the Return applicable to one day later than had been the usual practice; and would he explain whether he proposed in the statement of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State, to include or to exclude the sum, amounting to over £25,000,000 representing the State liability to the depositors in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks and friendly societies arising from the deficiency of their assets as compared with their liabilities?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The object of the Special Return referred to is to show the amount of each variety of debt and the total at the beginning of each financial year, the increase or decrease in each year, and how such increase or decrease arose. For the purposes of the general National Debt Return it is more convenient to give the figures as at the end of each year. The figures at the beginning of any financial year are, of course, the same as those at the end of the preceding financial year, and the first column of the Return

  25
  first referred to adds nothing to the information contained in the other Return. The only object in inserting it is to bring that information into relation with the other particulars proposed to be given in the Return. It is proposed that the scope of the Return should be the same as that of the similar Returns laid since the year 1908, and that it should not include contingent liabilities either in respect of savings banks' deposits or in respect of guaranteed loans which are not given in either Return.

  East Dorset By-Election (Action of Postmaster).
  Mr. HAMBROasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention had been called to the fact that a Mr. Wilson, postmaster of Winton, Bournemouth, had been taking part in the by-election in East Dorset and speaking for the Liberal candidate; and whether such action was sanctioned at the General Post Office?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The facts, to which my attention had not previously been called, are as stated. The sub-postmaster of Winton has committed a breach of the published rules of the Post Office. I have taken steps to ensure the proper observance of the rules now and in future.

  Welsh-Speaking Postmasters.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that there existed a demand that postmasters in Welsh towns and villages should be acquainted with the Welsh language; and whether, in making such appointments in future, he was prepared in the public interest to comply with the wishes of the people of Wales in this regard?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that such a demand exists. It is already the practice to appoint postmasters with a knowledge of the Welsh language in towns and villages in Wales where that language is commonly spoken. In the case of the more important offices the field of selection would be unduly limited if knowledge of Welsh were insisted upon as an indispensable qualification in addition to the many other qualifications required.

  Fordyce (Closing of School).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the narrow majority by which the school board decided to close the school at Fordyce, and
  26
  the strong representations made by various authorities in the counties of Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, and Inverness against that decision, it would be possible to delay the proceedings until after the School Board election in April next, and so avoid the expense of probable litigation?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure):After the fullest consideration of the subject in all its bearings in the light of the various representations made to them, the Department have come to the conclusion that they would not be justified in or attempting to interfere with the discretion of the school board in the matter.

  Veto Resolutions (Conference).
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he adhered to the undertaking given at an earlier period of the Session that the Resolutions adopted by this House limiting the legislative powers of the House of Lords should be introduced into that House without any unnecessary delay, and that, in the event of rejection, advice would be tendered to the Crown with a view to ensuring that a Bill founded upon such Resolutions should become law?
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet had the meeting with the senior Member for the City of London; and, if so, whether he could now state to this House what were the prospects of a conference being held between the party leaders upon the present relations between the two Houses of Parliament?
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether his hope of an early meeting with the Leader of the Opposition had yet been realised; and, if so, with what result?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The official announcement published on Friday evening shows what progress has been made in regard to a meeting between representatives of the Government and the Opposition. As regards the inquiries addressed to me, in the existing circumstances, I must ask my hon. Friend to be content with the assurance, which I have no hesitation in giving, that the Government have not lost sight of, and will not lose sight of, the declared objects of their policy.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the addition of the Chief Secretary to the Conference was made at the request or at the suggestion of the Irish Party, and

  27
  whether arrangements will be made to include a representative of the Labour Party?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that that is a question which ought to be put to me. There has been no addition of any sort or kind.

  Land Legislation (Scotland).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Prime Minister if his attention had been directed to the state of affairs on the West Coast of the Highlands of Scotland, to the number of able-bodied men and women from the South of Scotland who were compelled to leave the country through inability to get land or work on the land, and to the recent action of the Canadian immigration authorities deporting able-bodied immigrants willing to work; and whether, in view of the demand for remedial land legislation throughout Scotland, he would invite a conference to consider land legislation, on the basis not only of his Earlston speech, but on that of his speech before at Inverness, and to which he pledged the Liberal Party?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be glad to consider any information that my hon. Friend may have in his possession as to the condition of affairs in the West Coast of the Highlands, but I am unable to see that any practical purpose would be served by the adoption of the suggestion contained in his question.

  President of the Council (Salary and Duties).
  Mr. BYLESasked the Prime Minister what were the duties devolving upon the President of the Council, whose office had just been vacated; and whether, having regard to the proposed augmentation in the salaries of the Presidents of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade, he would consider the wisdom of making some arrangement by which the duties of President of Council could be transferred or distributed and the salary attaching to that office, or some part of it, be saved to the nation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The duties of the Lord President of the Council extend to the supervision of all the administrative functions of the Privy Council, which, under a variety of Statutes, Orders in Council, and otherwise, are discharged through the medium of the Privy Council Office or any special Committee of the
  28
  Privy Council. If my hon. Friend wishes it I will send him details of the duties of this office. The suggestions made by my hon. Friend for a transfer of duties from other Departments to the Lord President of the Council have been considered, but found administratively impossible.
  Mr. BYLES: Will the Prime Minister be as vigilant in reducing salaries which are excessive as he is in raising them when he considers them inadequate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope I shall show an impartial vigilance.

  Poor Law Administration (Bermondsey).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had received a demand for an inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law in Bermondsey?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns):The reply is in the affirmative. A preliminary investigation into the matters in question is proceeding.

  Camberwell Guardians (Supply of Meat to Salvation Army Shelter).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he was aware that for some time past the Camberwell Board of Guardians had been in the habit of sending daily supplies of meat to the Salvation Army shelter at Blackfriars; whether such meat was subsequently sold by the Salvation Army to persons using the shelter; whether any payment had been made to the guardians in respect of such meat; and, if not, by whose authority -the property of the Camberwell ratepayers was dealt with in this way?
  Mr. BURNS: According to my present information it has been the practice at the Camberwell Infirmary to give the meat from which beef tea has been extracted, and remains of refuse food from the officers' meals, and occasional bones, to representatives of the Salvation Army who call for it. I am making further inquiry into the subject.

  Infectious Diseases Hospitals.
  Major ADAMasked the President of the Local Government Board if he would state the number of infectious hospitals provided by the various local sanitary authorities in England and Wales, their cost for erection and maintenance, and the number of patients admitted over a convenient

  29
  period of years; and whether, in view of the diversity of the skilled and medical experience which exists on the subject and the cost to the ratepayers which is involved, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the whole question of the usefulness of infectious hospitals, other than small-pox hospitals, as a means of preventing the spread of disease, and generally, in view of the extended experience which now exists on the subject, into the advantages or disadvantages which may be found to attend their use?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not at present in possession of complete information on the points mentioned in the first part of the question. I may say, however, that by the General Order which will very shortly be issued in pursuance of Sub-section 2 of Section 68 of the Housing and Town Planning, etc., Act of last Session, the County Medical Officer of Health will be required to inquire into and report upon the hospital accommodation in each county and upon any need for the provision of further accommodation. As regards the second part of the question, I am advised that there can be no doubt as to the utility of isolation hospitals in the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases, when conjoined with good administration in regard to the other means necessary to prevent the spread of infection, among which the careful search for overlooked or non-notified cases of the same disease bears an important part.

  FINANCE ACT, 1910.

    SUPEE-TAX (COLLECTION FORMS).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are the unauthorised persons into whose hands he fears the forms for the collection of the Super-tax might fall?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Any persons who are either not directly concerned in the matter or are not authorised to act on behalf of persons directly concerned.
    Mr. FELL: Is there any difficulty in obtaining these forms now without payment, and may I also inquire whether lists are kept of the persons applying for them?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no charge at all. The difficulty arose, I think, because there was a desire on the part of some persons to make something out of them.

    LICENCE DUTIES (TIED PUBLIC-HOUSES).
    Mr. HINDLEasked whether it is proposed that the Commissioners who, under Section 46 of the Finance Act, 1910, have in default of agreement to apportion as between the owners and the tenants of tied public - houses the amount of the increased Licence Duties, should make regulations as to the procedure before them and as to the evidence and the principles upon which those apportionments will be made; and whether, in view of the fact that a contention has already been raised that the entire burden of the duties should rest upon the tied tenant where neither his rent nor the price of his liquor has been raised, the Commissioners will give an early ruling on the point?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The responsibility of determining the apportionment of the increased duty in the case of tied houses under Section 46 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is only imposed upon the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in default of agreement between the parties interested in the business carried on. It is not considered necessary or advisable at present to make any formal regulations as to the procedure to be followed where cases are refererd to the Commissioners, and it is impossible for them to give a ruling upon any matter affecting an apportionment until a specific case is brought before them for their determination. Having regard to the variety of ties and the great divergence of practice connected with them, it is probable that any ruling upon a particular case could only be regarded as applicable to other cases where the tie and circumstances are of a precisely similar character. There have been informal communications between the members of the different sections of the trade and the Commissioners, and it is at present anticipated that, speaking generally, the apportionment of the increased duties under the Section will be a matter of arrangement between the parties interested and that the services of the Commissioners will not often be required.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is not the tenant, under the Section, primarily responsible for the tax?
    Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Is this not a matter in which each case will have to be adjudicated upon, and to which it is impossible to lay down a general rule?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is quite impossible to lay down a general rule.

    INCREMENT VALUE DUTIES.
    Mr. HINDLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions will be given to the officials who have charge of the collection of the Increment Value Duties not to require the transferors of small freehold or leasehold properties to obtain and furnish at their own expense abstracts or certified copies of old deeds and plans relating to the title which are not in their own possession, merely because such deeds may contain particulars of old covenants relating to the land, where there is no probability that any Increment Duty will be payable by such transferors?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have directed that, in cases where it is represented by the transferors that it is impossible to produce the earlier instrument containing the covenants relating to the land which is being transferred, it will be sufficient to accept either a statement setting forth such covenants, or, where the existence of the covenants has had no influence in fixing the consideration for the transaction under review, a statement to that effect.
    Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Pretyman)asked in how many cases, if any, the final increment value stamp denoting that Increment Value Duty has been settled has yet been fixed to any instrument presented to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the regulations made by them for that purpose?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In no case has either of the stamps referred to in Section 4, Sub-section (3) (a) and (c) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, been given, pending the valuation of the land as provided for by the Act. But, with a view to the convenience of persons interested in the land transactions affected, the stamp mentioned in (b) of that Sub-section has been given in all cases where the requisite particulars have been furnished, and this stamp is equally effective to secure a good title, so far as Increment Value Duty is concerned. I understand that documents deposited with the Inland Revenue for stamping under this Sub-section are not retained in the great majority of cases for more than twenty-four hours.
    Lord BALCARRES: Cannot the final stamping take place until the valuation is declared?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The stamping under Sub-section (6) is quite sufficient for
    32
    the purposes of completing the title, and the purchaser has nothing whatever to do so far as the adjustment is concerned as between the vendor and the Inland Revenue.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will now assess Increment Value Duty on any sale or lease or will such assessment stand over until the property, the subject of the sale or lease, has been valued under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; if the assessment is not to await the valuation on what basis will the assessment be made; if it is to await the valuation when will the valuation be made; will property which has changed hands be valued first or will the assessment have to await the completion of the general valuation under Section 28 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and, pending the assessment, will it be possible for the Commissioners to place any stamp on any deeds presented to them under the provisions of Section 4 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, other than the stamp (6) referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The assessment of Increment Value Duty must of necessity be deferred until the original site value of the particular parcel of land has been ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; but in cases where an occasion of Increment Duty has arisen, arrangements have been made to effect the valuation immediately, so that no delay should occur. Pending the assessment of the duty, the only stamp which the Commissioners have power to give is that referred to in Section 4 (3) (b) of the Act.

    EXECUTION OF CONVEYANCES.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that many conveyances have been executed since the date of the commencement of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in pursuance of contracts entered into before that date, to the further fact that in practice it is unusual and undesirable to make reference in a deed of conveyance to a prior contract, and that even if such reference were made a purchaser, in view of the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 4 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, would not be bound to accept as duly stamped a deed referring to a previous contract, he is willing to bring in an amending Bill to empower the Commis-

    33
    sioners of Inland Revenue to impress a denoting stamp providing for these cases and so removing a flaw on the title?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The temporary difficulty to which the hon. Member refers can be met in the manner suggested in my reply of the 14th instant to the hon. Member for Thornbury, and I do not consider legislation on this point either desirable or necessary.

    Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that doubts have been widely expressed as to whether, in Section 11 (5) of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, the proviso that the provisions of Part I. of the same Act prohibiting the compulsory acquisition of the classes of land mentioned in Subsection (3) of Section 5 thereof should apply to the acquisition by the Road Board of land on either side of a road proposed to be constructed by the Board, was intended in fact to refer to such Sub-section, which contains no prohibition and specifies no classes of land, or was intended to refer to Sub-section (2) of the same Section, which does contain a prohibition and does specify certain excepted classes of land, namely, any park, garden, or pleasure ground, land acquired by a corporation or company for the purposes of a railway or other public undertaking, or the site of an ancient monument, he will take steps to remove this doubt before the Road Board seek to administer this part of the above Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member will find that the clerical error in Section 11 (5) of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, to which he refers, was corrected by Section (3) of the Act to amend the said Act which recently received the Royal Assent.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that copies of the Act, with this clerical error, are still being sold by the Government publishers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, the Act has got to be sold in the form in which it was originally passed. The corrections made will be found in the amending Act.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make it
    34
    clear whom this amended Development Act (Part 2) does affect?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not see how that can be done in any form which gives greater publicity to the matter than the passage of the amending Act. I think the question of the hon. Gentleman will aid in making the matter clearer.

    Scottish Universities (Grant).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to a Grant to the Scottish Universities?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope to be in a position very shortly to state the conclusions at which I have arrived.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman will at the same time make any statement in regard to the English universities?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Before I can make a statement in regard to the English universities there is a small deputation that has been appointed, and they want to see me before I have arrived at any conclusion.
    Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of seeing that deputation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am pretty hard pressed at present, but I hope to be able to see the Members shortly. I think it is desirable that a conclusion should be arrived at at the earliest possible moment.

    India (Viceroy's Council).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Undersecretary of State for India what are the existing statutory conditions with regard to the number of members of the Viceroy's Council who must have been in the service of the Crown in India for at least ten years; and what number of the members of the existing council fulfil that condition?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Under Section 3 of the Indian Councils Act, 1861, three of the ordinary members of the Governor-General's Council must be persons who at the time of their appointment have been for at least ten years in the service of the Crown in India. Three members of the existing Council fulfil that condition.

    India (Secondary Education).
    Mr. BARNES (for Mr. Ramsay Macdonald)asked whether the Government of Madras has decided that secondary educa-

    35
    tion should be self-supporting and has in consequence raised fees for secondary schools to such an extent that only the children of well-to-do parents can attend these institutions; and, if so, whether this has met with the approval of the Government of India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The question of raising the standard rates of fees in secondary schools under public management was very fully discussed in the Madras Legislative Council on 18th April. My hon. Friend will see from the report of the Debate in the "Fort St. George Gazette" of 3rd May that the Madras Government have arrived at no decision in the matter; that they are not committed to the increase of eightpence a month recommended by a conference of representative educationalists; and that they have undertaken to give very careful consideration to the remarks made on the subject in Council. The matter is within the competence of the local government and the sanction of the Government of India is not required.
    Mr. REES: May I ask whether the Madras Government has not to consider the pockets of the masses of cultivators who pay taxes in India as well as the wishes of ardent educationalists in England?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. Friend will read the report of the proceedings in the "Gazette" I have mentioned he will see that all these matters have been brought up in debate.

    School Inspection (Madras).
    Mr. BARNES (for Mr. Ramsay Macdonald)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, how many Indian inspectors of schools are employed by the Madras Government, and how many European inspectors; and whether there is any intention on the part of the' Madras Government to carry out the recommendations of the Public Service Commission that Native agency should be increasingly employed in the matter of inspecting schools and that the recruitment of inspectors in England should not be so commonly resorted to as heretofore?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The agency maintained in Madras for the purpose of inspecting schools educating nearly a million boys consists of nine inspectors, twenty-one assistant inspectors, and 102 sub-assistant inspectors. Of these six inspectors and two assistant inspectors are
    36
    Europeans; the rest are Indians. For a statement of the policy of Government in respect of the recruitment of inspectors of schools I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 43 of the well known Resolution on Indian educational policy issued in 1904.

    Lighting of Persian Gulf.
    Mr. LLOYDasked whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government for the better lighting of Ras Fatih and other points in the Persian Gulf?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No steps have been taken of late in regard to the better lighting of the Persian Gulf, but the matter will not be lost sight of.
    Mr. LLOYD: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether repeated representations have not been received from the shipping companies in the Persian Gulf in regard to this matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes.

    Lighterage System at Bushire.
    Mr. LLOYDasked whether any, and, if so, what, steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government for the improvement of the lighterage system at Bushire?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am at present unable to make a statement.

    Congested Districts Board (Proposed New Road, County Kerry).
    Mr. BOLANDasked what steps, if any, will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to construct a new road between Clogvoola and Cahircivane, in view of the fact that the route had been examined in the year 1902 and no action has yet been taken?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board do not at present contemplate the construction of a new road between the places mentioned. Very few families live along the line of the proposed road.

    Traction Engines (Damage to Irish Roads).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the damage which is being done to road surfaces in some parts of Ireland by the increase in traction-engine traffic; and whether, in view of the increase thereby caused in the expenditure on road maintenance, he will consider the

    37
    advisability of introducing regulations to compel the fitting of such engines with wheels sufficiently wide to minimise the damage or of introducing legislation to empower the levying of a special rate on owners of such engines?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Representations have been made to the Local Government Board to the effect indicated in the question. The width of the tyres on the wheels of traction engines is expressly fixed by the Locomotive Acts of 1861 and 1865. As regards the suggestion contained in the concluding portion of the question I cannot undertake, at present, at all events, to introduce leglislation making the owners of traction engines in Ireland liable for damage to roads.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the advisability of putting a tax upon these traction engines and giving the proceeds of the tax to the local authorities?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes. I will make representations to my right hon. Friend.

    Vandeleur Estate, West Clare (Evicted Tenant).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of John M'Namara, a former tenant on the Vandeleur estate in West Clare, who was not included in the settlement effected with regard to the estate, but on whose behalf the West Clare executive of the United Irish League passed a unanimous resolution to the effect that they were convinced that M'Namara's case was one of the most deserving in West Clare, and as such they pledged him their support; and whether, in view of the public opinion in Clare in favour of Mr. M'Namara's claim, he will ask the Estates Commissioners to refer to the matter again with a view to reinstating Mr. M'Namara or providing him with a farm of equal value?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I stated in reply to a previous question on the subject asked on 24th June, 1908, the Estates Commissioners have inquired into this case, and have decided, after full consideration, to take no action.

    Malicious Injuries (County Clare).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to a warning letter read during the hearing of a malicious injury
    38
    claim at the Ennis Quarter Sessions, threatening the daughter of Mr. Thomas M'Gann with a full charge of No. 1 shot if she had any communication with James' Nagle, Leana, or Pat Fogarty, of Roughan, two men who are under police protection; whether the police have arrested anyone in respect of the letter; and what steps are being taken to protect the girl from such intimidation in the future?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that a letter to the effect stated in the question was read at Ennis Quarter Sessions in support of a claim made by Thomas M'Gann for malicious injury to cattle. No arrests have been made in connection with the letter. The police will afford all necessary protection to Miss M'Gann, but they cannot prevent the sending of such letters.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether, at the quarter sessions held at Ennis, Mr. Thomas Crowe was awarded £7 in respect of a heifer which was found with a bullet wound behind the shoulder at the left side; that Thomas and Bridget M'Gann were awarded £18 in respect to injuries done to five cattle by painting on their backs and sides, and by the knocking down of 200 yards of stone walls; that Lord Inchiquin was awarded £10 in respect to injuries done to forty-two bullocks by driving them; that Mr. Thomas Roche was awarded £40 for the knocking down of walls, and Mr. James Reynolds £3 15s. for injuries done to fifteen bullocks by driving; whether, in any of these cases, persons have been arrested and punished; and what steps are being taken to preserve order in the disturbed districts of county Clare?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that at the recent quarter sessions at Ennis compensation, as stated, was granted in the several cases mentioned in the question. No arrests have been made. There is at present a force of fifty-six extra police in the districts referred to in the concluding portion of the question, and they, with the ordinary police force, are doing all they can to preserve order.

    Taafe Estate, Foxborough, County Roscommon.
    Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a memorial addressed to the Congested Districts Board and the Land Commissioners on behalf of certain small

    39
    tenants on the Taafe estate, at Fox-borough, county Roscommon; whether he has any official information to the effect, as set forth in the said memorial, that the untenanted portion of the land on this estate is required to enlarge the uneconomic holdings of the memorialists; whether he is aware that there is no other land in the district available for this purpose; whether he will arrange for a local inquiry to be held by a competent instructor; and whether, pending the result of such inquiry, he will give instructions that the property shall not be otherwise disposed of?
    Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been drawn to the memorial referred to. The estate in question is situate in a congested districts county, and was one of those pending for sale to the Estates Commissioners at the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1909. The Congested Districts Board have decided to take over and continue the proceedings, and the property will be inspected at an early date by an officer of the Board.

    Uneconomic Holdings, County Galway.
    Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked whether a man named John Gibson resides upon an uneconomic holding in the centre of the Usher estate, county Galway; and will he instruct the Commissioners to give him a portion of the untenanted land upon the estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No tenant named John Gibson can be traced on any Usher estate in County Galway which is pending for sale under the Land Purchase Acts.
    Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the estate of Mr. James Lahiff, at High-park, Trienbawn, county Galway; and, if so, will he direct that the four or five small tenants upon the estate get portion of the grass lands?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings in the Land Judge's Court, and the offer of the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of the county Galway portion of the property is before the judge. Should the Commissioners acquire the property they will give due consideration to the circumstances of the tenants of small holdings when allotting the untenanted land.

    Lord Clanricarde's Estate (Proposed Purchase).
    Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked whether Lord Clanricarde has given his consent to the sale of his estate under the Act of 1909; and, if not, in view of the fact that he refused to sell under the Act of 1903, and by the aid of the Court of Appeal succeeded in defeating the objects of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907 and the amending Act of 1908, and having regard to the fact that there are about eighty evicted tenants upon the estate unprovided for, will he see that the compulsory powers of the Bill of 1909 are put into operation with as little delay as possible?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The question of the acquisition of this estate is under the consideration of the Congested Districts Board, who are at present in communication with Lord Clanricarde's agent on the subject. I am not in a position to make any further statement on the subject.
    Mr. J. ROCHE: Is it not a fact that this is the only estate in Ireland in which the landlord refuses to reinstate evicted tenants, although he would be amply compensated for his interest in their holdings? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore apply compulsory power as voluntary measures have failed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: We are at present in negotiation with Lord Clanricarde's agent upon the subject, and the less inflammatory matter introduced I think the better.

    Yeomanry (Manual of Drill and Training).
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to issue a manual of drill and training for Yeomanry, and, if so, when it will be ready?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The matter is still under consideration.

    Aliens Act (Departmental Instructions).
    Mr. MITCHELLTHOMSONasked whether the amended departmental instructions issued under the Aliens Act provide that the possession by the immigrant of £5 is to be taken as satisfactory evidence of means; whether he is aware that certain agencies make a practice of lending the necessary sum to immigrants for the purpose of exhibition to the immigration inspector; and whether steps can be taken to prevent this evasion of the Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill):The answer to the first question is in the negative. As regards the second and third questions, I am aware that some immigrants, when inspected on arrival in this country, show to the immigration officer sums of money which there is reason to think they have been given expressly for that purpose: but the practice is so well known to those officers and to the Immigration Boards that it cannot deceive, and it does not lead to evasions of the Act calling for any special steps on my part.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to prevent foreign immigrants from England coming into the county of Down as Members of Parliament?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid' I can only avail myself of the existing prohibitions of the law.

    Use of Motors at Parliamentary Elections.
    Mr. HENRYasked the Attorney-General if he will consider introducing legislation to prohibit the use of motors to convey electors to polling stations on account of direct expenditure being necessitated for that purpose?
    Mr. J. M. F.-FULLER (Vice-Chamberlain): In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend, and on his behalf, I have to say that, so far as he is aware, there is no intention at present to introduce such legislation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that some slight alteration has been made in the arrangement of business for Thursday next. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would tell us what business will be taken on that day?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; I suggested on Thursday last that on Thursday next we might have taken Irish Supply, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has ascertained, through the ordinary channels, that that would not be a convenient course. We now propose, therefore, to take the Post Office Vote.
One other Member took the oath and subscribed the roll.

NEW MEMBER.
W. R. Campion, esquire, for the county of Sussex (Lewes Division), in the place of Eight Honourable Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher, Baronet (deceased).
SUPPLY.— [10th. Allotted Day.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1910–11.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a further sum, not exceeding £9,124,000, 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, 1911, namely:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  Class II.

  £

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  30,000

  Class I.

  Royal Palaces

  6,000

  Osborne

  2,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  26,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  7,000

  Campbell - Bannerman Memorial

  700

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  10,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  9,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  14,000

  Revenue Buildings

  90,000

  Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain

  20,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  50,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  20,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  8,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  5,000

  Rates on Government Property

  60,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  25,000

  Railways, Ireland

  12,000

  Class II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords Offices

  4,000

  House of Commons Offices

  5.000

  £

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  19,000

  Home Office

  20,000

  Foreign Office

  8,000

  Colonial Office

  6,000

  Privy Council Office

  1,500

  Board of Trade.

  60,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  14,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  —

  Charity Commission

  5,000

  Civil Service Commission

  3,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  6,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  35,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  —

  National Debt Office

  1,000

  Public Record Office

  3,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  —

  Registrar General's Office

  4,000

  Stationery and Printing

  150,000

  Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  2,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  20,000

  Secret Service

  2,500

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  1,000

  Fishery Board

  2,000

  Lunacy Commission

  500

  Registrar General's Office

  500

  Local Government Board

  2,000

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  500

  Chief Secretary's Offices and Subordinate Departments

  2,500

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  100,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  200

  Local Government Board

  10,000

  Public Record Office

  500

  Public Works Office

  5,000

  Registrar General's Office

  1,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  2,000

  Class III.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  13,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  8,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  50,000

  Land Registry

  3,000

  Public Trustee

  —

  County Courts

  —

  Police, England and Wales

  20,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  150,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  70,000

  £

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  7,000

  Scotland:—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  6,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  4,000

  Crofters' Commission

  500

  Prisons

  15,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  10,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  12,000

  Land Commission

  40,000

  County Court Officers, etc.

  12,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  24,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  260,000

  Prisons

  15,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  27,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  2,000

  Class IV.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Board of Education

  1,900,000

  British Museum

  20,000

  National Gallery

  2,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  500

  Wallace Collection

  500

  Scientific Investigation, etc.

  14,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  16,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  200,000

  National Galleries

  1,000

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  350,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  100

  National Gallery

  500

  Universities and Colleges, Ireland

  20,000

  Class V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  100,000

  Colonial Services

  220,000

  Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  5,000

  Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

  39,000

  Class VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  150,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  300

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  4,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies Old Age Pensions

  —

  1,400,000

  Class VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  2,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  3,700

  £

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  —

  Ireland Development Grant

  90,000

  Government Hospitality

  2,500

  International Exhibitions

  10,000

  Development Fund

  —

  Prince and Princess of Wales (Visit to South Africa)

  —

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Customs and Excise

  300,000

  Inland Revenue

  230,300

  Post Office

  2,400,000

  Total for Civil Services and Revenue Departments

  £9,124,000 "

  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: On behalf of the agricultural community I desire to congratulate the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Edward Strachey) on his appointment as the official representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House. We are now in a position to appeal to him directly and bring before the House agricultural grievances with some chance of the Board of Agriculture taking immediate cognisance of them. May I also congratulate the hon. Baronet upon ceasing to occupy the somewhat impossible position which he had to occupy prior to the passing of the recent Board of Agriculture Act, and upon being put in a position more suitable to the enormous importance of the great industry which he represents in this House? May I express my regret, which I know is shared by many agricultural Members, that such a short notice as three days has been given in regard to the taking of this Vote, because that period is not sufficient to satisfy agricultural Members who represent a large number of agricultural associations throughout the country, and give utterance to their views? I should also like to draw attention to the fact that this week is the week of the Royal Show at Liverpool, an annual function which it behoves every agricultural Member to attend almost in preference to his Parliamentary duties.
  Reference was made during the discussion on the Vote of another Government Department last week to the inattention of Parliament to the proper status of that Department and the proper remuneration of its officials. Whatever was said last week with regard to the Local Government Board applies, in my opinion, with much greater force to the Board of Agriculture at the present time. Not only is the President of the Board of Agriculture, and consequently all the officials of that
  46
  Department remunerated on a very much lower scale than similar officials in other Government Departments that are supposed to occupy the same status, but the" Board of Agriculture is housed in three separate buildings, and not under one roof, as is the case with every other great Government Department. The buildings in which the offices of the Board of Agriculture are to be found in Whitehall Place, in Parliament Street, and in St. James's Square are wholly unworthy of the work which is now being carried on within their walls and the enormous importance of that work to the nation at large. I hope during the coming year the Board will celebrate its twenty-first birthday by the Government making a suitable present to this Department of a suitable building in which to transact its business. I should like to ask the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture exactly what are to be the duties of the Advisory Committee of which we read in this morning's papers. Is it a Committee set up to advise the Board on all scientific questions dealing directly with the improvement of agriculture? Personally I should welcome the formation of such a Committee, but I hope its deliberations are not going to prevent the Board spending very considerable sums of money for the advancement of agriculture out of the Development Fund. What I wish to know is whether the Committee I have alluded to is in any sense a permanent Committee, or is it merely a Committee established for some indefinite time to advise the Board from time to time upon the matters referred to it? Is it going to be a temporary Committee which is to take evidence and report to the Board as to the particular respects in which, from a scientific point of view, agriculture requires assistance, and the source from which such assistance is to come? If it is intended to be a temporary Committee to report to the Board before further assistance can be obtained, all I can say is that the agricultural community will have to whistle for a long time for those funds for which they have been clamouring for various purposes of research, co-operation, suitable agricultural education, and other purposes for a long time. May I point out the condition of starvation in which agriculture is at the present time in this country? The Grant to the Board of Agriculture from the Imperial Exchequer for all purposes, including the maintenance of Kew Gardens, in which

  47
  most agriculturists have not any particular interest, last year amounted to £173,169, and in that amount there was the paltry sum of £12,300 devoted to that most important of all subjects with which the Board of Agriculture has to deal, namely, agricultural education. Comparing this with the sister isle as regards agricultural matters, I very much covet the sums which flow so readily into agricultural channels from the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland. In the sister isle we find at the present time that £234,817 of public money is being devoted every year to agricultural purposes. It is worthy of notice that the Grant to the French Department of Agriculture out of the French Exchequer amounts to £1,200,000, and on agricultural education alone in France £180,000 is being spent, which is considerably more than is voted to our Board of Agriculture for all purposes in Great Britain. If we go further afield and take a little European State like Wurtemberg we find that £72,600 is devoted to agricultural purposes out of a total revenue of £4,500,000. Surely the time has come—if you are going to do any real good in our time to put a larger number of persons on the soil of this country with a view to their profitably carrying on the agricultural industry—when the Board of Agriculture ought to be fully equipped to carry out the work which it exists to carry out on behalf of the agricultural industry, whether those engaged in it are large or small holders.
  4.0 P.M.
  I should like to congratulate the Board of Agriculture on the reduction in the outbreaks of, at any rate, two of the scheduled diseases under the Contagious Diseases of Animals Acts—that is to say, in the case of glanders and sheep scab. With regard to glanders, I should like to ask why it is that in Ireland the disease has been entirely stamped out, there being. I believe, no case whatever in existence there at the present time, and why in this country glanders continues more or less persistent, although the cases are not so frequent as some six years ago. Surely if it is possible to stamp out this serious and insidious disease in Ireland, it is also possible to stamp it out in this country. I cannot help feeling that the regulations of the Board with regard to sheep scab are somewhat onerous, and in some ways and at some periods of the year injuriously affect the health of our flocks. I cannot
  48
  quite understand why it is not possible to have two sheep dippings in the year—one in the early summer and another possibly in the early autumn, say in September— and so obviate the dipping which has to take place when ewes with lambs are sold in the cold months of the year, particularly in January and February. Before they leave the markets, if they are not sold, they have to be subjected to a further dipping. Those dippings in poisonous liquids result not only in serious chills to the ewes, but sometimes in cases of poisoning to the lambs.
  I refer to swine fever with some little hesitation in view of the fact that a Departmental Committee is sitting to consider this disease. I should like to congratulate the Board on the fact that such a Committee has at last been set up, and I should like to ask the hon. Baronet whether it has not occurred to him that if some more strenuous measures were taken, even although they might cause a certain amount of unpopularity to the Board and possibly to himself, it might be possible to combat the disease in the way in which it is being combated in Ireland at the present time. I cannot help feeling that, if the Board would issue an order to the effect that all animals within the region of contagion from definitely diseased animals were to be slaughtered instead of being isolated, the number of outbreaks of swine fever would be reduced by something like 50 per cent, in twelve months. That, at any rate, has been the result of the more strenuous policy adopted by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland. It has evidenced the fact that slaughter rather than isolation is the best and most effective method of stamping out or at any rate of substantially reducing swine fever in the country. I should like to mention another fact which has come under my notice, and which I hope will not escape the notice of the Departmental Committee. In those parts of the West of England where the cloth industry is being carried on, in the Stroud Valley, in Gloucestershire, and in the Trowbridge district of Wiltshire you have a perpetual recrudescence of swine fever. There must be. some relation of cause and effect in this matter, and there must be something which comes into cloth manufacturing districts which brings with it the germ of swine fever. Might I suggest that this matter might usefully be brought before the Departmental Committee?
  I sincerely hope we are coming near the end of these very vexatious restrictions

  49
  upon the movement of swine in this country. They are costing the country an enormous sum of money with little or no result as the figures show, and they are, in fact, stamping out, or threatening to stamp out, the feeding of pigs as the primary industry of the agricultural labourer. There can be no question that it is not in the best interests of agriculturists, and least of all of farm labourers, that there should be enormous fluctuations in the pig trade. It means that it is becoming an unsuitable industry for the agricultural labourer, and if there is one industry more than another which I should like to see, if possible, eventually left to the agricultural labourer as his particular industry it is that of the breeding and feeding of pigs. But unless these harassing restrictions are done away with it is going to be practically impossible for a small man to carry on pig-keeping.
  The outbreaks of anthrax last January were in excess of any figures for the last six years. I think for one month during the last six years the outbreaks did reach the exact figure they touched in January last, but they certainly have never exceeded the figures they reached in that month, and no four months during the last eight years have been so serious as regards anthrax as the last four months of this year. Anthrax is rapidly spreading over this country. It is to be found in something like sixteen or eighteen counties at the present time, showing that it is not centred in one part only of the country, and we are beginning to read, I am sorry to say frequently, of cases in which those attending cattle or those engaged in slaughter-houses contract the disease and die from it. Surely the time has come when the Board should take very much stronger measures in order to stamp out this disease, or when it should at least institute an inquiry to find out what measures should be taken. The hon. Baronet, in reply to a question I put to him last week, made a statement which I am bound to say left a feeling of some little insecurity. He told me there was some doubt as to the accuracy of the diagnosis of anthrax. I have been always given to understand by bacteriologists there is no bacillus so easy to identify as the anthrax bacillus, and, if there is inaccurate diagnosis of the disease going on, it seems to indicate that incompetent persons, who are really not fitted to give an opinion on this disease at all, are
  50
  carrying on the investigations. I was also sorry to hear that the advisers of the Board entertained no hope whatever of stamping out this disease in this country. The time has arrived when the Board ought to set up a special committee to inquire into anthrax, similar to that which is now sitting to inquire into swine fever.
  A very extraordinary case was reported in the public press only three weeks ago. It was the case of a man in Barnstaple, Devon, who was found to be suffering from anthrax as the result of passing between two diseased carcases in a slaughter-house. They were not known to be diseased, and no suspicion of anthrax was aroused until the man was found to be suffering from the disease from which he subsequently died. The suggestion is —possibly the hon. Baronet can remove any apprehension on the matter—that those carcases were about to be consumed as human food and that the presence of anthrax would, never have been discovered had it not been for the fact that this unfortunate man touched the carcases and died from the disease. Recently the Executive Committee of the Wiltshire County Council brought to the notice of the Board of Agriculture the fact that anthrax in that county is traceable to imported feeding stuffs which have come into contact with foreign skins containing anthrax germs. I should like to hear whether the Board of Agriculture has inquired into that matter and whether they can give some assurance either that contagion was not from that source or that the Government are prepared to take some measures to prevent anthrax being communicated in such a way in future.
  I want to ask the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Strachey) whether he has had brought to his notice or to the notice of the Board the fact that the number of skins of cattle infected with the warble is very much on the increase? I understand from various tanneries throughout the country that it is now very difficult to obtain British skins that are not more or less honeycombed with the warble puncture. I heard this morning of a case at Downton, Wilts, which they tell me is not altogether uncommon, in which 288 warbles were found in a single ox hide. If that is so, it shows that a considerable amount of money is being lost owing to the commercial value of hides being depreciated, and it indicates that the warble fly is on the increase. I am aware that scientific men are not altogether agreed as to the origin of the puncture in the ox skin due to the larva of the

  51
  warble fly, whether it is taken off the ground or licked off their legs in the form of eggs, the larvæ subsequently developing in the body of the ox and finding their way to the other side of the skin, thereby making a little hole. Surely the Board might usefully direct some inquiry to find out in what way the warble does find its way into cattle and what is the best way of dealing with the skin, or possibly with the pasture, in order to prevent a further development of this particular pest. I want to speak for a few moments about the proposed removal of the embargo on the importation of Argentine cattle. I am quite sure that those who can look back for as long a period as thirty-five years— I do not profess to do so myself—would view with horror the suggestion that there is any chance whatever of foot-and-mouth disease being conveyed to the herds of this country, and would agree that every effort should be made to keep possibly infected animals out of our ports. When one looks back to the history of those times, and realises the devastation that was caused by such diseases as foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia, and the consequent shortage of meat in this country, as well as the resulting increase of cost to the consumer, it must be agreed by all reasonable persons that it would be a short-sighted policy, at any rate at the present time, to put pressure on the Board to remove the restrictions which at present exist. I do not put this forward merely in the interests of the agricultural community; but they, after all, have enjoyed such degree of prosperity as they have enjoyed during the last thirty years period of serious depression in agriculture so far as cereal crops are concerned owing to their immunity their stock has enjoyed from disease—an immunity which has enabled the farmers to hold their own and reap some profit out of the industry in which they are engaged. I do sincerely hope that no prejudice with regard to the possible increase in the cost of meat will stand in the way of the Board maintaining a very firm attitude, and that so long as any trace of foot-and-mouth disease exists in the Argentine Republic, as it undoubtedly does at present, no attempt will be made to remove the existing restrictions.
  I have next a few words to say with regard to the milk industry. We stand exactly in the same position as two years
  52
  ago, so far as the restrictions that are imposed upon the production and sale of milk are concerned. The question has been recently debated in this House on the London County Council (General Powers Bill, in which the agricultural Members enjoyed a temporary victory upon which we feel entitled to congratulate ourselves. But still there is no uniformity at the present time in the treatment of dairy farmers by municipalities, and we again ask that an early opportunity may be taken to introduce legislation which shall put all dairy farmers on the same footing, whilst securing uniformity of administration throughout the whole country. So far as impure or diseased milk is concerned, during the last four years we have had three separate Reports from the Commission which was appointed to inquire into human and animal tuberculosis, and, almost immediately after the issuing of the third interim Report, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was introduced. I for one am sincerely glad that that Bill never became law. First of all, because it was founded upon the third interim Report of the Tuberculosis Commission, which was not in any way based on the experiments that had been conducted or on the evidence that was brought before the Commission. Although that Report suggested that a very considerable amount of disease and loss of life, especially among infants and children, must be attributed to the consumption of cows' milk containing tuberculous baccili, there is absolutely nothing in the evidence adduced to justify the Commissioners putting that forward as one of their conclusions. In the third interim Report we find it stated that tuberculosis involving the udder is comparatively common in cows. Now I have searched carefully through the evidence brought before the Commission, and I have examined carefully the extraordinary experiments conducted by it—experiments of an unconvincing nature—and I cannot find any basis for the suggestion that tuberculosis involving the udder is comparatively common among cows. As a matter of fact we know that it is of extremely rare occurrence among them, and if, on this Report, we are going to have a Milk Bill brought in which is going to put harassing restrictions on the dairying industry, a serious injustice will be done to the agricultural community and the price of milk will

  53
  become a very serious factor to the poor people of this country. The more I read about tuberculosis the more and more am I convinced that the danger arising from the milk of tuberculous cattle, as long as the udder is not affected, is a very small danger indeed. —a very small danger in bringing about tuberculosis in the large urban centres of this country. A much more serious factor is the scarcity—the increasing scarcity—of good milk to be obtained at a reasonable price in those localities. All the leading authorities on the Continent are pressing this fact home, that the amount of mortality to be found amongst children in the large urban centres is largely traceable to the scarcity of milk, and not to its diseased condition. I would give a note of warning as regards scientific opinion at this particular stage of the investigation into this disease, when one remembers the very serious opinions on this subject which scientific men have committed themselves to within the last twenty years. In the year 1888 a Departmental Committee sat to consider, amongst other things, the subject of tuberculosis in cattle, and in its Report (page 25, par. 79) we find this statement:—
  "Since all authorities are agreed that the disease is very marked by heredity, we think it highly desirable that breeders should, in their own as well as in the public interest, discontinue breeding from tuberculous stock."
  And one member; who still ranks among the leading surgeons of the country, felt so strongly upon this point that he filed a Supplementry Report, in which he said:—
  "Tuberculosis is notorious, even among the laity, as a disease which is transmitted from parent to offspring.…. Further, this generally received truth has been completely confirmed by the results of scientific investigation …. considering therefore the extreme importance of this point, I think the act of wittingly breeding from animals so affected should be made an indictable offence."
  That was the unanimous Report of a Departmental Committee which sat twenty-two years ago. It is now common knowledge that every word of what I have just read is absolutely untrue. It is perfectly well known that tuberculosis is not hereditary either among human beings or amongst cattle, but if that had been taken as gospel truth and acted upon in the year 1888 we never should have built up the great trade with Argentina which at present exists, as a large proportion of the stock sent there has been bred from known tuberculous cattle. I think it ought to be made perfectly clear to the public generally not merely that tubercu-
  54
  losis is not an hereditary disease, but that there is no proved danger in obtaining milk from cows that react to the tuberculin test. There is absolutely nothing to justify such a conclusion in that third interim Report—which describes in somewhat unpleasant language how various animals were fed on the excrement of tuberculous cattle, and that when they had been submitted to that extremely unpleasant process very few of them developed tuberculosis, and that as to others that had tuberculous germs from very violently affected cattle inoculated into their blood stream, in only about one-tenth of the cases did the animal suffer from tuberculosis afterwards. In view of this evidence it is well to impress upon the Board that it ought to be extremely careful that any Milk Bill is founded upon no other considerations than this, that the milk obtained even from tuberculous cattle—those which react to the tuberculin test—is not unsafe unless the animal is suffering from a diseased udder or very visibly emaciated from tuberculosis. May I sound one other note of warning to the urban authorities who are sending inspectors into the country to examine cowsheds and cattle? I fear that the time is coming when in the talk about animals being visibly emaciated from tuberculosis and reacting to the tuberculin test, it will be found that the animal reported as thus suffering will be the very animal which is giving the largest amount of good pure milk. This animal may be condemned as a source of danger to the public health when it is not so in fact, and when it may be one of those breeds which, like the Jerseys or the Ayrshires, do not put on a large amount of flesh and may therefore be deemed to be seriously emaciated when in fact they are the very best possible type of milch cows and just the type an increase of which we should like to see developed in this country. I look with alarm to the time when the somewhat uninstructed officers of the urban authorities are going into the country districts condemning right and left not merely the cowsheds and byres, but also the cattle because in their uninstructed opinion they fear them to be a source of danger to the public health.
  I should like to congratulate the Board on having set up a Departmental Committee to consider how the export trade in cattle and horses, and other produce of our farms, can be extended and developed in foreign countries. May I take this opportunity of impressing on the Board the

  55
  eminent desirability of taking steps, possibly by imposing very serious penalties, to put a stop to the improper use of the tuberculin test in the case of pedigree cattle intended for exportation to Argentina or elsewhere? Two years ago there was, I will not say extensive fraud, but there were many cases of fraud being perpetrated by the use of the tuberculin test at too frequent intervals. As anyone who keeps pedigree cattle is aware, the use of the test too frequently entirely negatives its value, and at that time Argentine buyers, not unreasonably became alarmed at the extent to which this fraud—because it is a fraud—was going on amongst the less respectable cattle exporters in this country. The result was that very serious damage was done to those who were carrying on an industry in an honest way in this country. I should like to see most serious penalties imposed by Act of Parliament upon all those who are found to have improperly applied the tuberculin test in order to try and sell, as immune from tuberculosis, cattle which in the ordinary course would not have fetched a high price as pedigree cattle having been found to react to the tuberculin test.
  As regards the traffic in decrepit horses, I hardly know how we stand at the present time, and whether the Government is going to give facilities for the Bill which has been introduced on the other side of the House.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): Matters of legislation are not in order on Supply.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I will not refer any further to this Bill, but I should like to ask the hon. Baronet whether he will take more strenuous and effective steps than have hitherto been taken to put a stop to this description of traffic. The only effort that has been recently made by the Board is the issue of an Order which in my opinion is likely to be entirely ineffective to carry out what is intended. Under that Order it rests with the local veterinary inspectors to condemn horses as being unfit for the voyage to Belgium, or to the Netherlands, or any other foreign country if in their opinion such animal would have to undergo any unnecessary suffering. I was told in answer to a question which I put to the hon. Baronet that the terms of this Order followed closely Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. I can find, on reference to that Act,
  56
  nothing whatever to indicate that it is not open to the Board of Agriculture to frame their Orders in any way that they choose in order to effect what they require, and if it is their desire at the present time to put a stop to this traffic in the case of all animals that are likely to undergo suffering of any sort, it is perfectly open to them to issue an order without using the word "unnecessary" which would enable the traffic to be put a stop to in all cases where any sort of suffering is likely to result. The President of the Board in another place said in reply to my Noble Friend the late President that it is the intention of the Board that the order shall be acted upon when any animal shall be shipped, which is likely to suffer any sort of physical pain, and surely it would be possible to put that into the order and so make it perfectly certain that the local authorities and the inspectors will carry out what the Board of Agriculture desire to see carried out.
  I have read with very great pleasure and satisfaction the Report lately issued by the Small Holdings Commission, but it is very noticeable that it emphasises (in my opinion somewhat late in the day) the enormous importance of the development of cooperative principles amongst smallholders. If small holdings were going to be made an economic success, I have always held that we ought to have moved in the matter of developing co-operation either before or simultaneously with the development of small holdings, and my only fear is that many of the small holdings which have been created artificially under the Act will be found to be a failure because it has been found in this country as in other countries that the small man without adequate capital cannot compete with the larger man in cheap production, and cannot put his produce upon the market in competition with him without suffering serious loss. I venture to hope now that the Development Fund has been constituted, and applications are now being made for portions of that fund, that a very considerable proportion of it may be devoted to giving instruction in the principles of co-operation, and developing co-operative methods throughout the whole of the agricultural districts in this country, and with that development of cooperation there must be in this country, as has been found to be necessary in other countries, the development of agricultural credit banks. Whatever may be the land policy of the party opposite, I want to make it perfectly apparent, so far as I am

  57
  concerned, that these questions of cooperation and the development of agricultural co-operative credit banks are not party questions. They are questions on which hon. Members on both sides of the House take an interest, and therefore I venture to hope, as there seems to be absolute unanimity of opinion in regard to pushing forward both these schemes in connection with small holdings, that early opportunity may be taken to provide the funds without which such a work cannot be effectively carried out.
  As regards the administration of the Small Holdings Act, I very much fear that the small holders in this country will not be satisfied with the present system of payment of instalments of capital and interest, but will demand ere long from the Government of the day, whichever Government it may be, that they shall enable them when, after a certain term of years, they have paid not merely the interest, but the capital value by instalments, of their holdings to become the actual owners of those holdings, and not leave the property to belong to the county council when they themselves have paid for it. I want to put in a special plea for the Agricultural Organisation Society. This society has been carrying on with very considerable difficulty and most inadequate means a most valuable work in this country in the direction of promoting cooperation amongst different sections of the agricultural community. It is perfectly true that the Government have given the society some little assistance during the last twelve months, and as a member of the committee of the society I should like to express our gratification that such Government money has been forthcoming, but with the development of small holdings there has been an enormous increase in the demand for the assistance which the Agricultural Organisation Society alone in this country is able to give, and although that financial assistance from the Treasury out of the small holdings account has been useful, the amount of additional work that has been necessitated by the passing of the Small Holdings Act has entailed more expense than the amount of the grant. The result is that the work that the society has been doing, which is directly referable to the passing of the Small Holdings Act, has resulted in putting the society into a more serious position in the matter of finance than it was before it took in hand this fresh work. It is proposed now that the society shall train a certain
  58
  number of organisers who shall thereby be put in a position to be employed by county councils in order to instruct intending or existing small holders in the principles of co-operation. I venture to hope that if the Agricultural Organisation Society embark upon this important work for the benefit of the county councils, and the agricultural community at large, the Government will see their way to give them a larger amount of public money than they have hitherto enjoyed.
  May I refer, before I sit down, to the Fertilisers and Feeding-stuffs Act of 1906, and in this connection I want to ask the representative of the Board whether he cannot see his way to bring in a Bill which will do away with the necessity for the veto of the Board as regards prosecutions under the Act, because, although it might not be fair to say that the Act has become a dead letter in consequence, there is no doubt that a very considerable amount of fraud is at the present time being perpetrated upon agriculturists generally, and particularly upon small holders in consequence of the difficulty of prosecuting offenders under this Act. To give an instance of the way in which the Act is operating at the present time, after reading the first part of the Annual Report of the Board's Intelligence Department, which has been lately issued by the Board, I find on pages 40 to 45 that there were during last year (1909) in all thirty-eight cases of contravention of the Act brought to the notice of the Board. They were disposed of as follows: Prosecutions taken and fine imposed, two cases; prosecutions taken and costs only obtained, two; prosecutions taken, which failed, either being dismissed or withdrawn owing to some informality, six; cautions given by the Board, seven cases; no action whatever taken, twenty; and cases still pending, one; making in all the total of thirty-eight. So that there were only two complete and two partial successes in prosecutions under the Act, and there was failure in twenty-seven cases in which no action was taken. For only ten cases to be actually taken up by the Board for the whole of the year throughout Great Britain presents a very inadequate state of affairs. Before this Act, and when the county councils acted alone, a leading agricultural chemist informs me that he advised prosecution in a greater number of cases in a single year than the whole number in which action was taken last year.

  59
  What I would suggest is this: It is imperative under the Act for every county council to appoint an analyst, and also at least one sampler of these substances. It is also necessary under the Act for every appointment of an analyst to be made only with the approval of the Board. Surely, if the Board have in effect a veto as regards the appointment of the analyst, it is sufficient protection against vexatious prosecutions being brought against possibly undeserving persons. At the present time all the chief counties in England appoint fully qualified persons to act as county analysts, and if there are cases in which persons who are not fully qualified are being appointed, it is only for the Board to decline to approve of their appointment, or if such persons are appointed and prove to be incompetent to refuse to allow their appointments to continue. Surely, if the Board of Agriculture has power to veto these appointments, it cannot be necessary for them to veto also the prosecutions which county councils want to embark upon as well. To show the absurdity of the position which results from the hesitation of the Board to give their assent to a prosecution in any case which is not likely in their opinion to be successful, a case occurred not very long ago in the county of Worcester in which it was desired to prosecute the vendor of some cattle cake, and it was perfectly apparent from the analysis of the county analyst that it was distinctly a case in which the offender ought to be prosecuted. The matter was referred to the Board, which declined to give its consent to a prosecution. The Board was pressed to give its reasons, and the eventual answer was that a prosecution was undesirable because the vendor was "a person of small means and of weak intellect." If the purchasers of feeding stuffs and fertilisers are going to be allowed to suffer from the fraud of vendors because the latter happen to be of weak intellect, I can only say that the time has come when the Act ought to be amended, and the veto which at present exists ought to be withdrawn from the Board of Agriculture. I cannot help thinking that county councils will take a much larger interest in the administration of this Act, and the analysts whom they appoint will carry out their duties far more effectively, if they have the full responsibility for prosecutions and if the Board interferes in no way with such prosecutions, even though pos-
  60
  sibly it might still be allowed through the Government analyst to correct the analyses of the county officials.
  May I congratulate the Board that at last there seems to be a prospect of their working in harmony with the Board of Education in reference to agricultural education? When the Report of the Departmental Committee upon agricultural education was presented the year before last and when it was subsequently followed by a counterblast from the Board of Education, in effect ridiculing all its recommendations, I think the agricultural public generally regarded both Government Departments with some suspicion, and thought they might very well do without either of them so far as agricultural education was concerned. We have waited a very long time for the Interdepartmental Committee to be appointed which was promised us last summer, and we have waited a still longer time for the rural education conference to be set up. I understand that the two Boards are now prepared to issue a Minute definitely constituting this rural education conference, which shall be the last link between the two Boards in the matter of agricultural education, and enable continuity of administration and co-ordination of every branch of agricultural education to be attained in the future. I should like to ask the hon. Baronet whether the Minute is likely to be issued immediately constituting this rural educational conference so as to enable those who have been appointed by a large number of different agricultural associations all over the country to represent them on this conference, to take part in deciding what shall be the policy of the two Boards in future as regard not merely elementary education, but secondary and continuation and technical instruction in the rural districts.
  We still wait to hear something from the Board with regard to what farmers are expected to do in the matter of providing horses for the military requirements of this country. We heard from the Secretary for War on the Supplementary War Estimates earlier in the Session, that there was a scheme which was being put before the Board of Agriculture, and for which they expected to obtain their co-operation, which would result in a considerable number of horses being raised of the different types which the War Office required, and being sold by the farmers at a reasonable price at three years old instead of at a later age. I want to know when

  61
  the time is coming when there is going to be any inducement to farmers to raise the horses on their farms which the Government require. I am quite sure that there is going to be no such inducement unless an average price is given for these three year olds of something like the amount that has been given previously for older horses, and in the second place, I should like to impress upon the Board the desirability of indicating clearly to potential breeders what are the different types of horse which the Government requires. We have heard a great deal about a certain pamphlet which was issued by the Board of Agriculture, I believe two years ago, which contained pictures of the sort of horses which the Government require. I have tried in vain to obtain a copy of the pamphlet. I probably belong to a larger number of agricultural associations than any Member of the House, but through none of those channels has one of those pamphlets reached me. I am still living in hopes that I may see, through the pictures which have been circulated by the Board of Agriculture to some one, I do not know whom, the types of horses which it is desired that we should raise.
  The Development Fund has at last been constituted. I do not know whether there is any money at present as representing the Development Fund, but if there is not, I hope there will be in the early future. I want to ask the hon. Baronet, as representing the Department through whom all applications coming from agricultural sources will have to filter, whether he is able to say in what direction applications are likely to be successful, or, to put it in another way, whether the Board has already made up its mind, either itself to apply for or to approve applications for sums of money to be devoted to special purposes, either to purposes of research, of agricultural education, agricultural co-operation, or possibly to making experiments in what may be either new or revived agricultural industries. May I particularly mention the merits of three industries which either have not previously existed or have failed, in my opinion, through the non-participation of a Government Department in their inaugural stages. One of them is the industry of sugar beet. It is perfectly evident to most of those who have considered the subject of the growing of sugar beet that it is possible to grow it on many soils and in many parts of the country at a margin of profit, at
  62
  present prices or at the prices likely to obtain in the next two or three years, if only the Government will extend sympathetic consideration to the industry in its early stages. I do not want to raise the question of the Excise Duties, although I believe during the period in which we have been a Free Trade country there are many precedents in favour of making no levy as regards Excise Duty in the early stages.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question of dealing with Excise Duties requires legislation, and is therefore not in order.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Apart from the question of Excise, it is certainly open to the Government and the Board of Agriculture, if helped out of the Development Fund, to do something to carry out experiments not merely in the production of sugar beet, but also in the manufacture of sugar, so as to show clearly that it can be carried on on commercial lines, and to show in what parts of the country it can be attempted with the greatest advantage. But, in addition to sugar beet, I should like to mention two other possible industries— tobacco and flax. Tobacco cultivation is eminently suited to a small holder, because it demands more individual attention than most other crops. I do not know what the experience of our Irish friends is. I am told a good deal of Irish tobacco is not fit to smoke, but, however that may be, I believe the Irish have demonstrated the possibility of growing several different kinds of tobacco, some of a different character from what we generally buy from our tobacconists, but perfectly successfully and at a fair profit. If it can be done in Ireland there is no reason why it should not also be done in other parts of the United Kingdom. I should like to see the Board of Agriculture set up an experiment on a large scale, in which the crops can be handled and also cured in bulk. Until that is done, I do not think there will be very much inducement for small holders to grow a crop to which they might otherwise usefully turn their attention. Above all, I want to put forward the merits of flax. Flax is a crop which used to be grown in this country, and the sole reason why it is not being grown to-day is because it was left to individuals to ret their own produce, and the result was that a very irregular staple was produced. Linseed is at a very high figure to-day and linseed cake is a costly article. It is one of those feeding stuffs

  63
  which is more and more in demand amongst those who want to put early matured stock upon the market at a reasonable profit. With the increasing consumption of linseed cake, and with the sole difficulty, owing to the individual not being able to turn out a regular staple, of making this particular product a commercial success, I want to urge upon the Board of Agriculture, possibly with the help of a portion of the Development Fund, to set up a central curing and wracking factory, supervised by an expert to which the produce of the immediate district can be sent to be retted. I notice that several Members on this side of the House seem to ridicule the idea that flax could be reintroduced as a paying industry. I have inquired into the question to some extent, and I live in a part of the country where flax has been grown, and is still grown to a small extent, and I have every reason to believe that if the Government can show by experiment how the fibre can be converted in an economic way, in a similar way to what it is in certain parts of the Continent, it ought again to be a thriving industry.
  5.0 P.M.
  I want to ask the hon. Baronet whether it is not a fact that all sums which will be derived from the Development Fund for agricultural purposes will be directed into entirely new channels? What I mean to ask by that question is whether I am right in supposing that no sums derived from the Development Fund will simply replace sums coming from other sources for similar purpose at the present time? For instance, sums are now coming from the Treasury under several of the different heads specified in Section I. of the Development Act. There are £7,200 for the development of agriculture and forestry, £12,300—a trifling sum—for agricultural education, £6,900 for agricultural research and experiments, £6,663 for the improvement of live stock, £16,667 for light railways, £18,400 for fisheries, and £98,601 for harbours. Am I right in supposing that no part of the Development Fund is intended to replace any of these items? It will be a great hardship upon those who desire to see a much larger amount of money devoted in future, as has been done in other countries, to agricultural research, and in particular to agricultural education and agricultural co-operation, if a large amount of this fund is going to be diverted to objects which are already paid for out of other moneys.
  64
  In conclusion, let me say it is rather a sad fact to note from the annual Report of the Board that the value and productivity of agricultural land have been steadily decreasing during the last thirty years in this country, and that all that time the burdens upon agricultural land have been going steadily up. A good deal has been said recently about the desirability of taxing the land. I think sometimes the word "land" is used in a most ambiguous sense, not clearly indicating that there is a substantial difference between agricultural land and other kinds of land. As a matter of fact, during the last twenty-seven years there has been a reduction in the annual value of agricultural land of over £17,000,000. That represents a state of affairs that is absolutely unparalleled in any other country of Europe or, indeed, of the civilised world. I am of opinion that in dealing with agricultural problems—and all agricultural problems, if I may say so, are national problems—we are merely skimming over the surface and not delving deep in order to find out why the agricultural population is drifting away into the large urban centres, and why the agricultural land of this country has become less and less cultivated every year of our existence. That is a large question I know, but I hope that the Government will in the early future set up a Royal Commission which will inquire as rapidly as possible into the underlying reasons why there is this distressing exodus of the agricultural population to the towns, and inquire also into what are the really effective means by which the people can be kept and maintained on the agricultural land in this country in a condition of prosperity, if not of wealth. It is all very well to constitute small holdings, but it is no use having a large number of small holdings unless the persons put upon them can exist in a condition of comfort. It seems to me that we have got to put fiscal and other prejudices entirely out of our minds in order to deal fairly with this most serious of all national questions. There is no question more serious, and if we are to deal with it effectively we can only deal with it, not in any piecemeal fashion, but by going to the whole root of the matter and possibly finding that there is something rotten in the state of Great Britain at the present time which requires immediate remedy. In almost every direction we are trying' to remedy ills which possibly we might prevent if only we inquired further into the origin and reason for the continuance

  65
  of those ills. We are spending enormous sums upon our Poor Law. We are spending increasingly large sums upon our lunatic asylums (and I think it is a very significant fact), and we are spending a large sum at the present time upon the physical condition of the children in our schools. That is a very serious question which will have to be taken in hand in a much more serious way than we have hitherto attacked it All this time we have not taken any fundamental measures to prevent these conditions. We have long drifted, and the problem has become every year more serious. May I hope that the Board of Agriculture will use its influence in the direction of obtaining at an early date an inquiry into this most serious state of matters in order to probe it to its very depths, to make, if possible, this country much more self-sustaining, and to promote, in future, its physical, moral, and mental health, upon which alone the greatness of the nation can be built up and maintained.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: In the long and interesting speech which the hon. Member (Mr. Charles Bathurst) has made to the Committee he has travelled over a very large portion of the whole area of the administrative energy of the Board of Agriculture. I was glad to notice in the early part of his speech that he took the opportunity of calling attention to a subject which I know he has studied closely himself, namely, the Orders under which the contagious diseases of animals are dealt with at the present time by the Board. During the past four or five years, by question and answer, and sometimes by speech in Debate on Supply, I have endeavoured to draw the attention of the representative of the Board to some of those matters, and notably to the case of swine fever, the statistics for which in the last ten or twelve years have been eminently unsatisfactory, although I have "been assured by the representative of the Board, when I have put questions in the House, that the Board was well satisfied with the methods adopted in dealing with that disease. Well, I am bound to say I was gratified to learn at an early part of this Session that a Departmental Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for the Rye Division (Mr. Courthope), had been appointed to inquire into the whole question of swine fever and ascertain whether more satisfactory measures for dealing with that disease could be adopted
  66
  than those stamping - out proceedings, which may have been highly successful in regard to other animal diseases, but to which particular mode of dealing with swine fever does not seem to lend itself. I was glad to notice that the hon. Member (Mr. Charles Bathurst) drew attention to the important relation which must ever exist between scientific knowledge as to the diseases of animals and the particular administrative measures on which we rely for their restriction or eradication. He called attention to the change in scientific opinion which had taken place in regard to tuberculosis. He quoted from a report published in 1888, from which it appeared that it was then claimed that the whole tendency of authoritative opinion was in favour of the idea of the hereditary transmission of the disease. Nowadays the tendency of authoritative opinion has been to emphasise the capabilities of its communication by contagion or inoculation. The hon. Member, I think, rather tended to accept the teaching of the late Professor Koch, and deprecated the suggestion that tuberculous disease when bovine was liable to be communicated with very great frequency to human beings. I say that is a question on which the last word of science has not yet been said, but I agree with the hon. Member in his statement that tuberculosis of the udder, to which much attention has been paid, is a relatively rare disease. Some seventeen years ago, when I was Chairman of the Public Control Committee of the London County Council, there was some apprehension of foot-and-mouth disease spreading in London, and I remember I directed an inspection to be made of all cowsheds and dairies in London for foot-and-mouth disease. I also particularly instructed the inspectors at the same time to make special inquiry as to cases of tuberculosis of the udder, and I was amazed at the small number of cases brought out by that investigation. I am afraid there has been a tendency to overrate the frequency of that disease. I agree that such cases of that disease ought to be dealt with promptly under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. Science indicates that there is a danger of the communication of disease when a tubercular udder exists. I agree with the hon. Member that we must always adopt the best administrative procedure upon the latest ascertainable scientific opinion. It should be remembered, however, that that opinion varies within relatively wide limits, especially

  67
  in the case of tubercular disease. In the case of swine fever, foot - and - mouth disease, and pleuro-pneumonia bacteriological research has not shown that the diseases are due to any particular morphological organism as is claimed in the case of anthrax. There is a large body of evidence to show that morphological organism, which is associated with the disease in the case of tuberculosis, does not exist in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever, and pleuro-pneumonia. Any number of organisms have been discovered and supposed to be the causes of these diseases, and I think they have all now been abandoned by the most recent researches. We are told that if there be one in the case of swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, and pleuro-pneumonia it is invisible to the highest power of the microscope. The hon. Member referred to anthrax. He thought it was so simple to diagnose that it must be due to incompetence on the part of the observer when not discovered. In regard to anthrax, however, there are certain breeds of sheep which are insusceptible to inoculation with the bacillus even in the most virulent form. Possibly in the case of tubercle that also obtains. Professor Koch in one of his later addresses distinctly insisted upon tuberculosis being due to soil as well as seed, and pointed to the overcrowded homes of the poor as the sources of this disease, and urging that we must have regard to the treatment of the soil in eradicating diseases of this description as well as to the seed. I was hoping that, just as swine fever was now the subject of renewed investigation, foot-and-mouth disease and possibly glanders and pleuro-pneumonia—which I am happy to say is not at present in this country— might also be the subject of more liberal scientific investigation than has yet been the case.
  The report from America as to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease there states, as the result of very remarkable inquiries, that it was distinctly attributable to vaccine farms. Whether that be the source in Europe, as it has been proved to be the source in America, has yet to be the subject of investigation. If disease can be propagated in that way we must have regard to the importation of these biological products which thus bring about disease, and not only cause great loss to the cattle breeder and the farmer, but also inflict a serious tax on the
  68
  revenue of the State. No source of information ought to be neglected in making inquiries of this sort. I cannot help thinking, however, while it is usual on the part of agricultural Members and among scientific authorities to lay stress-upon maintaining a rigid exclusion of live cattle imported into this country from infected countries, and while I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. Long) put a supplementary question the other day to the Secretary of the Board indicating a strong view in regard to that matter, still we have also to bear in mind that the proscribing of a whole country may be too wide a measure to take. The last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease near Edinburgh was promptly dealt with by the Board and was easily circumscribed. I wish that the cause of that outbreak had been followed up more exhaustively than was the case. I put a question to the representative of the Board on the subject and I was told that it was probably caused by infected hay from Holland, which was an infected country. No investigation appears to have been made later to follow this up, except to show that the disease was not present on the farm from which the hay came. I cannot help thinking that there ought to be a more recognised system of International notification than there is at present as to contagious diseases of animals; and more exhaustive inquiries should be made as to the localities in which disease-breaks out, so that the infected area may be kept apart, and then it would not be necessary to proclaim the whole of a large country like the Argentine, or, for the matter of that, a small country like Holland, as an infected country, from which none of our food should be derived by the importation of living animals. I do not think that science justifies that wholesale remedy. I would hope that, just as in the case of the Agricultural Department, we have heard with great pleasure of the new scientific committee set up to investigate the agricultural aspect, so we may be told that it is also the intention to institute far more exhaustive inquiries as to these diseases of animals, not only with regard to swine fever, but also with regard to others; and I hope that by arriving at a more definite scientific opinion we may make our administrative measures more in harmony with general knowledge and more effective in diminishing the diseases than has been hitherto the case.
  Mr. WING: The question of agriculture which has been mentioned seems to cover so large an area that it might almost with advantage have a Minister set apart for the administration of that particular Department. But included in this Vote is also the great fishing industry, which suffers from having many difficulties, to some of which I should like to call the attention of the Department. Included in this question are several matters as to which I would like to express our gratitude to the Department. One of these has reference to visits by the President of the Board to various ports and conferences with the authorities there; and I wish that this might be done on a large scale, because it would be a good thing to have conferences on matters which are of very great importance to the fishing industry. For instance, one matter as to which good results might be achieved is the manner in which the fishing on the Dogger Bank is being depleted owing to the splendid equipment of the trawlers, which gives them powers of depletion of fish greater than the forces of nature to replace, and I have been told by those interested in the fishing industry that it might be possible, by devoting a sum of money for the purpose, to take steps with a view to restocking the Dogger Bank by the prevention of the catching of fish full of spawn, or small fish, or such other means as a conference of responsible representatives would suggest based on scientific knowledge and experience. The state of the Iceland coast is another matter which should appeal to every Member of the House, because there is at the present moment a very great danger to the fisherman in what has now become the greatest fishing ground, not only for our own island, but for other countries. There are very few lighthouses along that coast. This is a very serious matter, because there has been the sacrifice of a quarter of a million pounds' worth of property which was destroyed on that coast in recent years, while the number of lives sacrificed cannot be known. I am very sorry to have to drag any other country into this matter, but we are the only persons who have done nothing towards the lighting of that particular coast, and in reply to a question put to the Foreign Secretary I was in formed that there was no fund set apart for the particular purpose of lighting that coast at the present moment—
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I do not quite know how the hon. Member is in order in raising that question on this Vote.
  Mr. WING: Another matter to which I should like to refer is the rule of the road in relation to vessels that are fishing. In ordinary circumstances, the rule of the road declares that when a trawler is fishing it is very difficult for it to move, and in a law case it has been declared that a trawler would be justified in retaining its position while it is fishing. It is felt by those in the trade that a rule of the road might be issued from the Fisheries Department making this more generally known. Another matter has reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act, which applies to the various members of the crew, but in no way applies to the share of the fishermen. This is felt very keenly by those who obtain payment by their share of the voyage, and possibly there might be a conference of the Fishing Department and the trade3 which would result in some arrangement being come to whereby those who are outside the limits of that Act might be brought within it. I should like to call the attention of the House to another matter, and that is that trawlers have suffered in several instances by being run down by steamers which were carrying pilots on board, and when the case was taken into court compulsory pilotage has been pleaded against the owner of the fishing vessel, with the result that no damages could be obtained from the owners of the steamer. Persons in the trade desire that the same responsibility should attach to the owners of vessels when in charge of a pilot as attach to them when they are in charge of the captain. This is not only a serious thing for the owners, but is a very serious thing for the crew. In the case in which a ship is damaged by a steam trawler or other ship, and a suit is brought by a foreign ship and the foreigners obtain a decision in their court, they can claim damages not only for the ship, but compensation for the crew. We desire that our ships should be put in a position of equality in this matter. This is a question in which the Board of Trade perhaps would have more influence.
  The CHAIRMAN: If this is a matter which refers to the Board of Trade it can be raised on the Board of Trade Vote. I cannot possibly tell myself with regard to all these matters, but as the hon. Member speaks of the Board of Trade having more influence, then clearly it is on the Board of Trade Vote and not here that

  71
  this question should be raised. Perhaps the hon. Baronet can inform me as to this.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I understand that this is a Vote on Account. This includes all the Civil Services, in which the Board of Trade is included. I understand that no reduction has been moved, and therefore an hon. Member has the right to raise any question which is included in the Civil Services.
  The CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Baronet reminds me, no reduction has been moved, and this is a Vote on Account; and until a reduction has been moved, we are not confined to any one item, and therefore the hon. Member is in order.
  Mr. WING: This is a matter of very serious importance. Suppose a trawler is run down by a foreign steamer, and we get a verdict against that foreign steamer, we have no remedy for our crew. But if they get a decision against one of our ships we have to pay not only the damage to the ship, but we have to provide for the crew as well, and we ask that there should be some means whereby we should have equal treatment. For instance, some time ago we obtained from one of the Government Departments the same treatment for our workmen in France under their industrial laws as the French themselves, whereas previously they had not obtained those advantages; and I am asking that in matters of this kind our crews shall not be placed at a disadvantage. I ask the Fisheries Department to stand by our men, who look to them for protection, and it seems to me that the question of the Iceland coast and the protection of our men is one that calls for attention. The calling is a most dangerous one; many men who climbed those cliffs have found themselves without any guidance whatever. If beacons were placed in certain positions, pointing to where there is a refuge or in the direction of a farmhouse, many lives might be saved. When the men get thrown on these coasts, they have no idea where to go to. The German Vice-Consul at one portion of the coast has realised this and has had a beacon erected with a hand pointing to the nearest farmhouse and another beacon pointing to a refuge where there is food provided for those who may be wrecked on that coast. I do ask that on a coast which is now the most prolific of our fishing grounds we should
  72
  do something to show the men that the English Government do care for them and that the Board of Trade and the Department are interested in their general welfare. The industry is a large one; we have over 25,000 fishing vessels belonging to these islands, and the catch of those boats amounts to £11,000,000 a year. We have over 107,000 men employed in this great occupation, and I would ask that amid all the claims which agriculture may make upon the attention of the Government, at least some attention should be paid to the fishing industry, in which, I am sure, we are all very deeply interested.
  Mr. BARNSTON: I think that one thing which must have struck every Member of this House is the kindly way in which Members are treated in rising to make their maiden speeches. I suppose the reason of this is that all the Members of this House who have been here for some years have never forgotten that awful and awe-inspiring moment when they found themselves addressing this House, or trying to address this House, for the first time. Being in that position, I ask the indulgence of the House while I make a very few remarks on subjects which are not only interesting to me, but which are of vital importance to the great agricultural and dairy-farming Constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House. The subject has already been touched upon, but I may be permitted to add one word to what has been said in reference to anthrax. Some three months ago I asked the hon. Baronet whether, in view of the fact that anthrax was increasing, he would appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject. He told me that the inspectors were doing all they could in various ways. Unfortunately, since three months ago, anthrax has considerably increased, and I wish to ascertain from the hon. Baronet whether he is satisfied that, with the steps he is now taking, this disease is being checked, and, if he is not satisfied, will he reconsider the position? Although it may perhaps appear impertinent on the part of a new Member to say so, I desire to emphasise this point as representing an agricultural constituency. We always appreciate the great courtesy which the hon. Baronet shows to us. At the same time, in the answers he has given with regard to anthrax he rather gave us the impression that he did not quite appreciate the supreme importance of this subject to every farmer throughout the length and breadth of the country. I wish also to

  73
  call the attention of the Minister to the Small Holdings Act. I think, if co-operation be needed anywhere among farmers and agriculturists, it is needed in connection with the subject of small holdings. I rejoice that the Board of Agriculture have given—as I understand—to the Agriculture Organisation Society a Grant of something like £1,600 a year for three years, under certain conditions. But, after all, that is a very small sum for the vast subject with which that body has to deal, and I hope that the hon. Baronet will be able to tell us that he hopes to be in a position to increase this Grant in the future. One point I wish to bring out in connection with small holdings is this: In my own county of Cheshire—and I suppose it is the same everywhere—speaking generally, the rents which are paid to the county council by small holders are much higher than the rents paid to the ordinary private individual or to the ordinary private landowner. Of course, the inevitable result will be, though we hear of "the people back to the land," and "the labourers charter," there will be in time an increase of all the rents of small farms which are let to email holders. I do not myself believe that small holdings can possibly be a success if the small holder has to pay a rent which no big farmer would dream of paying, and unless we obtain an adequate system of co-operation. I would respectfully ask the hon. Baronet whether he cannot see his way to increase the Grant in furtherance of this much-needed co-operation in regard to small holdings.
  I hope the House will pardon my alluding to an absolutely local matter, but it is one of great importance to my own constituents—I mean the practice and fraud of selling Dutch cheeses as Cheshire cheese. I know it is perfectly easy to talk about fraud, but it is far harder to detect it. May I ask the hon. Baronet in his reply to be kind enough to give us some assurance that the Board of Agriculture are really alive to this question, and are determined, as far as they possibly can, to stop the practice? It is not merely the fact, of course, that a great industry loses a certain amount of custom in the country, but the people who buy this Dutch cheese fraudulently described as "Cheshire," do not think much of it, and they make up their minds that they will not buy Cheshire cheese again. In conclusion, if I may be permitted to do so, I join in the congratulations which have come from this
  74
  side of the House at the firm attitude which the Government and the hon. Baronet have adopted as regards keeping live Argentine cattle from being admitted to British ports. I think that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which has recently occurred in that country has thoroughly justified the course which the Government have thought fit to take. The whole agricultural community are agreed on this question, and are very thankful to the Government for the course that they have taken. I trust that the fact of this foot-and-mouth outbreak having occurred just when the agitation commenced will be a warning to future Governments to deal very carefully with this matter.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I should like to associate myself with the congratulatory sentiments which have been expressed that at last we have a direct representative on the Board of Agriculture to whom we can appeal, and who will be responsible for the administration of the Department. I congratulate the hon. Baronet on the fact that he has been elevated to that most important position. I am able to testify that he takes a wide and deep interest in agricultural matters, and we need have no hesitation in approaching him on this question. My special purpose in rising is to make a few observations upon the development of small holdings during the past few years. I have read the report of the Commission on this matter with considerable interest and some amount of gratification. I feel that we are able to look to the development of small holdings with a great deal of hope, after having perused that Report. Still, there is a great deal to be done in this direction, and I hope that the few-critical observations I have to offer will have the effect of spurring the Department to continued activity in connection with this work. That there have been placed upon the land some six thousand people in the course of a few years is a very good result. Nevertheless, I feel that had the county councils in the main been as sympathetic as we would desire, even a considerably larger number of people would now be in possession of small holdings. When we have the fact recognised by the Commissioners that compulsory powers have had to be exercised by the majority of county councils in the country, I think we are able to realise that the Department has had some difficulties to contend with in this direction.

  75
  I believe that the Board of Agriculture is at last taking the matter up with seriousness, and that they intend, wherever they deem it to be necessary, to put into full operation the powers they possess under the Act. I find that the Commissioners also draw attention to this fact. It very often happens that, owing to the high prices which have to be paid for land, and the cost involved in adapting the land to small holdings, that the amount required is often prohibitive to many a small holder. I think we here see the wisdom manifested by those" who pressed upon the Government in 1907 the desirability of preceding the Small Holdings and Allotment Bill by the passing of a Valuation Bill. Now that the Government have taken powers for the purpose of valuing the land of the country, I am not without hope that it will have the effect of facilitating the acquisition of the necessary land, and the availability of that land at more reasonable rents to those who are desirous of occupying and cultivating it.
  I have been drawn into close association and interest with this question of small holdings and allotments, although I cannot claim to have the technical and expert knowledge of agricultural or horticultural pursuits that some other Members of the House possess. But that does not debar one from taking a deep interest in these matters, and I have during the past two or three years come into contact with a number of working class organisations having for their object the development of this measure, and the extension of small holdings and allotments. I am able to bear testimony to the fact that the prices of land have risen solely and simply, I believe, because of the demand created for land by the county councils being induced to put into operation the provisions of this Act. I believe it to be the fact that the land has been greatly enhanced in price wherever this demand has been created, and it has caused the retardation of this movement. But now we are able to congratulate ourselves upon the fact that the Government are inpressed with the need of valuing the land, and I trust the particulars which will be at their 'disposal will also be placed at the disposal of the county councils, so that they may be able to assure themselves that in subsequent acquisitions of land both parties are met fairly—that the landlord, on the one hand, gets a fair
  76
  value for his land, and that the tenant, on the other, is protected against the imposition of an unfair rent. In my own part of the country I have found applicants for small holdings also making a demand for housing accommodation upon those holdings. I must confess to some little disappointment that the various county councils have not yet taken into consideration the provision of suitable housing accommodation on these small holdings. I find that about seventy-four houses were built by county councils during the past year. The Cheshire County Council has the credit of having built the largest number, namely, thirty - five, in connection with an interesting experiment which is being conducted in that county. I trust this Department may be relied on to impress upon the county councils the desirability of taking seriously in hand the provision of the necessary housing in order that agricultural labourers and others may be afforded facilities for settling on our soil. I know that there is a considerable demand in the country for land, and that this measure is holding out considerable hope to agricultural labourers, who are contemplating the possible betterment of their lot. Therefore it is that I join with the previous speaker in the emphasis he laid upon the necessity for the development of the co-operative spirit in this matter. In the part of the country where I reside, and in the Constituency which I have the honour to represent, a most interesting experiment has been conducted — I refer to the Wayland experiment in the Walton district. There, a large farm, I believe of 285 acres, was acquired by the Norfolk County Council, and sublet to the Wayland Cooperative Association, which in turn, of course sub-let it to the members of that organisation. The Commissioners are able to report now that each one of those small holders is making a signal success of his holding. Largely, and I believe I may say mainly, due to the fact that they work on the co-operative principle. Previous speakers have also sought to emphasise this fact, but nevertheless I feel that I will not be exceeding the importance of the case if I also venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman and his Department that the greatest hope of this important measure lies in the extension and application of the principle of co-operation. I believe that the Department have great powers in this matter. They are able, I believe, through the medium of the county council,

  77
  to explain the principles of co-operation to would-be applicants, and I believe it is also within their power to give encouragement for the establishment of co-operative associations. I hope they will recognise the value and success of this experiment, which is only limited because of the fact that the occupiers of this farm have not coupled with the co-operative ownership the principle of co-operative trading.
  We are often told to-day that we should turn to the Continent for examples. Personally, I am not one of those who would agree that our country is suffering a great deal as compared with other nations. I believe that this country has just as great potentialities of riches and prosperity as any other nation in the world, provided we apply the necessary principles to our resources. It certainly seems to me that along the lines of co-operative developments we are able to indicate great possibilities of the development and creation of new avenues of richness and prosperity. On this Wayland estate the Commissioners tell us, with this large farm split up into small occupations, that not only is the land much better cultivated than heretofore, but that there is a larger amount of cattle being kept upon the land, and that where six or seven men only previously found permanent employment upon that farm there are fifteen men regularly employed to-day, and a further three in casual employment upon it. Therefore I think we are able to contemplate this experiment with a great deal of satisfaction, because it bears out our claim that it is by the extension of this principle that we are able to do something to palliate the great evil of unemployment and to provide men with a reasonable and honest subsistence. I do not know how far the Department might go in utilising the resources of the Development Act.
  I have been listening to the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst), and it appears there will be so many demands on the Act that unless we are able to interpose at an early date there will be nothing left from the resources of that measure. I trust, whilst agreeing that the measure should be utilised for the purpose of conducting the scientific and other investigations suggested by that hon. Gentleman, that the Department will realise that in the application in the Small Holdings and Allotments Act there is a demand for the resources of that measure, and that if they are able to extend it in such a way as to
  78
  increase the number of owners on the soil, then they are contributing something substantial to the solution of the great social problem that affects us to-day. When this measure was in its respective stages before the House failure was predicted for it because of what was called the magic of property. We were told that unless these people—the small holders—possess the soil itself that they were not likely to cultivate it in the first and best possible way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice hon. Gentlemen still hold those sentiments, but a perusal of the Reports referred to will, I hope, disabuse their minds. The statistics prove that, I think, just over 2 per cent, of the several thousand applicants for land have expressed the desire for purchase. I am no bigot in this matter. If a man desires to purchase land I would leave him perfectly free to do so. I am not now arguing the matter, but simply stating the fact as recorded by the Commissioners as to the number of applicants who desire to purchase.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They have not got any money.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I am coming to that point. I may just point out that those men, even if they are members of cooperative organisations, must necessarily be persons of very slender resources. Therefore, if their money is locked up in purchase, they have nothing left for the purpose of acquiring the necessary implements for cultivation or of the seed which is requisite also for that purpose. My experience has long proved that those who are desirous of having access to the land prefer the method and principle of this Bill, for, after all, what is necessary in all those cases is that a man should have security of tenure, and it does not matter much to them then whether they stand in the position of occupying tenants or direct owners of the soil. I think the most pertinent aspect of this Report is the prominent consideration given by the Commissioners to the question of co-operation. Undoubtedly co-operation is the secret of success in Denmark. I know some people say that the great success of cultivation in Denmark is almost exclusively due to the fact that the Danish people very largely own their holdings. I believe that that would meet with the assent of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  We have this knowledge that the Danish cultivator is, in the main, a co-operator; 95 per cent, of the Danish

  79
  farmers are members of a great cooperative organisation, with a membership of 158,000 farms. There are also very successful co-operative export societies. They also do their own banking, putting their savings into co-operative banks, and acquiring the necessary loan also out of those banks. Furthermore, they are able to buy what is requisite for cultivation on wholesale terms, thereby saving entirely the profits made by middlemen dealing in those things. I think that we may claim honestly that the principle of co-operation in Denmark is the main cause of the great success which we know attends land cultivators in that country. Therefore, I say again, I am pleased that the Commissioners and the Board have thought well to direct the attention of this House and the country to the absolute necessity for the extension of the co-operative principle in this matter. I may also, incidentally, draw attention to the fact that railway nationalisation in Denmark is also one of the causes of success there. The cooperative collection of goods is supplemented by State attention in the matter of rates, and there they have not the complaints that many of the small cultivators have here that they are crippled by the incidence and inequalities of the railway rates.
  There is just one other point for which we might desire the success of the small holder in this connection. We are now complaining a great deal of the shortage of our meat supply. I do not intend to discuss the question of the embargo on the Argentine cattle. It is not competent for me to discuss that question, because I believe the removal of that embargo would involve legislation. But still I think if we are able legitimately to increase the meat supply of our own country it is desirable that the attention of Parliament should be directed thereto. The shortage of the world's meat supply is becoming a matter of grave consideration to every working-class family in all the countries concerned. The United States' supply is not developing. I believe that the figures for the last three years show that there is an actual decrease in the number of cattle reared in that great country. That is stated to be due very largely to the exactions and operations of what is known as the great American Beef Trust. The farmer has been compelled to accept whatever price the Trust cared to offer to him. When he complained and sought other markets
  80
  he found that the railways were against him because there the Trust had also secured control. Here we have the fact that in spite of the great increase in the American population, the number of cattle raised is on the decrease. We cannot deny that this embargo acts as a source of protection to the British farmer. A year or two since I had the pleasure of going through the Debates that preceded the Bill of 1894 and the subsequent compulsory enactment of 1896. Some of the arguments then introduced went to show that with this measure in existence the British farmer would be greatly encouraged and that the whole production would very soon suffice for the home demands. Our subsequent experience has gone to falsify all those predictions despite the great measure of protection those Acts did give to the British farmer, who has not yet responded in a way that some of the supporters of those measures thought would have been the case. It may be that in the extension of the small holdings principle we may find the possibility of our supply being developed along those lines.
  6.0 P.M.
  Although I am one of those who would like to see all embargoes removed, nevertheless I feel that we ought to draw the attention of the small holder and the British farmer to the fact that in this direction lies a great demand for the cattle that he might produce, and I believe that in introducing those cattle he would be creating a good source of private profit for himself. It is not my intention to discuss the embargo question, because there are other Members who desire to raise it in more direct fashion. But I submit that, having regard to the importance and gravity of the matter, the Government should seriously consider whether the time has not arrived when an inquiry should be made into the whole question. In conclusion, I hope that the more encouraging Report which the Department have been able to make on the working of the Act will serve as a stimulus, and that the Department will recognise that, although a considerable proportion of the applicants have been satisfied, there still remains a large number unsatisfied, and that when they have been able to provide the present applicants with land there will be many others anxious to embark on the enterprise. Therefore, I say that, in conjunction with the principles of co-operation, which are so emphatically advocated by the Commissioners, the Department have every

  81
  reason to go forward in this work, and, while as far as possible acquiring the land by ordinary negotiations, not to hesitate when occasion requires to put into operation their compulsory powers. I look upon this measure as holding out great hope of placing the agricultural labourer in a position of greater independence; therefore I wish the measure well, and congratulate the Department upon the Report they have been able to produce.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: While joining in the congratulations of the hon. Baronet, I hope that in another year we may have a day set apart for the discussion of agricultural questions, instead of having to raise them upon the first item of the Vote on Account, because under the latter procedure we are unable to come directly to an issue on any particular subject by moving a reduction of the salary of the President. I would join in the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. Bathurst) that the hon. Baronet will give us some account of what the new Committee just appointed is going to do. We know that the whole sum of £400,000 for the Development Grant has been voted by Parliament, and we cannot but assume that the new Committee has something to do with taking into consideration the schemes to which that money is to be devoted. If the money is already in hand, I hope that the appointment of the new Committee does not mean any delay in making a start with actually carrying out the Development Act. I am afraid if we press all the various matters raised by my hon. Friend we shall get from the Government their favourite observation of "Wait and see" what the Development Grant is going to do. We want to know what the ideas of the Government are, and whether they intend to give effect to them at the earliest possible moment.
  The next question I wish to ask is whether the hon. Baronet can hold out any more hope in connection with the hop industry than he did at an earlier part of the Session? Two years ago the Government themselves instituted an inquiry into the hop industry. They received from that Committee a Report which they endorsed by promising legislation and actually introducing it in two Sessions, and yet, in the third Session we are met with an absolute refusal on their part to carry out that in which they have shown so much interest
  82
  in the past. This is a matter of vital interest to a very old industry, and I hope the hon. Baronet will be able to give those concerned in it some assurance that their interests are being considered, and that this Session, although no controversial legislation can be undertaken, a measure will be introduced by which some part of the Report of the Committee may be carried into effect at the earliest possible date. With regard to the administration of the Contagious Diseases Act, I would like to support the suggestion that the hon. Baronet should, through his Department, undertake a more particular inquiry into anthrax than has been made in connection with swine fever. There is a-great contrast in this matter between Ireland and this country; and when we see that in Ireland they have been able almost to conquer the disease, it rather proves that there are special circumstances in this country accounting for the great increase in the disease and the dangers incident to it. It is surely desirable that, when they have failed to deal with this disease on ordinary lines, the Government should undertake a scientific inquiry into the matter to see if something more cannot be done. I congratulate the hon. Baronet that, so far as sheepscab is concerned, he has gone to the root of the matter by endeavouring to deal with the disease in the more mountainous parts of the country from which the infection usually comes. In the evidence given before the Committee over which I presided a few years ago, it was made clear that the sources of the disease always came from the more mountainous districts, and that the real remedy was to trace back every outbreak and deal with it perhaps harshly for the time in the mountainous districts. That is what the hon. Baronet has done in Wales, and the better figures of the later months show that the Government have got pretty well to the root of the matter, and that if they continue on those lines they may deal with it more satisfactorily than seemed possible a short time ago.
  In connection with the Order issued in May in reference to the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1907, I should like to know why the Government have discriminated between one particular pest— gooseberry mildew—and other pests included in the Order. It is confusing to the general public. When old Orders have been revoked and new Orders issued, it is much more convenient that the public

  83
  should know, and that all pests of a similar character should be included in the same Order and come under the same regulations, so that people throughout the country may understand what is required of them. At present we have the new Order for a large number of pests, some of which are very remote in their connection with this country, whilst there are two or three other Orders in force in connection with gooseberry mildew. There are certain points in the gooseberry mildew Orders which might very well have been introduced into the new order dealing with destructive pests. There is no limitation in the new Order on the importation of bushes infected with any of these pests; there is no power of dealing with people who are either engaged in picking the fruit or in moving the bushes, as there is in the gooseberry mildew Orders. The method of dealing with bushes is clearly limited in the new Order to burning, whilst in the other Orders there is the alternative of spraying. Only in the last year the Government have issued a leaflet recommending, in connection with one particular pest, the method of syringing; but in this new Order they do not allow the alternative of syringing, but insist on burning as the only method. When somewhat compulsory Orders are issued to the effect that the unfortunate grower is to destroy by burning or other effective method any plant, tree, or crops on his premises infected by moths, like the brown-tail moth and the gypsy moth, it is rather difficult for anyone to know exactly what plants are infected by moth; and to be told that he is to burn the plants which are infected is a rather large order, and one which is somewhat difficult to carry out. The whole question seems to be still involved in considerable confusion, and to my mind it greatly strengthens the recommendation made a few years ago by the Fruit Committee that the Government should be advised by an expert committee before dealing with these highly technical subjects, so that they might be dealt with in a consistent fashion. If the Board had such an advisory committee the confusion which now exists might be cleared up, the matter could be put before the people interested more clearly, and there would be a greater chance of these new questions being satisfactorily dealt with.
  I hope, too, that the hon. Baronet will be able to give us more information than we at present possess in reference to the
  84
  policy of the Government on the question of horse breeding. We had in the Journal of the Board of Agriculture for March of this year a very interesting article, which I suppose more or less has the support of the Government, as it is published in their Journal, with illustrations. This article dealt with the best type of stallion that was to be desired in this country for the supply of military horses. It gave a description and a photograph of the type, and suggested methods by which these types could be secured. There was some criticism last year as to the character of the pictures which were arranged by the Government for the best type of military horses. I confess I do think that when the Board of Agriculture issues through its Journal and with its sanction a description of the best type of stallion for military horses, it is not very satisfactory to have this note:—
  "With reference to type 4 (military wheeler) it has not been possible to find a stallion that meets the ideas of what we want. I have, therefore, selected a mare, the property of Sir John Barker, of unknown breed."
  It is a rather remarkable thing to choose a mare as the type of stallion. This animal, whose photograph is given, has been, it is stated, hard at work doing thirty miles a day on London streets. It does not appear to advantage, I think, as the best type of military wheeler, and it seems to me to show that the Government have not quite arrived at any very definite conclusion upon the matter. I do not think we shall receive very much help therefore in this matter from the contributions of the Government which have been published. It is a serious matter, and one that demands immediate settlement. I do not think we ought to be called upon to wait until the Development Grant is in full force to get an opinion from the Government upon any question. The Government have had time to make up their minds, and it is time the public should be informed as to the steps the Board of Agriculture are taking to secure the right kind of animal which, it is quite clear everyone agrees, we have not in sufficient numbers at the present time. There is only one other question that I should like to allude to. I do hope that the Government in their administration of the Fertilisers and Foodstuffs Act will take into consideration the numerous criticisms made upon it since it passed into law not very long ago. I think it has already been found ineffective for the purposes for which it was passed. The failure of the Act has been, I daresay, a good deal

  85
  due to the particular criticism which was alluded to—the veto of the Board. The conflict of authority between the Board and the county councils is not one that is likely to lead to an efficient administration of the Act. But it is deficient in other ways, and it is very desirable that we should have this matter of the administration of the Act very carefully looked into. If it is found to be defective the hon. Baronet should secure that it should be made effective at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I shall not trouble the Committee or the hon. Baronet with any observations upon the various subjects that have been discussed in the course of the afternoon. I have only one matter; that is the subject of the importation of foreign cattle and the embargo that is at present laid upon such importation. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the concluding observations of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts), who has alluded to the efforts that have been already made to induce the farmers of this country to increase the production of their cattle. It is no detriment whatever to the cultivation of a farm to increase the number of cattle raised upon it. It has been recently laid down by the Vice-Regal Commission, the Dudley Commission, I think, in Ireland, that the cultivation of land in Ireland to a greater degree than has occurred of late years is in no way detrimental to the production of large numbers of cattle. It was found that, in fact, while cultivation had increased—this is in reference to the breaking up of the large cattle ranches into which Ireland has been lapsing—this Commission reported upon evidence taken most carefully—by small farmers of farms that had been created from ranches which had been broken up, that the result also was an increase in the number of cattle. When the hon. Gentleman used that argument he was using the very strongest argument that could be advanced for the maintenance of the embargo. He, no doubt, as other Members of the Labour party—and we are very cognate to that party—had in his own mind the food supply of the masses of this country. He need have no fear of that! He adduced some small diminution in the production of cattle in the United States as a reason why this embargo should be taken off. During the last few moments I have been to the Library, and I find that
  86
  in the year 1904 there were 2,000,000 carcases imported into this country, dead and alive; for those that are imported alive are brought for the purpose of being slaughtered at the port. In 1908 this number, as given in the statistical papers published this year, showed 5,000,000 carcases. Sheep have also enormously increased. This would lead me to assure the Labour Members that, as far as the meat supply of the masses is concerned, there is no need for fear.
  What is the danger of taking off the embargo? Take Canada for an example. Although Canada may have a clean bill of health so far as cattle is concerned, if the embargo was taken off the importation it would be impossible to keep out cattle which would be brought from the United States, where there is not a clean bill of health. In this connection I had a conversation scarcely a month ago with that very eminent General, the late Sir William Butler. He was engaged in military service in Canada, and travelled over nearly the whole of the country in the performance of his duties. Parts of the country that he did not cover as a military man he visited for literary purposes, and to enable him to produce those remarkably beautiful books that I hope every man in this House has read. He said that it would be impossible to police the immense border between the United States and Canada in order to prevent cattle from being brought across the border, so that they might be shipped from Canadian ports. The evidence of Sir William Butler is strongly supported by a gentleman who is highly respected in this House, especially above the Gangway on this side, namely, Sir Horace Plunkett. Sir Horace, as we all know, pays the greatest possible attention to matters of this kind. He is the founder, as we all gratefully remember, of the Agricultural Department of Ireland. What did he say a short time ago on this very subject?—
  "If the restrictions were removed I do not believe it would be possible so to police the thousands of miles of border between the Republic and the Dominion as to safeguard us from the danger of admitting cattle from the United States. I speak with some knowledge of the subject, as I have been in charge of large herds of cattle on both sides of that border, and feel myself capable"
  This is a shocking admission.
  "of dodging the police if I were in that line of business."
  That is the evidence of Sir Horace Plunkett, than whom there is no higher authority on this subject. These are the dangers. I will address this one concluding

  87
  word to Labour Members. There is an enormous danger, an awful risk, in allowing cattle to come in under these circumstances, and that risk was very succinctly pointed out by the Noble Lord who preceded the hon. Baronet in the office that he now fills. Lord Onslow used these words only a very few years ago, when a declaration had been made by the late Prime Minister on the subject. He, it may not be known to every Member of this House, was in favour of the removal of the embargo. In reply to, I believe, his own Prime Minister, Lord Onslow in 1905 used these words:—
  "The Leader of the Opposition—"
  Meaning thereby the late Prime Minister.
  "in the House of Commons quite recently spoke in favour of reopening British ports to Canadian cattle. Such a step, I think, would be most impolitic and dangerous. Not so many years ago many prosperous English and Scottish cattle breeders, believing they were perfectly immune from animal disease, had sudden ruin brought upon them by the importation of a few diseased animals. In 1892 there was an embargo placed upon cattle coming from foreign countries. One animal suffering from pleuro-pneumonia by some mistake was allowed to pass through, and to trace that single case cost the country £15,000. Did anyone think the Government was going to introduce legislation which would reopen such a risk as that?"
  Nothing has happened since that utterance on the subject to alter the circumstances under which the embargo at present is maintained. The danger of United States cattle crossing the border is as great to-day as it was when these words were spoken. The condition of the Argentine supply is exactly the same. Their bill of health is not a clean bill of health, and all the sources of supply may be said to be tainted. With that point in view, I would remind hon. Members of the attack of pleuro-pneumonia which was experienced in Scotland a very short time ago. I have not the figures by me, but perhaps the hon. Baronet will be able to say how much it cost the nation to extirpate that disease. The whole supply of the country had to be, as it were, put out of joint. The importation and exportation of foods to that part of the country had to be inspected and supervised in the most expensive manner. Surely the drastic remedies which are employed on such an occasion should indicate to all who study the question what a terrible disease this is. Therefore I submit to the House that any suggestion that can possibly be made from, I do not care what quarter, to take off this embargo, should be made only with the highest sense of responsibility and after the most
  88
  careful investigation. I make these few observations, not especially as an Irish representative of a large agricultural district, because the embargo was put on without any regard whatever for Ireland, and the embargo will be taken off when it suits the interests of England and not the interests of Ireland.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, no.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I remember it very well. The hon. Baronet says, "No." I have no doubt in the world but that the condition of Ireland is always prominent in his mind. I know this embargo was placed upon cattle out of full consideration for the interests of Great Britain. They are larger interests and more dominating interests than ours, and they are interests that affect the great and the growing Labour party whose opinions I respect, and whose views I do so much to support in this House. I submit, therefore, that if these suggestions are to be given effect to by any Government in the future, it should only be done after the most careful consideration of this, the most serious subject which could occupy the attention for many a long day.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I beg to move as an Amendment that the item Board of Agriculture and Fisheries be reduced by the sum of £100.
  I agree with what the hon. Member who has just spoken has said, that the subject to which he has called the attention of the Committee is one of very great importance and difficulty. It is a subject in which there are a number of conflicting considerations, on which he certainly would be a very bold controversialist who would express a very strong and dogmatic opinion. I cannot pretend to address the Committee with the same certainty of conviction as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, neither am I quite able to understand some of the arguments which he put before the Committee. I understood him, for instance, to say that the embargo ought to be maintained, because, if it was removed, it would be found entirely impossible to keep diseased North American cattle from coming through by land transit; that the embargo in the South ought to be preserved, because, if it was removed, there would be an outbreak over the entire Continent, as it would then be possible for North American cattle to come through. That appears to me, if you analyse it, a conclusive argument for removing the

  89
  embargo. There is no such embargo on cattle for slaughter in North America, and the diseased cattle in the Argentine can completely evade the whole of these regulations the maintenance of which the hon. Gentleman thinks of so much importance. I cannot help thinking that one portion of the hon. Member's argument seems to be destructive of the other. But the hon. Member has not really touched upon the most important point.
  The case for the removal of the embargo is, of course, based upon the imminent danger in which the retention of it may place the meat supply of this country. If one might offer an opinion upon that, and upon sources of supply that at present exist, and the variation of those sources of supply, as disclosed by the statistical examination of the Board of Trade in the last few years, the chief difficulty arises from the supplies of beef and veal. The supply of mutton is not so very material a consideration, because there is not the same danger of disease either for mutton or pork as there is in the case of beef and veal. According to the Report of the Departmental Committee that examined into this subject, the home supplies of beef and veal at the present time amount to about three-fifths of the total supply required. I do not suppose that anybody who studied the recent history of the question will believe that the supply is likely to increase in the future. If we examine the figures we find that the number of cattle in the country, not including cows and heifers in milk and in calf, show, in fact, a decided decline in numbers.
  These figures have been taken from the Board of Agriculture Report and they show that in the year 1906 there were 4,472,445 head of cattle in the country and that in 1908 there were 4,141,354 head of cattle, showing a decrease of 130,000 from the year 1906 to the year 1910. Of course, I need hardly point out that in that time the population has increased. The question that arises there is, How is this shortage of two-fifths to be supplied? It is made up by the importation of live cattle for immediate slaughter, of fresh meat, of chilled meat, and of frozen meat. It is impossible to enter upon the consideration of this question without saying a word about each of these sources of supply. Taking first of all the case of live cattle we find that live cattle are obtained from the Channel Islands—but here the supply is extremely small, being only about 1,000 or 1,500 per annum—from Canada and
  90
  from the United States of America. Of fresh meat there is but a very small supply in a matter of consideration of this kind and it comes principally from Denmark. The supply of chilled meat which is one of the most important comes from the United States of America, from South America, and a beginning has recently been made in bringing it from. Australia and New Zealand. Frozen meat is obtained from North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand.
  Dealing first of all with the figures of the importation of live cattle the numbers from the United States of America have declined from 390,440 beasts in 1905 to 205,450 beasts in 1909, and I think that is a very significant decline, meaning as it does a reduction of 185,000 beasts in four years. During the same period, there has been a decline equally large and one which requires the attention of the House in the Canadian figures. The number of live cattle from Canada has declined during the same period from 164,184 to 113,000, which shows, to summarise the position as far as this country is concerned, that there has been a very large reduction in these two sources of supply. I do not think that anyone who studies the agricultural history of the United States in recent years will maintain that the supply from the United States is ever likely to regain its former dimensions either in the near or in the remote future. I will not go into the explanation whether it is the Beef Trust or the recent financial crisis which is the cause, but at any rate there is very little prospect that this supply from the United States in the future will reach its own figures or anything like them, and the same is true of the Canadian supply.
  The Canadian supply is not likely to increase owing to the great expansion of corn-growing districts in the Dominion, which, of course, is an admirable sign of the development of the country from one point of view, but it gives very little encouragement to the idea that cattle-raising is likely to develop in the same ratio. Another important circumstance which is very often ignored is that in the last few years the United States have made large calls upon Canada for cattle. In 1906 Canada exported to the United States 4,675 beasts, in 1907 8,190 beasts, and in 1908 23,668 beasts. That is to say that during four years Canada's exports of beasts to the United States have risen from 4,000 odd in 1906 to 23,000 in 1908. I

  91
  have not got the later figures, but the result is that at the present moment the United States is actually importing cattle from Canada.
  Upon the subject of chilled and frozen meat there has been a falling-off in the supplies from the United States of America. I have had prepared from the Report of one of the Committees that examined into this question figures dealing with this supply. I do not think It necessary at present to do more than give the figures for the years 1906 and 1909 without stopping to mention the figures for the intervening years. Taking the supplies of chilled and frozen meats from the United States to this country I find that in 1906 we imported from the United States 2,426,644 cwts., and that that prodigious quantity has fallen in 1909 to 856,805 cwts. Anyone attempting to form a judgment upon this important matter must bear in mind that decline in so short a period as three years. That is not the case with South America. In the year 1906 the exports of chilled and frozen meats from South America was 2,814,722 cwts., and in 1909 4,340,653 cwts. In 1909 there was a large reduction of supplies from the United States, a large increase from South America, while Australia and New Zealand were both able to increase their average supplies, but not sufficiently to make up the shortage from the United States -without help from South America.
  There is a large business in dairy farming in New Zealand, and having regard to that fact, and that this most important experiment in the agricultural business of the Colony is going on no great increase in the raising of cattle is to be anticipated, and as to Australia the supply of cattle is and always must be dependent to a great extent upon climate and its extremes, as a severe drought at any time may spread havoc among the herds. In these circumstances I do not think anyone will suggest it is an exaggeration if the statement is made that the future of our meat supply in this country is one which may well cause grave anxiety, not only to the agricultural interests of the country but no less anxiety to the great body of the consumers and the importers. The hon. Member who sits below the Gangway and who speaks with considerable weight on these points, alluded to the threat held out to the consumers of this country by the great American trust. I do not think the hon. Member exaggerated
  92
  the menace to the consumer of the operation of that trust, nor am I able to see in the assurance given by the hon. Member who spoke from the Irish Benches any arguments to allay the apprehensions which have been raised. What is the position? It is well known that the firms constituting the Beef Trust have acquired much larger interests in the chilling factories in Buenos Ayres than appears upon the surface, and there is reason to believe that a large number of shares in those concerns are held by their nominees. That may be difficult to prove, but certain facts may be stated on this point. The trust has bought La Blanca and La Plata, the only works from which meat can be delivered direct into vessels sailing from Europe, a fact which gives them an immense advantage over all the other works; they have a controlling interest in the Frigorifico Argentino, and a working arrangement with La Negra, leaving only Las Palmas, Campana and Zarate, the latter quite a small con-concern, and all three some miles up the river and compelled to send their produce, chilled and frozen, by lighters to Buenos Ayres for shipment, the meat, of course, deteriorating during its journey down the river. It is thus apparent that so long as the Board of Agriculture insists upon retaining the embargo upon live cattle there is always the danger of the American Beef Trust obtaining a much greater control of the supplies, which must of necessity pass through the various chilling factories of Buenos Ayres, and thus placing themselves in a position to regulate the supplies to this country in accordance with the requirements of North America and other parts of the world. In other words, should a heavy shortage be experienced in North America, it would mean a contest between the United States and this country for the supplies they required, and this could only result in raising prices, not of necessity by the action of the Beef Trust alone, but owing chiefly to a natural shortage. On the other hand, if live cattle could be shipped by the ranchers direct to the buyers over here it would give us a supply which would, in all probability, be a great deal more constant and reliable than the present supply, as it would be out of the hands of the Beef Trust, and could not, therefore, be diverted to other parts of the world where there might be a temporary shortage. This is dealing with the question from the point of view only of the consumer of meat, but it is obvious that the present position very seriously affects a large number of trades connected

  93
  with the slaughter of cattle and collateral interests, such as tanners, fellmongers, gutmakers, and others, because they are unable to obtain sufficient raw material from cattle actually slaughtered in this country, and have, therefore, to a certain extent to rely upon hides being imported, and for this reason they are exposed to the danger of the controlling influence of the Beef Trust, as so many cattle now pass through their hands.
  I do not suppose that anyone will contend for a moment that if it were not for the objection put forward with so much weight by different authorities, both outside and inside the House, as to the danger of contamination with English cattle that any other serious argument in favour of retaining this embargo could be put forward. I think it would be idle to ask the Government to consider the question of removing this embargo unless a real answer could be given to this danger of contamination. On this subject I acknowledge the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, who has devoted so much of his life to the consideration of agricultural interests. He possesses a claim to speak on this question with weight to which I lay no claim, and I confess that the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend are powerful and impressive, and need a serious answer. The real danger complained of by my right hon. Friend was a case of foot-and-mouth disease, and my right hon. Friend and others share the apprehension that unless this embargo is maintained there is some danger of contagion by foot-and-mouth disease. On this point I should like to offer to the Committee a few observations. The Committee which considered this question had to deal with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States in 1908. No one will deny that if foot-and-mouth disease is likely to penetrate from South America to this country, it is far more likely, à fortiori, to penetrate into England from the North American market. Therefore every consideration which could be urged to-day in favour of retaining the embargo from the point of view of the danger of foot-and-mouth disease applied in 1908 with far greater force to the United States. Consequently the danger of contamination must be much greater from North America than from South America. The Board drew attention to the large commercial interests involved in the trade, and alluded in flattering terms to 'the cordial assistance and co-operation" which
  94
  they received from the shipping companies concerned. The Board's defence is. summed up in the following paragraph:—
  "In these circumstances the Board do not deem it necessary, as a matter of course, to prohibit the importation of animals from the United States of America as a whole, on the occurrence of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in a particular state, in the absence of any special circumstances calculated to increase the normal risk, especially since the length of the voyage from America to Great Britain, coupled with the special precaution which it is possible to take at the ports in this country for dealing with a cargo of animals and the vessel in which such animals have been carried should disease actually be found therein afford an additional security against the risk of the disease being carried to animals in this country."
  These remarks apply with much greater force to the importation of cattle from Argentina owing to the fact that the voyage from thence is more than twice as long as from the United States of America, and as the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture admitted on 14th June in the House of Commons, the voyage from Argentina considerably more than covered the period of incubation of foot-and-mouth disease, and that, therefore, no ship could touch at any port in this country without the disease, if it existed, being apparent amongst the cattle.
  There is another point which certainly ought not to be ignored, and it is that practically all the various portions of animals—hides, offals, etc.—are imported into this country from other countries, from many of which animals may not be imported alive. There seems a strong presumption that hides and offals can and do convey the virus of the disease in view of the fact that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Edinburgh in 1908 was officially declared to be due to the importation of foreign hay. Considering that these hides and offals are conveyed to all parts of the country, they evidently constitute a greater risk of disease being conveyed to the flocks and herds of the United Kingdom than would cattle landed for immediate slaughter at wharves specially constructed for the purpose, from whence no animal ever comes out alive. It would be idle for anyone to dismiss this question without making a few remarks from the point of view of the agricultural interest. I quite understand why those who represent the agricultural interests in all quarters of the House hold very strong views on this question. I know the House listens most attentively to any considerations laid before hon. Members on this point by the agricultural Members. I have had the advantage of reading what has been written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon and other hon. Members

  95
  who represent agricultural constituencies, and, after giving their arguments the best consideration I can, I confess that I have not been convinced that the views I have put forward are ill-founded.
  7.0 P.M.
  The agricultural case chiefly depends upon the apprehension which is entertained as to the effect of competition of cattle from Argentina, but to discuss the question of competition in relation to a restriction which is not supported by valid arguments is to deal with it from a point of view which has not recently engaged the attention of the House. The farmers in England are not likely to be immune to a very great danger which has been experienced by American farmers under the operation of these great associations, or Trusts, and, if we should be so unfortunate that these great American Trusts should be able to supersede the ranchers or to obtain absolute control over the ranching industry, it would be rash indeed, seeing how these Trusts, operating at a great distance from this country, have been able to make their activity felt to arrive hastily at the conclusion that the English farming industry would not suffer more from their growth and development than it is likely to suffer from competition from the Argentina.
  There are many parts of the country in which the greatest and widest-spread distress has been and is being created by the maintenance of this restriction. The hon. Baronet will probably tell me, and the Committee will certainly attach the greatest weight to any statement made in that sense, if it be true, that the restriction is necessitated by considerations of health, and is in the interests of the agricultural community from the point of view of the risk of an invasion of this terrible disease. If that apprehension is well founded, it ought to be treated as paramount, and the considerations I have laid before the Committee must give way to it. I do not dispute that, if his apprehensions are well founded, or if he can satisfy the Committee, but I can point out many parts of the country with some of which I am familiar where lairage work has been entirely destroyed, and where many of the men engaged in that work are to-day starving. I might take the case of Birkenhead, of which the hon. Member for that constituency (Mr. Vivian) is fully competent to inform the Committee, and other cases well known to me. I can
  96
  assure the hon. Baronet that I leave the question to him in the hope he will not think I have advanced these arguments in any controversial spirit, but with the conviction that, if it is in his power to relieve the distress which is undoubtedly caused by his maintenance of the restriction, he will gladly take that step in the interest of those whose pitiful condition has led me to venture to lay the matter before the Committee.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): My impression of the speech of the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) was that he did not want to treat this question as a controversial one, but, as he ended by moving a reduction of this Vote because of the maintenance of the embargo on the importation of Argentine cattle, I thought it my duty to rise at once and offer some reply to the many assertions which he made, and which I think in many respects are not correct. I acknowledge there is a strong feeling in the House, and there has also been a strong opinion expressed in Liverpool, voiced by the hon. Member, that the embargo should be removed. A greater personage—Lord Derby —actually brought a deputation to the President of the Board of Agriculture asking that it might be removed. I shall have to go somewhat in detail into this question which has been raised so very seriously to-day. Foot-and-mouth disease existed for a great many years, and was constantly breaking out in this country. It was first recognised in 1839, and it was very prevalent in 1840 and 1841. Then it was dormant. There was another outbreak in 1849 and 1852S when it spread over the length and breadth of Great Britain. It was then again dormant, but it broke out once more in 1861, when there was a serious outbreak amongst pedigree cattle in the Royal Agricultural Society's Yard. Then it broke out at Smithfield Show in 1863, and went on continuously until 1865, when there was another lull. In 1871 it was very prevalent, not only in this country, but also in Ireland. There were 52,000 outbreaks reported in Great Britain alone. Another very serious epidemic occurred in 1872. It was calculated that in 1871 and 1872 together over 3,000,000 animals were attacked in this country. The disease spread rapidly. In 1876 there was a certain lull in the disease, and owing to very stringent regulations which were made, and to the movement of

  97
  cattle being very much restricted by local authorities, the disease again became dormant.
  It was not till 1879 that the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act was passed. That seemed to be effective at first, because during the first nine months of 1880 there was practically no foot-and-mouth disease in this country. On October 1st, 1880, it spread over Great Britain and Ireland, and continued very actively until November, 1884, 742,682 animals being affected during that period. That shows what a serious matter the disease is when once it has hold upon the country. I think it necessary to remind the Committee of this because the younger generation do not know much about the disease, and they have never had any experience of how difficult it is to battle with it. Owing to very strict regulations imposed after that outbreak, there was no further serious outbreak until 1892, when the disease was detected in the Metropolitan Market among cattle from Denmark. There were actually 95 outbreaks during that year in Great Britain, and it was carried up to Edinburgh within a very few days of the outbreak in the Metropolitan Market. That will show the Committee how very contagious the disease is, and how very rapidly the infection is carried from one district to another. One of the arguments put forward by the lion. Member in favour of the removal of the embargo was that the disease is easily controlled, but I think all agriculturists will support me when I say that experience shows it is a disease very easily carried not only by the animals themselves but also by human beings who are brought in contact with the animals. A case occurred on my own estate. A farmer went to a market some ten miles away where there was foot-and-mouth disease. He want to his dairy that night, and within four or five days there was a serious outbreak on his farm. That will show the Committee how very easily this most infectious disease is carried from one place to another. In 1900 and 1901 there were 33 outbreaks; 935,000 animals were attacked, and 2,400 were slaughtered. In 1902 there was one outbreak, and 220 cattle attacked. The most recent outbreak occurred in 1908 in Edinburgh. It gave the Board very grave anxiety indeed, but, thanks to the efficient way the officials dealt with it, and to the assistance they received from the municipal authorities, the disease, fortunately, was stamped out, though at the cost of
  98
  £4,000. The outbreak necessitated the slaughter of 244 cattle, and it was introduced through hay imported from Rotterdam. Since that time we have also forbidden practically all hay and straw to come in from countries where foot-and-mouth disease exists. I hope I have convinced the Committee that the disease is most infectious, and that, notwithstanding the enormous precautions we have taken, it is most difficult to keep in control. Notwithstanding these precautions, we had the outbreak in 1908 in Edinburgh.
  I proceed to consider the question of cost, and I think the Committee will agree it is a material one. It is estimated that the loss to agriculturists in this country, owing to the outbreak of 1871–1872, amounted to nearly £13,000,000. The Herefordshire Chamber of Agriculture made a Return showing that the loss to that county due to the outbreak of 187–1872 was estimated at £155,226. That will show hon. Members what a serious matter it would be to any particular county if where were an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Any gentleman who is interested in farming will know that it is ruination for a farmer to have all his cattle shut up, and to be compelled to break his milk contracts. A former Member of this House estimated that the loss to the public by this outbreak amounted to the large sum of £10,000,000, owing to the rise in the prices of meat and milk. Undoubtedly if you have a foot-and-mouth disease in this country the price of milk must go up, for we are practically dependent for our milk supply upon the home production. There was another outbreak in 1892 which cost £15,000. Two thousand animals were slaughtered. In addition, of course, there was the cost of administration and the country had to pay a very large sum of money for administrative purposes in order to keep the disease within bounds. There was a small outbreak in 1894 which cost £1,179, 268 animals being attacked. In Edinburgh, as we have been told, £4,000 was paid in compensation, and that, of course, was exclusive of all the other expenditure on administration in putting down the outbreak. Hon. Members who were in the House at that time will remember that there was a good deal of outcry owing to the restrictions which had to be put upon the movement of cattle in and out of Edinburgh. For the first few days there was a total prohibition of all movement and the consequence was that the price of meat rose enormously. Trade was

  99
  entirely dislocated and at last the Board thought it necessary to issue permits for cattle to be moved within the infected area, of course, for slaughter only. That involved a great deal of trouble on the part of those who were engaged in the administration, and equally there was an increase in the price of meat. I may also remind hon. Members that in connection with this outbreak the Agricultural Board in Ireland immediately issued an order forbidding the importation of stock from this country into Ireland and it maintained the prohibition so long as there was disease in the country. The English local authorities also acted on the powers which they had, and in certain places prohibited stock being introduced from Scotland into their area, or only admitted it under very severe restrictions. Hon. Gentlemen will therefore see how seriously outbreaks of this disease interfere with trade.
  I come to the case of Argentina, which takes a very large number of valuable pedigree cattle from this country, and from which our agriculturists derive a very large profit indeed, as those who deal in pedigree cattle know. The prohibition was put on Argentina, because it was exporting diseased cattle. It is true that we afterwards relaxed the prohibition with regard to England, but maintained it for Scotland. It would, however, be a very bad thing for this country if we had foot-and-mouth disease once more brought into it, and, therefore, to suggest the idea that it is unnecessary to have the strictest regulations with regard to the importation of cattle from countries where the disease had been known to exist, is altogether out of the question. The whole of this import trade of ours might be disorganised by the mere fact of one single animal suffering from foot-and-mouth disease finding its way into this country, and we should, thereupon, be subject, for a period of six months, to have our export trade in pedigree cattle destroyed or hampered. The six months would date from the time of the one animal being brought in, and we should for that period be unable to export animals to Argentina, or any other ports in the world interested in this trade. As regards America, I notice that not only in this House, but outside, comparisons are constantly being made with regard to the difference of the treatment between Argentina and the United States. It has been pointed out that with regard to the States there are only partial restrictions,
  100
  and not total prohibition, as in the case of Argentina. I hope my hon. Friends will be convinced when I tell them that there is a very strong reason for this differentiation between Argentina and America. As regards America no animal with disease has been imported thence into Great Britain since 1884, and this shows that America has been treating the disease with success for a prolonged period. In 1902 there was an outbreak in New England States, which was stamped out in the short time of six months. The last out break was in 1908–9—it was a serious one, involving very heavy expenditure—but the United States managed to confine to four States and to stamp it out in two months.
  But what is the history with regard to Argentina? It is very different indeed from that of the United States. Foot-and-mouth disease was reported there in 1900, and on 2nd April a cargo of diseased animals arrived in this country. Up to 10th May twenty-three vessels had arrived which had started before the Board's Order prohibiting the importation of cattle was enforced. All these arrived at the Port of London, and, in addition, there were three vessels with diseased animals which arrived at Liverpool. The anxiety of dealing with these cases and the risk involved is simply enormous, lest one of the animals may escape slaughter, or somebody who has been in contact with the diseased animals may carry the disease into different parts of the country. In 1903 we had an assurance from Argentina that the country was free from disease, and the Order was revoked, but within two months the disease once more broke out, and we had two vessels arriving in Liverpool and one at Deptford with diseased animals on board. Again, in January, 1909, it was declared that there was no disease in Argentina, but, having regard to the history of the country, the Board exercised a very wise discretion, and refused to open English ports to Argentina cattle. Within a very few weeks disease had again broken out in Argentina, and in a most serious form, because it was discovered in four or five different provinces in that country. That apparently shows that although Argentina may come to the conclusion that the country is not infected they are not able to control the disease in the same way as do the authorities in the United States. Never since 1884 has disease come from the United States to this country, but, on the other hand, a very large number of cargoes of diseased

  101
  animals have come into this country from Argentina after that country has declared herself to be perfectly free from foot-and-mouth disease.
  There is also another matter to be considered with regard to American outbreaks, and that is that the States scheduled are a long distance from the port of exportation. The information we have is that foot-and-mouth disease at the present moment has broken out in a State within forty miles of Buenos Ayres, whereas in America there is no State where disease is known to exist within 150 miles of the port whence exportation is permitted. Another question which the House must bear in mind is this, that America is bounded either by water or by countries in which foot-and-mouth disease is known not to exist. That is a very important consideration, because on the Continent of Europe it is very easy for foot-and-mouth disease to be brought over the borders from a State where the disease exists to another where there is none. It is very different in the case of Argentina. At the present moment there is a good deal of foot-and-mouth disease in the States adjoining that country. For instance, it is reported that it prevailed in Brazil on 31st March this year. There was, too, a serious outbreak at Paraguay on 21st April this year, showing, therefore, that Argentina itself is in very great danger of' having the disease brought within its borders. This is a very different state of things to that which exists in America, where they are able to stamp out the disease in a few months. A further point to be borne in mind is the effect on the supply of live stock imports from Argentina. April, 1900, was the date after which no live stock from Argentina was allowed to come to this country. But in the three years 1897–99 the average import of live animals was 82,862, which was calculated to represent about 538,000 cwt. of beef. Compare that with the present state of things. The total importation of beef from Argentina in 1901 was 805,000 cwt. In 1909 it had grown to the enormous amount of 4,278,000 cwts. of dead meat brought into this country, thus showing that, as regards Argentina, instead of our receiving a smaller amount of beef from that country, the supply has gone up in an extraordinary way, although it is quite true that it comes in in the form of chilled or frozen meat, instead of as live stock. I have some figures here which are somewhat curious and show the cost of transit of the live animal as
  102
  compared with that of bringing dead meat to this country. As a matter of fact, the cost of bringing a live beast to this country from Argentina is from £4 10s. to £5, whereas the carriage of a frozen carcase costs £l 8s. 6d., and that of a chilled one £2 3s. That shows that it is more economical to bring beef into this country than cattle and that when meat is brought in that form it can be sold at the lowest possible price, which would not be the case if the live animal were imported instead of dead carcases. Of course, the price of an article depends to a very large extent upon the cost of carriage, especially when that cost is high and the article has to be brought a considerable distance, and I think I have shown that the most economical and cheapest way of importing beef is to bring it in the frozen or chilled form.
  It has been said by the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) that there has been a rise in the price of beef recently as compared with the price in 1908–9 and that I think is owing to the fact that Canada sent 8,500 less cattle into this country. America also has sent in a much smaller number by 54,000, and as regards imported dead meat, she only sent in 632,000 cwt. That shows, as regards these two countries, less meat has been brought into this country either in a live or chilled or frozen form, whereas Argentina, as I have already pointed out, has enormously increased the amount of dead meat which it has sent to this country. In beef there has been actually an increase during the last year of 641,000 cwt. as compared with the preceding year, and, generally speaking, we may say that there is a continual rise in the amount of meat coming from Argentina. The same may be said with regard to our Colonies as there is a large increase from Australia and New Zealand. As regards Canada, it may be that the agriculturists there are turning their attention more to raising corn than to raising cattle, and I think it is very likely that the reason for the shortage of beef coming from America was the financial crisis there, so that farmers turned their cattle into money and sent in to the market beasts which ought to have remained very much longer there before they were slaughtered. I think it is worthy of notice that the increased supplies come from the country which sends live cattle as well as dead meat into this country, and that increased supplies also come from those countries which send dead meat but do not attempt to send live cattle as well. Perhaps I

  103
  ought to have stated what the difference between Argentina and America is. I should like to remind the House how much bigger a country America is, as it has an area, roughly speaking, three times as large as Argentina, but as it has a much bigger population it is much more easy to manage the disease and much more easy to trace, because in Argentina you have a very sparse population indeed. In America the population is twenty-seven per square mile, whereas in Argentina it is only five, and, of course, that makes a very considerable difference indeed as regards the power of the country to detect disease and after it has detected it to keep it under control.
  The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) made a very interesting speech as to small holdings, and he very properly advocated that the small holder should be able to raise cattle on his holding, and I would remind him that the small holder is the man above all others who requires protection from foot-and-mouth disease, because his landlord is the county council. He would therefore be much less able to stand a serious loss from an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, because the county council would have no power to remit his rent. He would, therefore, be absolutely ruined in the event of such an outbreak, because he would have no landlord to whom he could go and ask for a reduction of rent. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that it is in the interest to small holders that foot-and-mouth disease should not be brought into this country. I apologise to the Committee for having dwelt so long upon this question, but I should not have done it had not the hon. Member for the Walton Division moved the reduction of this Vote. It was, therefore, necessary to justify the action of the Board of Agriculture, and state the grounds upon which they acted in absolutely refusing to withdraw their embargo. When they were told there was no disease they thought it better to wait, and now the disease has broken out, their action was justified, and there is no possibility of that embargo being withdrawn. This will only make them more watchful with regard to Argentina, as they do not know how far a serious outbreak may develop. Another important point that has been raised in regard to small holdings has reference to the administration of the Board as to the question of co-operation. I can assure the House that the Board are fully alive to
  104
  the importance of co-operation, and certainly, as far as the Board has power, they will do their utmost to encourage it. But I would remind the Committee that the body which is charged under the Small Holdings Act to specially encourage cooperation is the county council themselves, and I would suggest to hon. Members who are members of a county council, like myself, that it is our primary duty to bring this matter before them and ask them to take it up in the light of the success which the Small Holdings Act has attained at the present moment.
  In regard to doing something to assist these small holders, I would say this, that it may be necessary to give the Agricultural Organisation Society some further financial assistance, with a view to enabling them to teach a sufficient number of men who may be sent out to show the county councils how to put co-operation into effect, because it is not the slightest use of initiating such a system unless we have men who can demonstrate the advantages of it. Then I think, generally speaking in regard to this question of the Small Holdings Act, that the report of the Commissioners does infinite credit to the tact and skill of those who had to carry out a very difficult and very arduous work, as they have done, with very small complaint, or with no complaint at all. I think it will be admitted that the Commissioners and the Board carried out the duty laid upon them with tact and knowledge, and knowledge is most essential when you are dealing with land, and I am sure hon. Members who are conversant with matters of this kind will bear me out. Many other points have been raised, including that of anthrax, and as to that I can assure hon Members I am fully alive to the importance of it. One hon. Member seemed to think I was not aware of the seriousness of an outbreak of anthrax, but I, unfortunately, know, from practical experience, what the result is, and as long as I remain at the Board of Agriculture I shall always do all in my power to try to see that we prosecute our investigations into this terrible scourge in every possible way. I can assure the hon. Member that the Board and its chief veterinary officer are fully alive in regard to this fact, and are doing all in their power to see what palliatives and remedies can be applied.
  As to the question of fisheries, an hon. Member stated that he desired that the President of the Board of Agriculture should do more in the way of visiting different ports, because he found

  105
  that such visits had done a great deal of good, and had been of very great importance. I am sure my Noble Friend will be delighted to hear that he has done so much good, and will also be delighted to visit, as far as possible, those ports and fisheries which are under his jurisdiction. As regards the question of the Development Grant, I can assure the hon. Gentleman who raised the point that the desirability of getting money for those fisheries will not be lost sight of, and my Noble Friend will no doubt use his good offices with the Board of Trade as to the difficulties which he has found exist in carrying on the fishing industry. An hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Kent talked about the state of the hop industry, and I can assure him that the Board is fully alive to the importance of this matter. The difficulty is as was shown on the Address that this matter has been treated as controversial in certain quarters of the House, but if the Government could be assured that the matter would not be treated in that spirit, we should be only too happy to do what we can to assist the hop industry without interfering with those doctrines of Free Trade which this Government can allow nothing to militate against. Then, again, as to why the mildew question was not included in the general Order issued in May, I am told that it was impossible to deal with both matters in the same Order, but I do not think there should be any difficulty in administering both the Orders because they are drawn up upon two different sheets of foolscap paper. I apologise to the House for not being able at the present moment to deal with other points which have been raised, but I do not wish to prevent the right hon. Gentleman opposite from speaking, as I shall do if I speak at greater length. I hope I may have an opportunity of dealing with the other points if the private business comes to a speedier end than we expect.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I am very much obliged to the hon. Baronet for leaving me so much time, but the speech which he has made has rendered it unnecessary for me to speak at any length. Having an even longer experience than he has enjoyed in the administration of these Acts it is only necessary for me to say that I cordially agree and rejoice at the conclusion at which he has arrived. Noting his concluding remarks with regard to some other question, in which he told us that the sacred subject of Free Trade so
  106
  oppressed His Majesty's Government that they could not see a hop without thinking of it, I hope they will not carry it so far as to believe in Free Trade in disease. The hon. Baronet has told us to-day quite decisively that he did not intend to depart from the position which the Government have announced, and that they intend to adhere to their present policy. The hon. Baronet told the Committee that a great many of those who are Interested in this question and who desire the retention of existing restrictions are quite forgetful of what happened a very short time ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) put the case logically and powerfully. I doubt if the case for the removal of restrictions has ever been so well put as it was by him in so praiseworthy a manner, but my hon. and learned Friend asks too much of these restrictions. He asks that they shall always be logical and complete. I can speak with some little experience, having had to administer the Acts for five or six years, and having been amongst those permanent officials who have done the work always, and we were able to clear the country of two or three diseases which we found in existence when we commenced the work. This was not due to the devising of a completely logical system of restrictive laws which could be defended in every detail. I do not say there is not a good deal in what my hon. and learned Friend said in regard to the cattle which are now admitted into the country. I believe, as a matter of fact, there is no chance whatever of infection from the offal introduced into the country in a different way and under different conditions, but even supposing my hon. and learned Friend is right and there is a danger from this source, that might, and probably would, be an argument for fresh legislation or different administration in regard to these matters, but it is, in face of the facts, no argument in support of departing from the present system. Upon what foundation does that system really rest? I submit that it rests not upon suggestions, not upon forecasts that this or that will happen or might happen if you did something else. It rests on the solid experience of the last twenty years. We have an enormous advantage over other countries, and is it wise that we should surrender it? If we have the courage and determination to impose restrictions such as these we may be able to give to our country, as we have given to it, an absolutely clean bill

  107
  of health. What the value of that is to stock raisers it is impossible to exaggerate.
  But I go a step further. I remember this agitation when it was raised in connection with the importation of Canadian cattle for sale in this country alive. The same arguments were used, and the same criticisms and forecasts were made. I speak with some knowledge of the subject when I say I do not believe that if there had been no restrictions on Canadian cattle it would have made the smallest difference to the market stores in this country within a period of, say, five years. I submit that those who ask that these restrictions should be modified or removed, while they say that we do not prove our case for their retention, have never attempted, either to-day or on previous occasions, or in the Press, to show that the free introduction of Argentine cattle for slaughter here would materially affect the market of this country. Experience tells us that though our restrictions may not be logical, though they may be open to attack here and there, under their protection we have made our cattle healthy, and we have given an impetus to the cattle-raising industry without which the figures would have been very different from what they are now. What is there to show that if you remove these restrictions you will not at once destroy the cattle industry of the country? And what is the value of that industry? An hon. Member from Ireland spoke earlier in the afternoon in support of the policy of the Government. Hon. Members opposite who advocate the removal of these restrictions are very profuse in their protestations of affection for Ireland, and of desire for her well-being, but there is no blow which would strike at the prosperity of Ireland so severely as the removal of these restrictions. The cattle industry to Ireland is of the utmost value. It is probably the largest single industry outside the North-East of Ireland. It provides a living for three totally different classes of people in three different parts of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman did well to put in a word for Ireland when the removal of these restrictions is under consideration.
  I said that no one has tried to show that the removal of these restrictions would have the desired effect. The moment there is found to be some interruption in your food supply, some slight increase in price, something which makes you think that there may be a serious future in store for
  108
  you, it is amazing that the House invariably is asked to consider the matter from the agricultural point of view to the detriment of the agricultural interest, and it is. not asked to look at the question as a whole. I believe the shortening of the meat supply is due to causes totally different from the mere restriction of regulations which have for their object the prevention of disease. I have no objection to suggestions such as those which fell from the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir William Collins), who, speaking with all the high authority that he enjoys in all matters and especially in matters scientific, claimed that we ought to do all we can by inquiry or otherwise to add to our scientific knowledge on "these matters. As far as that is concerned I am with him wholly and entirely. I am in favour of any inquiry which will give us fresh scientific knowledge if necessary, but the causes which have led to the increase in the price of meat are not, I believe, traceable in any degree to the imposition of these restrictions. They are due to very different reasons. In the first place they are due to the country which used to supply us in such large quantities now making demands upon its own supplies for itself, and its populations are already consuming the meat and corn which they used to send over here. There are other causes which I cannot go into now, but it is not fair to urge that restrictions of this kind, which have been of such enormous benefit to a very powerful industry in this country, should be removed unless you can show two things. Not that there are inconsistencies as between your regulations as they apply to the United States and to South America and that under them you could have got disease. Those are not the conclusions at which you must arrive alone to justify you in finding fault with the restrictions. Surely we who believe in them and who have learnt by experience that there is no other way by which you can secure a clean bill of health for the stock of your country, are entitled to show that you must go further before you ask for their removal, and show that if they were removed you would get a benefit sufficient from your foreign market not merely to supply your present need, but to do a good deal more than that, to fill the additional gap which will undoubtedly be created if you take from the stock raiser and fattener of cattle in this country the confidence they now enjoy in knowing that there is no risk of disease in the cattle that they

  109
  buy. Therefore, if your contention is that our case is not fully made out, surely we are entitled to reply, if only by way of tu quoque, that before you seek to alter a law as wise and beneficial as this has been you must make a whole case and not be content with attempting to make only a part of it
  The hon. Member (Mr. Charles Bathurst) made a complaint which, I think, is well justified, and if it appeared to want justification everyone must now agree that it rests upon solid foundations. He complained that our Debate on the Vote for the Board of Agriculture is to be taken on the Vote on Account. This is most inconvenient.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: You put it first.
  W. WALTER LONG: The hon. Baronet is mistaken. We put it first, but there is a vast difference between putting the agricultural question first upon the Vote on Account and taking that as the Debate on the Vote for the Board of Agriculture. That does not rest with us. We suggested that this should be taken on the Vote on Account, but the hon. Baronet knows as well as anyone that that is a very common practice which has nothing to do with taking the Vote itself. I hope the Government will not consider that the very short Debate that we have had will be held to discharge them from their liability to give the House a proper occasion on which the Vote itself shall be taken. If we divide the House I should vote in the opposite Lobby to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. F. E. Smith). But, supposing his Motion was to have a fair chance on the merits, the adoption of this method of procedure makes it absolutely impossible, because no man in his senses, in whatever quarter he sits, unless he wishes to bring the whole of public business to a standstill, would move to reduce the whole Vote on Account by a certain sum because he objects to a portion of the administration of one Department. The system is manifestly inconvenient, and forces our Debates to be academic, and not practical for the purpose, at all events, of taking a Division. I have said this in order to urge on the hon. Baronet that he should urge on the Government that they ought to give us a proper and full day for discussing this Vote, which is one of the most important for which the Government are responsible. It is impossible in the time at our disposal to cover all the ground, or half the ground, which has been raised in this Debate. I
  110
  have said a word or two in regard to disease because I have been responsible for the administration of those Acts of Parliament, and I feel very strongly on the subject, because I believe all experience tells us that the firmest resolution is the only quality possible for this country. My hon. Friends have raised other questions of far-reaching importance to which I should be very glad to refer, and to which many of my hon. Friends would be very glad to make their contribution; but if we are to regard this as the only occasion on which the Vote for the Board of Agriculture is to be Debated, it is quite evident that the discussion will be very inadequate. I am very sorry to have had to intrude. I will not attempt to discuss the question of small holdings. Another very important question, that of agricultural education, has been raised.
  8.0 P.M.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) raised that question, but I have no doubt the hon. Baronet had not time to include it in his reply, which he courteously made short in order to give others time to take part in the Debate. Here again I speak with some knowledge of my own. I know how extraordinarily difficult it is to get more money from the Treasury for Agricultural educational purposes, and I am bound to say that so far the reward we have had in our experience of the agricultural education already provided is not very great. We have turned from the country during the last few years a very large number of agriculturists who, in our various colleges and schools, have acquired special education which gave them practical knowledge. But the difficulty which many of these men have found is to get a living in the country, notwithstanding their knowledge, and that is a thing which makes us pause and wonder whether we are on the right course. There is a great deal to be said on the question of agricultural education. I believe it ought to begin in the elementary schools. I believe a great deal of the time given in the elementary schools to history, arithmetic, and other subjects, might be given with greater advantage to many of the children to a sound elementary education in agriculture. It is obviously impossible to deal properly with a question of this vastness at this period of the evening. I say this in order to make it perfectly clear that we do not regard, and cannot be expected to regard, the time at our disposal as sufficient for the subject now under debate.

  111
  I pass from education to the small holdings question. The hon. Baronet at the end of his speech was good enough, when talking about the dangers which would come if disease were introduced to remind the small holders the Government have been so anxious to create, that if they suffered reverses owing to disease in their cattle, or from other causes, the county council will not be willing to listen to an appeal for a reduction of rent, and that they will find themselves in a much harder case than if they were tenants of the landlords. I thank the hon. Baronet for this tardy recognition of the views which we have held on this side of the House for a very long time, and I hope, if only at the eleventh hour, the Government are gradually coming to some sort of repentance, and that they may find a wiser policy for the people of this country who may wish to have small pieces of land. I think it would be a very great advantage if we were to discuss this question of the administration of the Small Holdings Act on a proper occasion. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have been very eloquent outside on this subject, and I have no doubt that they would be equally eloquent in the House. I would much rather have an opportunity of answering their speeches in the House than of watching them wandering about the country making those speeches which are reported in the Press. On the question of small holdings there is much to be said.
  I thank the Government for the course they have taken in regard to the main topic of our Debate to-day, namely, the administration of the Act in regard to the diseases of cattle. I know that they have not taken this course without some difficulty. I know that great pressure has been brought to bear upon them, and I believe we are greatly indebted to the hon. Baronet for the consistent and courageous way he has throughout presented the case for the retention of those restrictions, even although it has no doubt entailed on him for the time being political unpopularity, for he is not likely to suffer from any other. I venture to say that in what he has done he has rendered very great service not only to the agricultural interest, but to the community generally. I believe this is a question which largely affects the prosperity of the country as a whole, and I thank the hon. Baronet for the courageous part he has played. I hope that those who still believe that a case has been
  112
  made out for the removal of the restrictions will realise that they must not rest content by saying that the laws are insufficient as they stand. They must go further and show that if this grave and serious experiment were to be made they have some good evidence which would make us believe that the result would not only justify the experiment, but would render infinitesimal any risk of a heavy increase in price or a reduction in the amount of the food supply. Without that evidence I venture to say that no case has been made out.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): I think it was a little unfair of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) to suggest that the Government is in any way trying to evade discussion on the agricultural Vote.
  Mr. LONG: I did not say that, and I made no suggestion of anything of the kind. All I said was that we could not be content by taking this as a full Debate of the agricultural question.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: We were quite prepared to give an opportunity for the discussion of the agricultural question on the ordinary Vote, but it was suggested that it would be convenient that the question should come first on the Vote on Account, and no exception was then taken to that course.
  Mr. VIVIAN: I rise to make a few observations concerning the proposal to remove the embargo from Argentine cattle. I do not think those who are in favour of this removal can be charged with not realising the difficulty in which the Board of Agriculture find themselves. We realise that they have a very onerous duty to perform in seeing that the country is free from disease, and we agree that they ought not, without due inquiry, to remove this embargo at the risk of importation of disease, but we do feel that there is just the danger of our resting on the question and allowing interests to grow up behind the embargo, and failing to realise that the time may have come to inquire whether it is not possible to remove it. Everyone who knows anything of the nature of a restriction on the import of a commodity knows that gradually it creates a vested interest in the retention of that restriction. That not only applies to meat, but to other commodities, and some of us feel that there is just a possibility of this question being kept going' not owing to the risks of

  113
  disease, but owing to the interests that grow up in connection with the restriction. I think we are justified in putting that point. Every newspaper and magazine article on this question, when the removal of the embargo is opposed, states side by-side with its opposition to the import of these cattle the argument that agriculturists have been having a really good time. If time permitted I could give to the House quotations from quite reputable papers, in which more stress is laid on the inflated price which agriculturists have been able to obtain because of the competition avoided than because of the risk of disease. I do not think any of those who are taking part in the agitation pretend that they have all knowledge of this particular question, and that there is nothing to be said on the other side of the case. I wish to emphasise the point raised by the hon. and learned Member opposite. I think we are justified in referring to the Report of the Committee in 1903. That Report directs attention to the fact that in the case of America we were able to locate the disease, and not to make the prohibition or embargo apply to the whole of the States. I do not think the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture gave an adequate reply on that particular point. He drew attention to the fact that the Argentine was not quite so well governed as the United States.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I never said that.
  Mr. VIVIAN: Not so well governed on this particular point. I do not wish to put words into the hon. Baronet's mouth, but I understood him as saying, at any rate, that so far as the administration of the Argentine was concerned
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I never said that the precautions were not quite as good on paper as those of America, but I pointed out that the difficulties were much greater there, though the precautions might be as good on paper.
  Mr. VIVIAN: So far as administration was concerned the Argentine was not so good as the United States. I would like to direct attention to what is meant by the embargo on cattle coming from the whole of the Argentine Republic. The Argentine is, roughly, as large as Europe. Imagine a prohibition being put on cattle grown around Frankfort because disease had broken out in Aberdeen. It does seem to me that it should be possible for the Government of the Argentine and our
  114
  Board of Agriculture to devise regulations which would enable those territories where disease breaks out to be located, and to make the prohibition apply to a reasonable area around a district where the disease has broken out. That is what is done in the case of the United States. I admit to the full that no amount of sentiment about unemployment or industry being injured would in itself justify the removal of this embargo if there was risk of disease being imported as a consequence of its removal.
  And, it being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATE ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER, BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): It may be for the convenience of the House that I should make a few observations in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, in order to show how the matter stands now, and what has been the action of the Port Authority with regard to it. The House will recollect that ten years ago the then dock companies brought before the House certain proposals in regard to the increase of rates which they suggested should be carried out. The House did not see its way to allow these increases in the rates and charges in the Port of London to be carried out by private companies. The Government of the day appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter. The Royal Commission reported, and a Bill was introduced on the subject which in its earlier stages did not make any progress. In 1908, however, my right hon. colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my predecessor at the Board of Trade, took the matter in hand, and, after negotiations with various persons interested, ho carried a Bill which is called the Port of London Act. I do not suppose that he himself will say that the composition of the body created, the Port of London Authority or its general powers are absolutely perfect. A certain amount of give-

  115
  and-take in the negotiation had to take place. But I think it is recognsed that the Port Authority, at the time and under the circumstances, was the best form of body that co aid be devised. And they are the body which act under the Act of Parliament. The Act threw upon them in the first place the duty of maintaining the dock accommodation, and threw upon them the duty of raising funds to meet the expenditure incurred. Clause 13 of the Act specifically instructed them that the method of raising revenue was fey means of rates upon imports and exports, After discussion a Committee of the two Houses met to consider the principle, and I do not propose now to discuss the principle in regard to that matter.
  The Instruction of the House of Commons at that time to the Port Authority was to raise revenue. It was to raise it by rates on imports and exports. It was also instructed within a specified time to draw up a Schedule embodying the rates they proposed which would give them sufficient revenue for the purpose which they had in view. These rates were to be maximum rates, within which maximum there was some elasticity of handling those rates; and this power was subject to certain restrictions and certain provisos. In the first place they had to submit the Schedule to the Board of Trade for review and for revision, and they were prohibited from imposing rates on transhipment. This was done in order to save and protect that great trade of which there was so much in the Port of London. They were also prohibited from imposing higher rates on goods landed or discharged at their own docks than on goods which were landed or discharged elsewhere. They were also instructed that equal charges must be made on all persons in respect of similar descriptions of goods. In addition to that there were limitations on the aggregate receipts, and Sub-section (3), Clause 3, provided that the aggregate annual receipts from the imports and exports were not to exceed one one-thousandth part of the annual oversea value of the goods, and the receipts from the river traffic were not to exceed one three-thousandth part of the aggregate value of the overseas goods. Those were the various restrictions on their powers; but subject to those they were allowed by the Act to produce a Schedule under the Act. Under this Clause they considered the question for a
  116
  considerable period and they did their best to come to agreements with the various interests concerned. Finally they produced a Schedule of the various rates which they proposed to levy in the Port of London. As they were bound under the Act, they sent this Schedule to the Board of Trade and the Board of Trade came to the conclusion that the best method of arriving at a satisfactory arrangement in regard to this matter and the best method of giving public opportunity to those who had objections to make would be to hold a public inquiry.
  They were fortunate enough to secure as their representative at that inquiry Lord St. Aldwyn, who had acted throughout this matter. He took a very great deal of trouble, held a long and exhaustive inquiry, and gave every opportunity to the various objectors to each of the rates to state their case. I think everybody will admit that he gave a very patient and exhaustive hearing to the various questions raised, and I think all who are concerned will agree with me in saying that the Port of London and those interested in it are very much indebted to Lord St. Aldwyn for the very great ability and impartiality which he showed in connection with that matter. He very greatly modified the Schedule, he reduced a very considerable number of the rates, and, what was in some ways still better, managed so to work that a very large proportion of the questions at issue were settled by agreement, which was a very difficult task, as it always is" when questions of rates are concerned. I think we were fortunate in having a man who was able to handle it so well. I would like to say that I think also the House will recognise that individual traders, associations of traders, the London Chamber of Commerce, and other bodies of that character, have also rendered very signal service in dealing with this matter, in modifying their own point of view and endeavouring to arrive at an agreement where it was possible. The Port Authority also deserves credit for the way in which they have met objections which were taken to these rates, and I am glad to think that a very large number of the various rates have been accepted or settled by agreement. The House will see the general result of the conclusion come to by Lord St. Aldwyn in the Schedules attached to the Provisional Order Bill before us. The Port Authority proposed

  117
  and he accepted, certain import and export duties. In every case he saw the export duties did not exceed the import duties; but he sent us his report, which was substantially accepted by the Board of Trade, because, in the first place, he had given very great attention to the matter, and, in the second place, it appeared to us that we could not very well, unless we were ready to discuss the whole matter from beginning to end, do otherwise than accept the proposals which he made. I am glad to think that a considerably smaller number of points are still in dispute, and I may venture to say to the House that those are hardly matters in which there is any question of principle on the Second Reading, but are matters for a Committee of this House or for a Committee of the House of Lords rather than for the House itself. The difficulty was, of course, to estimate accurately what would be the receipts from the over-sea trade as well as rebates. The estimate of the Port Authority to the Board of Trade was that they would receive from exports and imports £750,000 a year. In the Schedule of the Provisional Order Bill, the Second Reading of which I a2n now proposing, the receipts from over-sea exports and imports is estimated at £524,000 a year. The result of Lord St. Aldwyn's inquiry, therefore, has been a substantial reduction on the proposals of the Port Authority. These are maximum rates, and I do not think it will be necessary for some time to come, if ever, to raise those maximum rates. They are maximum rates, not actual rates, and there will be a very considerable margin given for future expansion. Lord St. Aldwyn, in his Report, said that the Port Authority, being a strong, powerful, and representative body created under the Act of Parliament, ought to have very considerable latitude in dealing with these matters. I therefore venture to recommend to the House this Provisional Order as in substance following the Act of Parliament, after having been carefully considered by the Port Authority, after having been revised by Lord St. Aldwyn's Committee, after having been considered by the London Chamber of Commerce and others who came in agreement, and after having been again revised by the Board of Trade. They are proposals which on the whole I believe to be on the right lines. They are economical proposals for the Port Authority, and they provide for the carrying out of the obligations laid upon that authority by the Act of Parliament,
  118
  enabling them to improve the accommodation of the Port of London, and to make it, what it ought to be, able to give a lead to other ports, not merely in this Kingdom, but throughout the world. I hope, therefore, the House, whatever may be their views as regards certain points, will accept the Second Reading which I now move, with the full confidence and knowledge that any points or objections which may be raised will be amply considered by a Committee of this House, and, if necessary, by a Committee of the House of Lords."
  Mr. GUY WILSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to insert the words "upon this day three months."
  I rise to submit this Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont); and, first, I should like to thank the President of the Board of Trade for the help he has given us, and for his assurance that in Committee there will be facilities afforded to amend the proposals now before us. I cannot help feeling that the trade for which I speak on this occasion has not received that consideration which is its due. The Act of 1908 gives power to impose charges on goods imported from across the seas and coastwise. I contend that fish caught in the North Sea and brought direct to the Port of London cannot possibly be held to come within the category of goods from across the seas. For that reason I hope the House will see its way to amend this part of the measure in order to allow fish to be imported into the Port of London without a rate being imposed at all. Further than that, in connection with all the Acts which up to now have dealt with this class of goods and with Billingsgate Market, there always has been a general feeling in favour of the importation of fish into the Port of London. I hold that, instead of imposing a further rate on these goods that come into the Port, the rate should, if anything, be lessened. At the present moment the fees and charges we pay are very much higher in the Port of London than in Hull, Grimsby, or Fleet-wood. Although this may appear a very small matter, it is a very serious matter indeed for the companies concerned in the fish trade. One thing to which we seriously object is that, while we are asked to pay this further rate on fish landed in the Port of London, yet we are given no further facilities, and nothing is to be done for us at all. The rate that we are to pay

  119
  will go towards the provision of further dock accommodation for passenger vessels, cargo vessels, and "tramps,' while we, the owners of fishing vessels, are to get nothing. At the present moment we pay for wharf-age and for markets to the Corporation of London, and we also pay in respect of pilotage to the Trinity House. It is for these reasons I beg to move the rejection of the Bill. I repeat that although it may seem a very small matter, this levying of a further rate on fish imported into the Port of London it is a very serious matter for those engaged in the trade. It affects the Constituency which I represent very much indeed—more so than any other constituency in this country. There are four great companies who bring fish into the Port of London, and until now, and during the last three or four years, they have had very bad times indeed; they nave bad very great difficulty in making ends meet; they have paid no dividends at all, and if this further rate is imposed upon them they will have to consider whether or not they will continue the service to London. If it be discontinued it will mean that fish will go to Grimsby, Fleetwood, and Hull, and it will arrive there in not so fresh a condition as it does when brought to London. It would be transhipped from Fleetwood, and the change would entail that the fish would have to be handled two or three times instead of once, so that it would arrive much less fresh and in a stale condition. At present there is competition between the fish carried from Fleetwood to Hull, and the fish carried from Grimsby to London, and if this competition ceased the railway companies would put up the rates, and, as a consequence, the population of London, who already buy two-thirds of the 65,000 tons of fish which come to the Port of London, would have to pay more for their fish, while it would not be of as good a quality as at present.
  Mr. J. A. DAWES: I second the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull. I do so with some diffidence, I can assure the House. Unless there was some special reason for the exemption of fish coming to the Port of London, it would be perfectly hopeless, I think, to endeavour to vary the Schedule which has been prepared with such labour and care by Lord St. Aldwyn. It seems to me, however, that there is considerable ground for altering the
  120
  Schedule so far as fish is concerned. As was pointed out by the Member for Hull, the Act of 1908 itself specified particularly the goods on which the rates are to be levied; that is to say, Section 13 provides that goods imported across the seas and coastwise into the Port of London shall, etc. I do not see how under any circumstances fish could be brought within the four corners of that Act. It was not imported from abroad, and equally it was not coastwise. Lord St. Aldwyn appears to have considered that the intention of Parliament was that everything should be dutiable. It is not, I submit, a question of what Parliament may or may not have intended, but a question of what Parliament has actually enacted by the Act of 1908. Besides the legal point, no doubt the moment you begin to exempt one commodity there are twenty, thirty, forty, fifty others for which an equally good case may be made out. But seeing that there is a doubt, and I think more than a doubt, as to whether fish comes under the Section, one may perhaps urge other reasons why an exemption should be granted.
  I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will favourably consider the total exemption of fish. First of all there is the question of the cheapness of this form of food. In this connection it is not perhaps out of place that I, as a representative of an industrial constituency, should speak in support of the exemption. As I understand it, something like 70,000 tons of fish is brought into the Port of London every year direct from the North Sea by fish carriers, and that of that 70,000 at least two-thirds consists of such fish as skate, whiting, and other varieties sold, as was stated in evidence before Lord St. Aldwyn and not contradicted, at one penny per pound. That really must be fish which is consumed by the poorer classes of the community. From that point of view I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman to favourably consider the exemption. Then there comes the further question, incidentally, perhaps, that it might be that an impost on fish would increase the unemployment already sufficiently rife in London. It was given in evidence before Lord St. Aldwyn that it was, if I may so describe it, just touch and go as to whether the companies made any profit or not on this fish which is brought in. It was also given in evidence that if anything in the nature of an impost was put OH fish the fish would be taken elsewhere by the single boaters, probably to Grimsby or Hull, and

  121
  not to the Port of London. The method of unloading in the Port of London is by manual labour. In the evidence it was brought out that it was impossible to do this by mechanical means. The boats have to lie three or four abreast, and they have to be unloaded simultaneously in order to catch the market. I need not point out that if anything were done to drive the fish to other ports it would mean the disappearance of the familiar sight of the Billingsgate porters and a reduction in employment. That may not be a very important point, but it is a point which I hope the Committee will consider.
  There is the possible injustice or hardship that may be caused to the fisherman through whose labours this fish is brought to London at all. I suppose all of us who study the fishing question view with serious misgivings the diminution in the number of the fishing population. From the fishing population is recruited to a large extent the Naval Reserve and the Navy, and mercantile marine. There is no doubt of the fact that in recent years there has been a considerable diminution in that population. The almost total disappearance of the Yarmouth and most of the sailing fleets necessarily means a diminution in the fishing population. I believe I am putting it at a low estimate when I say that one steam trawler with seven or eight hands can do as much work as four or five sailing vessels carrying also possibly five or six hands each. From that point of view it means also that the fishermen must have been making less, and it means also that this race, hardy, rough perhaps, but one of the most industrious and hard-working sets of men one could find, may possibly be prejudiced by any impost put on this commodity. I have been out with the men engaged in mackerel and herring fishing. I am quite sure that any Member of this House that knows anything at all about the question knows for what very little money those men work, and how very hard they have to work. I have been out with a herring drifter on the North Coast, when we have caught 500 fish after something like eighteen hours work. The very next night I have seen the boat with half its nets gone to the bottom, swamped with fish which were utterly useless, and had to be thrown away. I do urge on the House not to do anything they can avoid doing to make the lot of those men harder than it is already. I do so for three reasons: First, because the fish does not come with-
  122
  in the Act; secondly, on account of the paramount necessity of a fresh and good supply of cheap fish in London; thirdly, the unemployment question—possibly the least important, because it may or may not really be affected, and possibly because of the possible hardship done to fishermen. I would appeal to hon. Members on both sides. Hon. Members on the opposite side do not desire to tax raw material. This is raw material. Hon. Members on both sides of the House profess that they have no desire to increase the tax on food, and, finally, this is an impost' which under no circumstances can the foreigner be made to pay.
  Mr. ERNEST POLLOCK: I rise to support the opposition to this Provisional Order Bill not only on the grounds which have been indicated to the House, but also on a wider ground. This Bill is introduced in pursuance of Section 13 of the Port of London Act, 1908, which provides that this Provisional Order shall be prepared and brought in within a certain limit of time, and also that it shall be embodied in the Schedule that "all goods imported from parts beyond the seas or coastwise into the Port of London, or exported to parts beyond the seas, or coastwise from that port shall, subject to any exemptions or rebates which may be contained in a Provisional Order under this section, or allowed by the Port Authority, be liable to such port rates as the Port Authority may fix, not exceeding such rates as may be specified in the Provisional Order."
  The Sub-section has a proviso, which has been treated as an instruction and as the only instruction in drawing this Bill, namely, "(b) The Provisional Order under this Section shall provide for exemption from such rate goods imported for transhipment only, or which remain on board the ship in which they were imported for conveyance therein to another port, and may determine what goods are for the purposes of such exemption to be treated as goods imported for transhipment only." I wish to ask why the only exemption provided for under the Provisional Order is the exemption referred to in that proviso. There are no exemption under the earlier portion of the Clause, and there are no exemptions which ought to find their place in a Provisional Order having due regard to the needs and necessities not only of coastwise trade, but of trade from the centres of industry in the Midlands. Every person who touches a Bill of this kind and

  123
  finds himself confronted with a schedule of this magnitude knows that he is undertaking a very difficult task. Every Member would no doubt desire to pay a tribute to the industry and ability of Lord St. Aldwyn; but that is not quite the point. In this Provisional Order he has slavishly followed Sub-section (b) of Section 13 without giving any effect at all to the other exemptions which for good reason ought to find their place in the Order. Clause 9 of the Provisional Order provides: "No port rates shall be charged by the authority on transhipment goods, which expression wherever used in this Order means goods imported for transhipment only and also goods which remain on board the vessel in which they are imported for conveyance to another port." Then there is an interpretation clause, saying that "goods imported for transhipment only" shall mean goods imported from beyond the seas or coastwise. The effect of that Clause is, that if the goods come from abroad and are transhipped, or if the goods come coastwise from another port, say from Bristol, no port rate is to be levied upon them. But if goods come from the centres of industry in the Midlands, say by canal, to the Port of London, they will have to pay the port rate. The result will be that, however much the port rate is, by so much there will be a preference in favour of the coastwise trade or in favour of the foreign goods sent over here for purposes of transhipment. It may be a very fair thing that port rates should not be levied upon those two classes of goods, but it cannot have been duly considered, I think, by the promoters of this Provisional Order that they are leaving out of the exemption all goods which may come by canal from the centres of industry in the Midlands to seek the Port of London as a port of export. The Bill is designed to enable the Port Authorities to recover a proper and reasonable reward for the services they render; but has it been considered by those responsible that the Bill as drawn may defeat that object? Because if goods coming from the Midlands, which in the ordinary course would seek a port of export in London, have to pay these port rates, the Clause may act as a deterrent, and instead of the port of London enjoying an increase of business by reason of the Act of 1908 and this Provisional Order, which is the complement of that Act, goods from the Midlands may find their way to Liverpool or
  124
  elsewhere. I do not offer my opposition to the Provisional Order in any captious spirit; but I wish to know whether this question has been duly and carefully considered. It is so often possible to make a slip and to forget what the effect of such a provision may be that I respectfully draw attention to this matter.
  It may be said that there is power in the port authority to grant exemption. I quite agree. But if there were no provision at all for such exemptions in the Provisional Order it would be very hard of any trader to send goods in the hope that the port authority when they had got the goods would grant exemptions from the port rates. The person administering the schedule would look to see whether any exemption was provided, and, if it was not, the answer would be that no such exemption could be granted—overlooking entirely the powers given under Section 13 of the Act, which are just as important, and were intended by Parliament to be considered just as much as the proviso which I have quoted. Clause 9 therefore, instead of benefiting the Port of London, proposes to impose a port rate upon goods which ought to have just as much consideration as goods which come coastwise or from abroad for purposes of transhipment. This House would by no means assist the port authorities charged with the execution of this Act if there was not given in the terms of the Provisional Order some sort of indication to the traders in the centres of industry that their goods also would be fairly treated in the same way as goods which come coastwise. If the exemption is not to be discovered in the Act, there is no advertised security at all to induce traders to send goods to the Port of London instead of to Liverpool or some other port where the port rate might not be so heavy. It is only by having an explicit statement in the Bill, a Clause which shall deal with this matter, and shall deal with all exemptions, that a clear indication can be given to traders that by sending goods through the Port of London they can enjoy the great advantages of that port and at the same time derive the exemption, not so much giving them any preferential treatment, but by which they shall be safe from any adverse treatment as against goods coming coastwise or from abroad for the purposes of transhipment. So much for Clause 9. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House have pointed out what seems to me a very serious blot upon the Bill in Clause 13. The difficulties

  125
  under which the fishing trade is carried on at the present time do not need expansion by me. But if you are going to place the fishing trade in a greater difficulty than it has been before, once more you have done no good to the fishing trade, but, above all, you have done no good to the Port of London. However, I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I do ask and submit that this Bill has not been drawn with a due regard to all the various interests concerned. While the schedule may have been carefully drawn and considered, there is scope and need for further exemptions in favour of other traders which ought to be put in the Act. On that ground I desire to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. G. R. THORNE: I very much regret that it falls to my lot to appear in any way to oppose a measure which has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. But the fact that he is President of the Board of Trade, particularly in view of the statement which he made in presenting the Bill to the House a few moments ago, makes me believe that the objections which I, in common with other Members, may raise in opposition to this Bill will receive, at any rate in Committee, the fullest possible consideration. I trust before the Bill leaves the House to-night that we may have the assurance from him that that consideration will be given. It will remove the difficulties which we are presenting to him. It may be, perhaps, regarded as a very strange thing that a Midland Member stands here in opposition to this particular Bill. The answer to that is the paradoxical one that I am opposing it now for the very reason that I am a Midland Member. I have been approached, in common with all my colleagues for Wolverhampton district, by the Corporation of my town, by the Chamber of Commerce, and by a large number of Midland manufacturers, who think that this Bill will very seriously handicap and injure the trade of the Midlands. I very much regret their representations were not made at the hearing before Lord St. Aldwyn. I have a copy of his report, and in looking through the long list of those who appeared before him I do not find any Midland names. I recognise that the railway companies were represented, and that Lord St. Aldwyn in his Report, referring to their opposition said:—
  "In the case of coastwise goods the exemption which transhipment gives from the rates was attacked by the railway companies running into London, who objected to the advantage thus given to sea-borne traffic as against themselves."
  126
  I am not here on behalf of the railway companies, though I entirely agree with that point of opposition. I am here speaking to this House on behalf of those whom I immediately represent. Their interests are very seriously affected indeed by the preference which is given to these manufacturers who are on the seaboard, as against the Midland manufacturers.
  9.0 P.M.
  We are not here in a spirit of antagonism to the Bill as a whole. We want to see the Port of London prosper. But we do not believe that Parliament should be asked to assist in the prosperity of the Port of London by assisting in the adversity of the Midlands. It is consequently in the interests of the Midlands that we are here, not to hurt the Port of London, but to prevent, if possible, the Port of London hurting us. To explain the position which those whom I represent take, I may just allude, in one sentence, to the fact that in Wolverhampton and Birmingham, and the great industrial districts in between, is to be found one of the great seats of the manufacture of heavy goods for export. Manifestly to those who are engaged in that trade one of their most serious considerations is the cost of transport. Anything that affects that cost materially affects them in the competition which they have to meet from other competing traders. What I submit is this: When anybody, be it the Port of London or any other body, appeals to Parliament for assistance, Parliament will naturally grant proper assistance; but I submit as a general proposition that this assistance should not be granted so as to give an advantage to one section of the community at the expense of another section. It is because I submit that the proposals of this Bill would have that effect that I am here in opposition to it. It is known to all that the freights for taking goods by land is greatly in excess of that for taking goods by water. Taking that important fact into consideration, realising that manufacturers in the Midlands have to compete with manufacturers on the seaboard, that fact is a most material point in the consideration of the Bill which is now before the House. Goods going by train or canal from Wolverhampton and district, and the Midland district generally, and using the Port of London, have to compete with goods coming from the Port of Hull or other similar places; consequently those coming from seaboard districts have already now the benefit of a

  127
  much cheaper rate than we who send goods from the Midlands. We are handicapped at the start. It appears to me, under these circumstances, that when Parliament is asked to intervene, it is a reasonable thing to ask that Parliament should try to lessen the handicap and not in the slightest degree to increase it. For this, however, as against others, we are not asking. We take the facts as they are. We realise the difficulties which arise in regard to the Midland man as compared with the seaboard manufacturer. That being the fact, what we ask is that a fair consideration shall be given to both, and that the provisions of the Bill shall not be such as further to handicap the Midland manufacturer and practically destroy his chance in the race in which he is engaging for the business of the world. That is our position. I am satisfied that the President of the Board of Trade is a man so absolutely reasonable, and so desirous of meeting fairly all contending interests, that he will at once see the point that we are making; and I think, if I can get the assurance tonight, that in the course of the Committee stage he will do everything that is practicable and possible to meet our difficulties and give us fair play with other competing traders and manufacturers—speaking for myself, and I think I may speak for the others also—that assurance will be accepted in all loyalty, and we may possibly see a way whereby what we desire on behalf of the people we represent shall be achieved. I have been treated with the most absolute courtesy in answer to questions put by me to the President of the Board of Trade. I asked why there should be this particular exemption granted under the Act of 1908, and I was told that it was in the interests of the Port of London itself. That I can quite understand. If the Port of London were merely a trading concern and had not to come to Parliament, that answer would be sufficient: but as it comes to Parliament to ask for assistance, I say that that assistance should only be granted on perfectly fair and equitable terms. Such an exemption as this is should not have been conceded. I submit that the answer given is not a sufficient reason to come to Parliament and to ask Parliament to interfere in such a way as to cause unfairness between two sets of competing traders. I hope the Port of London will realise, and that the Board of Trade will realise, that this
  128
  is not only an unjust, but a short-sighted policy as well. The Midland manufacturers will not be inclined, to use a common phrase, to take this lying down. They will strive in the best fashion possible to meet the position, and if possible to secure some other port that may give them more favourable terms than the Port of London; and, if so, the Port of London will, by the very course it is taking, suffer to a great extent. There is another tendency, and, unfortunately, it is not a problematical matter; it is a tendency already taking place, and to the serious detriment of the town I represent in what has happened in recent years. There would not only be a natural tendency for Midland traders to send their goods to other ports, but, far worse, there is a tendency for Midland traders and manufacturers to remove their works from Wolverhampton and the Midlands to seaport towns. That is already taking place. I should like to afford the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade an object-lesson on this absolutely vital matter if I could persuade him to do us the honour of paying a visit to Wolverhampton. I should then point out to him sites in the east end of our town which a few years ago were hives of industry, where a large number of men were employed and an enormous amount of work was carried out, and whence, if these still existed, there would be goods coming up to the Port of London for transit to foreign countries.
  Where there were once hives of industry there is now a quietness as of the grave. The reason is that the great cost of transit for heavy goods for export trade apparently made it absolutely impossible to carry on these works in the Midlands in the competition that existed, and these works have been removed to Newport, Mon., and to Elsmere Port. The result is that these businesses are taken away from the Midland districts, and we in the Midlands have had to suffer. I am not saying that Wolverhampton is not a good centre for trade generally. I do not want in the slightest degree to damage my own town. I am directing my remarks to the difficulties which exist in regard to the heavy export trade. Wolverhampton is a good centre for all others, and we only contend on behalf of those whom we represent that nothing should be done by Parliament to help the tendency which now exists in making it harder for our manufacturers to exist. Many of them have already

  129
  considered whether duty will not compel them to follow the example of their predecessors and remove their works. I believe local patriotism largely prevents them and impels them to stay where they are; but as business, common-sense men they must look facts in the face, and every little that is added in addition to the economic difficulty makes their difficulty the greater. Parliament steps in, and by helping the Port of London in an unfair way, makes this burden all the greater, and makes it so much the worse for the Midlands. We are compelled, therefore, to come to Parliament and to protest against such a course. I have only another point to make and it is this, that this very power which the Port of London is now seeking may hurt itself, because the result will be, as I have shown it is the tendency, to remove from the Midlands to the ports, and as goods coming from the seaboard are to be exempt, so the Port of London will not get the rates. Therefore, on the merits and in fairness to the competing traders and in the interests of the Port of London itself, I appeal to this House that in Committee, at all events, this difficulty shall be fully faced and overcome. We do not ask preference at the expense of the seaboard; all we ask is that the seaboard shall not have preference at the expense of the Midlands. Looking at the matter from a purely business standpoint, and as one who desires to promote the trade of the Midlands, I am compelled, on behalf of the Midland people, to offer the Bill my strongest opposition until this objectionable preference is removed.
  Mr. EBENEZER PARKES: I, like the hon. Member who has just sat down, have something to say on behalf of the Midlands. I am afraid when this Bill was before the Committee, it did not receive that attention from the Midland point of view that it deserved. I inquired on several occasions whether representations were made in the Committee from the Midland districts. I was assured the case was in the hands of the Midland Railway Companies. Whether they have put the case of the Midlands I am not prepared to say. The hon. Member opposite said there was a possibility of the large traders migrating to the coast. I notice that was very heartily cheered by a great many Members of the House. I suppose hon. Members of this House will not wish to see the Midland districts denuded of their trades and manufactures. If
  130
  that were the case, and as we were made to believe that all other industries and occupations are dependent, more or less, upon the manufacturer, what would become of the Midlands if these manufacturers migrated to the coast? The Midlands should not then be penalised, as they are by the Bill as it stands at the present.
  I consider there is unfair discrimination against the Midland districts. Take two sets of traders—one trader carrying on at the coast the same kind of business as the other carries on in the Midlands, what would be the effect upon those two? You have an import duty on semi-manufactured goods and export duties from the Port of London upon goods from the Midlands going to foreign parts. That means that some goods have a double duty upon them if they come from the Midlands, and if we remember that those dues of the Port of London run from 4d in the £ to 2s., we can realise what the possible impost upon manufactured goods from the Midlands would be. It may mean anything. 1s., 2s., 3s. That, in the present state of competition, is quite sufficient to destroy any trade that has to face competition. I have been assured that this point is not sufficiently considered. It not only gives preference to the manufacturers in this country on the sea coast, but it also gives preference to foreign manufacturers as against the Midlands. I confess I cannot understand how the Board of Trade can justify giving preference to the foreigner against the Midland manufacturer. That is certainly the effect of the Bill as it stands. I am also told it will have a deleterious effect upon the trade of the Port of London itself. Certain people go to the Port of London because there they get certain ships that go to certain ports of the world, but that will be remedied in time by establishing lines of ships to these foreign ports from other ports in the country, so that the effect will be that in the long run the Port of London would suffer the loss of a great deal of its trade. I think that is very short-sighted policy indeed, and I think it is only necessary to look at the matter in a fair and square way to see the unfairness of the competition imposed. I cannot think for one moment that the President of the Board of Trade, actuated as he is by very fair feelings towards all classes of the community, can for a moment consent to put an impost on certain manufacturers in the Midlands as against those who happen to be trading on the coast. The tendency of this action

  131
  will be to kill those trades in the Midlands. There are very great interests in Birmingham which require the most careful consideration, and anything of this kind which imposes further imposts and burdens upon them will be most disastrous. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give this matter most careful attention, and take the points I have raised into his favourable consideration.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: As chairman of the Port of London Authority I should like to bring before the House another aspect of this question. The Port of London Authority has spent over twelve months in close attention to this important question, and has taken great pains to deal fairly with this matter. When this Schedule was published we received the objection to about 45 per cent, of the rates imposed from no less than 200 associations and firms. We listened most carefully to the representations from those bodies. We met an enormous number of them, and I think no gentleman who appeared before the committee of the Port of London Authority will say that he did not receive very kind treatment. That body consists almost entirely of traders, who, like myself, have a very large interest in the future of the Port of London. Consequently we were able to look at the question, as I contend we did, from the traders' point of view. After hearing and dealing with all the objections, as the President of the Board of Trade has stated, he appointed Lord St. Aldwyn to hold an inquiry into the further objections raised. A large number of firms and associations again placed their case before his Lordship, who gave a lot of time to careful consideration of the question, and he heard all they had to say. Lord St. Aldwyn met a large number of these cases, and the net result of the concessions granted to the trade amounted to £122,000 a year off the maximum rates. To listen to the arguments put forward by some hon. Members one would think that a small rate would absolutely ruin the trade. Take the case of the steam trawler. I know and sympathise with the difficulties trawlers have had to contend with during the last three years. It has already been pointed out that the cheapest kind of fish is worth a l¼d. per pound, or 11s. 8d. per hundred weight. What is this rate which is going to kill the trade on the cheapest class of fish? The maximum rate allowed by the Schedule is less than a halfpenny, and if that is the
  132
  strongest case which can be brought against this Schedule, I contend that it shows clearly that it is a very fair one. Another hon. Member has stated that these port rates will drive the trade to Liverpool. May I point out that this Schedule is largely based upon the rates of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which are considerably heavier than the maximum which it is proposed to authorise under this Bill. It has been said that the Midland manufacturers did not appear before Lord St. Aldwyn. If they did not it was simply because they knew that their case was in very safe hands, and would be very ably put by the great railway companies interested in the Midlands. Those railway companies did have their case very clearly and ably put before Lord St. Aldwyn, and they made out the best case they could. The result was that they failed to convince the members of the Port of London Authority that they had a good case, and when they came before Lord St. Aldwyn they also failed to convince his Lordship. When hon. Members get up and state that Midland manufacturers have to pay rates which are not paid on coastwise cargo it should be remembered that there is no case that can be made for the Midlands that will stand examination before any impartial committee. I would be the last person to support any dues on the Midlands or elsewhere that would drive trade from the Port of London. London is competing for trade with other ports in the Kingdom, and if Parliament gives the Port of London Authority power to levy the dues in this Schedule, the net result will be good for the counties in the Midlands as well as other parts of the country. The net result of improving the Port of London by deepening the water and improving facilities for loading and discharging and handling cargo will undoubtedly tend to make London a very much cheaper port, which will cheapen transit, and thus tend to benefit manufacturers not only in London, but throughout the whole of the Midlands. I hope the Government will not accept the proposal before the House.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: The speeches we have heard this evening only show the tremendous difficulties that beset those on the Authority for the Port of London. I desire to point out the view of the coastwise traders in coal on this question of dues. Coal is a raw material, and we feel that it should come into London free. At the present time the railway companies all

  133
  bring their coal into London free, and it is now proposed that a tax of 2d. per ton should be put upon coal borne by sea. I therefore ask the House to very carefully consider the great question of the competition going on between coal which is seaborne and coal which is railway-borne. I do not think, if the tax was equalised by a tax being put on railway-borne coal, that those who carry coal by sea would object, but the competition is so close orders going from one to the other on a difference of |d. per ton, that they earnestly protest against this tax of 2d. per ton upon coal brought into the Port of London. It would very largely cripple the sea-borne trade. It would not only at once damage it, but gradually the trade would be diminished and the large amount of money which is sunk in plant, machinery, and steamers dealing with this trade would be entirely lost.
  The average value of the sea-borne coal to the Port of London is from 10s. to 11s. per ton, and the proposed rate of 2d. per ton therefore amounts to 4d. in the £. There is no other article rated higher than a penny in the £. Consequently, the proposed rate on coal is 400 per cent, higher than that on any other article. This was clearly brought before the Committee of which I had the honour to be a member, and the chairman said at the time he considered coal was entitled to exceptionally favourable treatment, but he thought it was a question that ought to be threshed out on the floor of the House. They were dealing with principles rather than with details, and the proper time for it to be considered would be when this Provisional Order came up for discussion in the House. Coal is also the only article on the coastwise rates which is the same as the oversea rates. In all other cases it is half of the oversea rate, but here it is exactly the same. The whole trade is a private enterprise, and it does not use the docks in any way or only to a very slight extent. The Port Authority has power to raise £330,000 per annum from rates on goods. This is divided in round figures as to £220,000 derived from goods using the docks and £110,000 from goods using the river. The proposed rate of 2d. per ton on coal will produce £70,000 per annum, leaving only £40,000 to be derived from the whole of the rest of the goods using the river. I contend that is an undue proportion to put upon a raw and useful material like coal. The coal trade do not in the slightest object to pay-
  134
  ing what they consider to be their fair share of the revenue required by the Port Authority. They, of course, recognise that the Port Authority has to be kept up, but they would point out that their dues were increased for three years from a halfpenny to one penny per net registered ton in 1906, and that this increase was made permanent in 1908. This meant an increase of ¼d. per ton weight, and an additional burden of about £10,000 per annum.
  Of course, I know the usual objections will be made by the President of the Board of Trade. In the first place, he will say the Port Authority must obtain sufficient revenue for its purpose. I quite agree, but I think I have shown that the seaborne coal will bear an undue proportion of the rates towards the sum they are bound to raise. He may also say the coaling trade is a very prosperous one and can well bear a rate of 2d., but I think I have said enough to show that things are very fine in the coal trade, and that the 2d. will make all the difference between coal coming by railway and coal coming by sea. There are many millions of pounds' worth of plant engaged in this trade, and it gives employment to thousands of men not only here working in the Port of London, but also in the collieries of the North of England and in the South of Wales. I therefore hope the President of the Board of Trade will give his earnest consideration to this plea on behalf of the seaborne coal trade.
  Mr. MORTON: It is only right before this Bill is given a Second Reading that the House should fairly consider the consequences of it. I am very much astonished to find a Liberal and Free Trade Government bringing in a Bill of this sort, a Bill which proposes to tax everything coming into the Port of London, from acetone to sulphate of zinc and from absinthe powder to zaffers, whatever that is. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not explain his position as a member of a Free Trade Government in having to move in this House duties on so many articles, including the food and necessaries of 6,000,000 Londoners. I can quite understand that in an emergency it may be necessary to tax the food of the people, as we are doing at the present moment in the shape of sugar, but there ought to be some very good and strong reasons for doing so. That induces me to ask what is the reason for bringing forward

  135
  this Bill at all? What is the reason for taxing the food and the necessaries of the people of London? My hon. Friend who told us he was the vice-chairman of the Port of London Authority (Sir Owen Philipps) said they have been considering it for a year, but he must know that is a very short time to consider the business of the Port of London, the greatest port of the world. Then he said something about traders, but if he had given much close attention to this matter he would have found that every trader outside the wharves is opposed to the Bill and to this taxation of goods. Again, he told us it is only a halfpenny tax, but, according to his own showing and allowing for the deductions made by Lord St. Aldwyn, it is £628,000 per annum. That is a fact he has to get over.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: May I correct the statement of my right hon. Friend 1 The reduction made by Lord St. Aldwyn of £122,000 arose from the exemption included in the Bill, there being a net maximum of £446,000.
  Mr. MORTON: That is not what the hon. Gentleman told us in his speech. I defy anyone to make out for certain what the charges are going to be under this Bill. They may amount to £400,000, or to £628,000; but the point I desire to submit was certainly more than one halfpenny. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade told us that this matter had been before a Committee which did not go into details, and certainly when the matter was before the Joint Committee in 1908, Mr. Fitzgerald, K.C., who represented the Board of Trade on that occasion admitted that a number of Amendments had been proposed to the Clause to exempt various classes of traffic, and also to exempt particular traffic from particular dues, or to fix the conditions of particular traffic, but it was the intention that these details should be gone into on the Provisional Order when such an Order was made, and everybody interested would then be heard. Thus it was clear from the statement of the learned Gentleman who represented the Board of Trade that at that time there were no details to discuss. I mention this to show that it was intended an opportunity should be afforded to discuss these questions. I rather gather from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade that the matter has already been considered, but that this was not the
  136
  proper occasion to discuss it. I can only say if this Bill was brought in independently, and if it was considered on its merits, it would never get much further; but it has, unfortunately, been brought in by the Government, and rightly or wrongly they intend to shove it through. The main purpose of this Bill is to increase the revenue of the Port Authority. In the first place we were told that the maximum increase would be £750,000. Now they are only legally entitled to charge £350,000, and why they should take power to charge the larger amount I confess I cannot understand. I should think the traders would be much more satisfied and that they would and themselves in a much better position if the maximum charge that could be imposed were set out in the Bill itself. We are told, however, that they may charge a maximum on some goods and that they may charge nothing on others. That is the worst part of it, because on all bodies of this sort there are influences at work and there may be favouritism shown in the fixing of the rates.
  I repeat that the main purpose of this Bill is to increase the revenue of the Port Authority, and I cannot understand why the Board of Trade should be supporting such a proposal. The original Bill provided that there should be a separate account kept for the docks, but the first year ended on 31st March last and, although two and a half months have since elapsed, the Government have produced no accounts. Had they done so we should have been in a better position to decide whether or not these charges should be made. As far as my knowledge goes the Port Authority do not need this money for the upkeep of the river. It is practically admitted that they want it in order to make up the loss on the docks. Of course, if they paid three times the value of the docks they were bound to get into difficulties. The Board of Trade themselves told us that the revenue from the docks, except in the case of the sinking fund, was enough to meet the outgoings. Now we are told that the accounts will show that they only want this money because they have paid more than the value of those docks. I should like to have accounts produced so that we may see how far this is accurate. We had something of this sort in connection with the purchase of the London water companies, and that should have taught us a lesson. This appears to

  137
  be something worse. There may have been good reasons why the supply of pure water should be under the control of the London Authority, but that is no reason why the docks should be under the control of that authority at all. I think we are entitled to know what the authority want this money for. If they only want it to make up the loss occasioned by improper purchases and by handing over to speculators on the Stock Exchange many millions of the Londoners' money, which they expect Londoners to pay by having charges made upon their goods, then I say they are entirely wrong, and we ought to take care to see that the burden is put on the right shoulders. I think that the docks ought to pay for this, and the Board of Trade told us that they would; but even if they do not pay for it, those who use the goods and use the dock ought to bear these extra charges, and not the private traders up and down the river. It is well known to those who understand the business of a port that the largest portion of the business of the Port of London is done at jetties and wharves, and a good deal is done in the river itself, and instead of discouraging that kind of trade, which is the cheapest way of carrying on business —instead of discouraging that trade and setting up docks in competition with it, something ought to be done to help the people engaged in it. But these people are going to have docks established near them for the use of large steamers engaged in other trades than themselves, and they will have to pay simply because what is done is useful to some one else. One trader in the river told me that if this was carried out he should lose about £1,000 per annum. He did not care anything about the docks, and they never did anything for his trade, and that is true of more than 60 per cent, of the trade in the river, and these people will be allowed to put a charge upon that trade of the river which does not use the docks and does not want them. I cannot understand it at all, and all the people I have spoken to on the matter agree with me.
  Then it is said that Parliament has forced upon these people a bad bargain, and they must get the money somewhere. All I can say is, if that is true, and they must get the money somewhere, let them get it honestly. Why should the people of London be charged upon their food and necessaries to make up a loss with which they have nothing to do, and never had?
  138
  This matter was never considered by this House or on the Committee, and we wash our hands of it, and leave the responsibility with those who passed it. I am specially interested for the moment in the City of London and the supply of food to it. Some people may tell us that there is not a large sleeping population in the City of London. That may be so, but there are a large number of people who come in every weekday and want food and all this food is going to be taxed by my hon. Friend and he has given no good reason for doing it. I am told that these taxes on food, even if they do not charge the maximum, will mean over £100,000 per annum. Then there is another question which affects the Corporation of London, and that is that which concerns the London markets and especially the fish markets. I should like to say, being on the Committee which considered these questions, that we were most anxious to help the traders and we are spending our money in order to do so in regard to the supply of meat and fish or anything else, and on behalf of the Corporation of London we shall do all we can both here and upstairs to prevent these unfair charges being put upon the food of those who go to the City. We have for a number of years, for the purpose of assisting the fish trade of Billingsgate, only charged the people half tolls. As far as I know we shall continue doing it, but there is not much good in our doing so if the hon. Gentleman is going to put a charge on in another way for the purpose of paying stockholders on the Stock Exchange a profit. I have no doubt at the proper time we shall make a claim for legal Parliamentary rates under this Act, and the Port of London has no right to put any extra charge upon the cost of fish brought into London.
  The fish trade of the Port of London is concerned with the cheapest fish, which are used by the poorest class of people. The higher priced fish come mainly by railway, but the cheapest sort, which are consumed mostly by the poorer class of people, come up the river. It ought to be the business of this House to take great care that the food of the people of London, especially of these poorer classes, is not unnecessarily increased, and not increased at all unless the most urgent necessity is shown for putting a tax upon the food of the people. This question may get before the law courts eventually, but, apart from that, I think the Liberal party and the Liberal Government should endeavour to prevent the carrying out of this tax upon

  139
  the food of the people of London, especially the poorer class of people for whom food is brought into London by river. Then there is another trade which is interested in this matter, and that is the meat trade, which is not, I understand, in a good way at the present moment and is decreasing to some extent in regard to supply. Nothing more ought to be done to drive away the trade or in any way to hurt it so as to put an unnecessary charge upon the people of London. We have to supply meat for London which contains many millions of people, and therefore it is our duty to see that they get as cheap a supply of food as possible. I think I have sufficiently explained why one should take very active steps in this matter. We were told that the inquiry before Lord St. Aldwyn was a public enquiry, but what did the Noble Lord say? He said he could not go into these questions of what they were going to do with their money. I am not blaming him for only exercising the powers he had got, but how can you call it a public enquiry when it only examines into half of the question and when you put on these taxes without enquiring what is going to be done with them? I contend that it is not an enquiry into both sides of the question. Lord St. Aldwyn only had to deal with the question referred to him, but I want to deal with these maximum rates so that traders may know for certain what they have to pay without consulting the Port of London Authority or any other Port authority. I claim that they do not want this money for the maintenance of the river or the fairway. I can speak with knowledge when I say that we of the old Thames Conservancy were told distinctly that if you continue the double tonnage due there will be all the money provided that you want for the maintenance of the fairway or the upkeep of the river. That was the conclusion that they came to after consulting experts, and they thereupon, in the first place, got these dues doubled, which gave an extra £80,000 for the purpose of deepening the river between Gravesend and the Nore, and we were advised then that if that doubling of the tonnage dues was made permanent—that is, after three years—it would provide all the money you could possibly spend on the upkeep of the river, because you cannot do very much dredging above Gravesend.
  10.0 P.M.
  Therefore, as far as my knowledge of the matter goes, there is none of this money wanted for the upkeep of the river.
  140
  It is only wanted to pay debts which never ought to have been incurred, which neither this House nor its Committee, nor anyone else, had an opportunity of considering, and those who are responsible, and those who use the docks, should pay for it. But what they mean to do is actually to reduce the fees so as to allow them to compete more successfully with the private traders in the river. In my opinion that is not fair at all. We have to bear in mind that no doubt they were very much taken in when they bought the docks. They were allowed to go for a year in bad repair, and part of this money no doubt is going to repair them. Who says we want more docks? There was a report presented to the Board of Trade by engineers which we ought to have seen. It has been carefully concealed, even from the Port of London Authority, and it was concealed from the Joint Committee which sat to consider the Port of London Bill in 1908. I should like the Board of Trade to produce that so as to settle the question as to whether or not they were deceived, and the people of London were deceived, when they bought the docks. I challenge my right hon. Friend to produce that. If he is afraid to do so I cannot help it. Then I am told there is another report presented lately by engineers. We have written and asked these gentlemen to give us a copy of their accounts up to 31st March. They have not done it. Where are those accounts? There is no reason why in two and a half months the dock accounts, if nothing else, should not have been presented. I should like to see another report which has been made as to the actual necessity of repairs to keep the docks from tumbling down. The companies probably let them go as far as they could and left us to patch them up afterwards. Everyone who has studied the question knows that the proper development is not in docks but in deep water jetties, and everyone who knows anything about shipping will tell you the same, and that all the best ports of the world have no docks. They do their business in the river, as a great deal of it is done now.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That matter was settled when the Bill was passed and became an Act.
  Mr. MORTON: All I wish to say now is that we particularly want to consider the question about meat and about coal. A great point was made by the Liberal party some years back that they had taken the

  141
  dues off coal. Now the Liberal party are going to put this on the Port of London only, and if they put only 2d. you have to bear in mind that the introduction of these charges is protective. It is the thin end of the wedge, and I shall not be surprised to find my right hon. Friend challenged on this question before public meetings.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have for a long time taken a great interest in this subject. The speeches to which we have listened are of a kind which everyone who has been for any length of time a Member of the House is accustomed to on occasions of this kind. Hon. Members who have a prejudice against this or that private Bill make ex parte statements on details which it is absolutely impossible for anyone except an expert to examine, and it apparently looks as if the whole of the House was in favour of the speeches in opposition to the Bill. Then gradually other hon. Members come to the House and it is realised that the House itself is not a proper place for deciding matters of detail of this kind The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Morton) has given us an example of this kind. He made two or three remarks which I was inclined at first to listen to with a great deal of sympathy. He told us, for instance, that this Bill was so bad that if it was not brought in and protected by the Government it would have no chance of passing through the House. There are many other Bills which have been brought forward by the Government in regard to which I think the same statement could be made with at least as much force. Then the hon. Gentleman made another remark which was cheered by some of my hon. Friends behind me "What do you make of this Free Trade Government which is actually putting dues on goods coming into London?" I should like to make a Tariff Reform case out of that if I could, but I am bound to say I do not see my way. The hon. Member asks why in the world do you put these dues on goods which are going to be consumed by the people of London? Why not have them free? There is a very simple answer. If you are to have a port it involves expense, and someone must pay. You might just as well say you would like all the food which comes into the country to be carried in without paying railway charges. These expenses have to be paid by someone, and the whole point is whether or not the way in which it is proposed to raise the necessary money is the way which on the whole is best.
  142
  I should like to put one or two general considerations which are familiar to those who have been interested in this subject for the last ten years, but which are, for the moment, I am afraid, forgotten. For a very long time everybody interested in London pointed to the fact, which, I believe, was undoubted, that the Port of London was going back as compared with the other great ports in the world. If that was true—and I thought it was—the Port of London had to be improved. After the question had been considered in two different Houses of Commons, we came to the conclusion that there ought to be an improvement, and that the way to effect it was to put the management of the Port of London in the same hands in which the management of the other chief ports are put, namely, into the hands of those who are doing the trade of London, with the certainty, or at least the probability, that the men who are doing the trade would in the long run do the best in the interests of London, and that they might be trusted to put on dues which would not destroy one trade or another. If that is not true, if you cannot trust this authority which you have set up, there is no use arguing about this or that detail; you have made a mistake all through. On the other hand, I say that all you have to do is to trust the body which has been elected. The facts which have been put before us to-night are facts with which they are familiar, and if it is true, as we have been told over and over again, that this or that regulation is going to destroy the Port of London, surely they are not such fools as to say they will not act in the way which is really best for the interests of the Port of London. All this simply means, in my opinion, that you cannot decide questions of this kind by Debates such as we have had to-night. You have to trust to the more detailed examination by people who have specially devoted themselves to the question. I think the Board of Trade are in a way to be congratulated on the care they have taken that this matter should have careful consideration. I am sure that anyone who has read the report will at least feel that a man of undoubtedly great ability and great practical experience has given a very large amount of time and consideration to this subject; but we are not confined to this examination by Lord St. Aldwyn. After the Second Reading of this Bill has been carried—1 gather from the speeches which have been made that nobody wishes to oppose the Second Reading—it will again go before a

  143
  Committee, and every one of those points can be considered by the Committee better than on the floor of this House. It is before a Committee that these details ought to be taken into consideration.
  I shall take one or two illustrations of how difficult it is to decide them here. I take the argument which was put forward in regard to coal. My hon. Friend thinks it very hard that a maximum duty of 2d. should be put on coal coming into London. There is nobody who does not realise that nothing is more important for London as a whole than that it should have cheap coal. London is, I think, the largest manufacturing city in the world. It depends absolutely on coal imported from a distance, and it is absolutely essential that the dues on coal should be very low. After all, that trade is coming to you, and it not be assumed that a very small duty on coal will be injurious to trade. Personally I may say—though this is a matter of detail—that I should have been better pleased if the amount actually to be charged had been Id. instead of 2d., but surely the coal trade is one that is able to pay part of the expense of the port. It has been said with perfect truth that the competition between railway-borne coal and sea-borne coal makes very little difference on the sale price. But let the House remember that though freights differ enormously in different years, nobody has found by actual experience that sea-borne coal does not come to London. I am sure that we may dismiss from our minds the idea that a small rate on coal will seriously interfere on the balance with coal which is carried by rail or sea.
  An hon. Member asked—why exempt goods coming to London for transshipment? The entrepôt trade of London used to be one of the great trades of London. Everybody knows now that the tendency is for goods to be shipped in full cargoes and sent direct. I am sure there is no one who would say—and it is the very last thing which a wise Port Authority would do—that they should adopt the course of putting dues on goods sent to London for transhipment, and thereby injure what is left of the entrepôt trade. The hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) says that you are going to raise the price of food. If that is going to happen in the long run, then the whole policy of the port is at stake. The ground on which a Bill was originally contemplated was that the Port of London was not up to date. Everybody connected with the shipping
  144
  trade knows that the tendency for steamers, and especially tramp steamers, is every year to become bigger and bigger, and to have a larger tonnage. Already there are tramp steamers that cannot come up to London, and if that tendency is allowed to continue—and remember the larger the ship the cheaper the freight— and if London is to depend on the smaller sized vessels instead of getting cheaper food we will have to pay a great deal more for food in London. In conclusion let me say that I am perfectly certain the House must feel that this is a subject which can he safely left firstly to the authority which has been set up, and secondly to the Committee to which the Bill will go after passing through this House. I hope that no serious opposition will be given to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. PEARCE: We are told that this Schedule is for raising £525,000, but it covers even larger ground that that, and there should be a possibility of raising at least £600,000 under the Schedule that we are asked to pass to-night. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Port Authorities propose to raise £300,000, and I cannot help wondering whether, when this Bill was introduced, if anyone had realised that at the very beginning of the new rates a charge of £300,000 was to be imposed and charged on the trade and commerce of the river it would have been as easy to pass the Port of London Act as it seemed to be. We were told at the time, that the charges laid down by this Bill were insignificant, and there was never a hint that there would be a charge of £300,000 imposed upon the commercial activity of the whole riverside and of the various manufacturers of London. There are two limitations in the Bill, and I want to ask attention to these limitations in the hope of getting some statement from the Board of Trade upon them. The Port Authority fortunately are not empowered to raise an unlimited sum. They are bound by two limitations, the one one-thousandth part of all goods coming into the river, and the one three-thousandth part of the goods that do not use the docks. Very little has been said on behalf of the London manufacturers tonight, and I want to point out that there are two very serious faults in the Schedule as it stands at present, and which does not cover, as I consider, the real intentions of Parliament. Both these limitations are operative when £300,000 is demanded, and therefore one would think that

  145
  from goods that did not use the docks of the Port Authority only, roughly, £100,000 would be raised; but anyone with a knowledge of London conditions who examines the Schedule will see that 50 percent, of the maximum rates, including ccast-wise goods, must be largely in excess of £100,000, and what the riverside feel is that unless some steps are taken by the Board of Trade to put this right for the first two years—and it is not until the end of two years that the limitation I speak of comes into operation—very much more is likely to be taken out of the river versus the docks than really was the intention of Parliament should be done. One hears sometimes that the day may come when this £300,000 may be reduced to, say, £150,000. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Schedule to provide for this reduction being made in due proportion. As the Schedule stands at present, provided the Port Authority were raising £150,000, they might raise £100,000 out of the river and £50,000 out of the docks. I am not going to say that they would be likely to do that, but I would like to remind the House that the new authority are bound to discriminate, and in four years' time, when they are elected—they will be elected by the payers of total dock income, not by the payers of the £300,000 new Revenue charge, but by the payers of the whole of the old revenue of the docks. Under those circumstances the riverside interest outside of the docks cannot by any possibility get one-third membership of the Authority, and might only have to content themselves with two or three members out of the whole membership of the board. I urge, therefore, that the Board of Trade should at least give some indication that their policy will be to recommend the Committee to make any difference between the river and the docks to run in due proportion with what was the intention of the Bill. These charges, if they are reduced, should be reduced pari passu, and if they do that, and put in an Instruction and ensure that a due proportion should be raised in the first two years, a very great deal would be done to relieve the real anxiety of the riverside interests at the present time. If the dock authority really mean business, and examine their Schedule in order to make sure that they do not exact more than £110,000, which they are entitled to have—they will have to grant rebates and probably to make a reduction on ex-
  146
  poits—they would do very much to alleviate the very real anxiety which the merchant and manufacturing interests in London now feel. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will make some announcement which may allay the anxiety which exists.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Before we go to a vote on this Bill I should like to understand where we are. I understand that if the Second Reading is carried, the Bill will go upstairs to the Committee. If that be so, may I point out to the House that the vast majority of the objections which have been raised can be dealt with only in Committee, and cannot be decided in the House itself. One point, it seems to me a very reasonable one—has been brought forward by the Fishery Association of the City of London. They maintain that they have always had the right to have their fish brought in free of duty. I think there is something to be said on behalf of that contention, but it is a matter which should be considered upstairs, and cannot be decided here. [An HON. MEMBBK: "Why?"] Because here there is no opportunity of having arguments for and against the measure, and one wants to hear them. My hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) said on the Second Reading only party statements could be made. No doubt those statements are made in absolute good faith, but they cannot be investigated or proved by anyone save an expert who understands the matter. I have always been against the establishment of a Port Authority in London, and I have always said that the proper course was to leave it in the hands of private enterprise. My hon. Friend will confirm me when I say that I did my best in opposing the measure which he brought in when he was Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: You did your best.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did my best, a feeble best. But we have passed the Act, and after all it was not this side of the House who passed this Act, but, being passed, we have to abide by it. Hon. Members opposite did not share my opinion that if you have a municipal authority, or a Government authority, or a port authority of this sort managing anything, it is always more expensive than if the matter was in the hands of private enterprise. I have always contended that, ever since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, and hon. Members who contended the reverse, are apparently now

  147
  beginning to find out their own error. However, that may be, hon. Members opposite brought in their Bill which is now an Act, and they have to find the money to carry it out. After the inquiry before Lord St. Aldwyn, this Provisional Order Bill is the result. I do not for a moment say that there are not many Clauses which ought not to be inquired into in the Committee upstairs. I mentioned one point, that as to fish, which is entirely a Committee point. An hon. Friend says, "No," but I do not understand why he says so. I have had the honour of sitting here for eighteen years and these points have always been considered Committee points. We cannot do so here. We can only speak once, and if a statement were made which we knew to be in error we could not get up and expose it. Neither can we cross-examine. No doubt there are a good many points which require alteration, but they should be considered upstairs. I would say, in answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that he is a decided Free Trader for every country and every town except Wolverhampton. When anything is to take away business from Wolverhampton and bring it to London he believes in protecting the business of Wolverhamptoc. He does not care anything for the business of London. I approve of fair play all round, and that is why I am in favour of Tariff Reform. I wish everybody to be on the same footing. I do not think the hon. Member was justified in making those remarks. If, everything being equal, London can get benefit out of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, why should London not get it? Is it not, right that the best man should get the advantage. Is not that the principle of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and was that not the principle of Cobden? If it touches his own pocket he has quite a different view of it. I have endeavoured to show why I shall support the Second Reading, not because I approve of all the proposals in it, but the faults found with it can be dealt with in Committee.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: There has been a very long discussion on this Bill, and only three speeches have been delivered in support of the proposal. None of those speeches, in my judgment, has met the legitimate difficulty, and the admitted grievance of the traders of the Midlands. On the contrary, our grievance is rather aggravated by the speech of the hon.
  148
  Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law), who said that Wolverhampton had no-right to expect this House, if they brought forward a measure here, to consider any question affecting any other corporation other than Wolverhampton. In other words, he rather indicated that it would be the duty of this House to give a preference to a corporation in submitting a Bill for consideration. That is my interpretation of his suggestion. No one who has spoken yet on behalf of the Midland manufacturers has asked this House to give any preference whatsoever. The whole point of our complaint is not for a preference to the Midland manufacturer, not that we ask for special treatment, but because the peculiar difficulty the Midland manufacturer has to contend with to-day is such that it already handicaps him, and he is further handicapped by the provisions of this particular Bill. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from this side, speaking as the vice-chairman of that particular authority, stated that every effort had been made to meet the grievances of those particular manufacturers. He said that they had received very fair treatment at the hands of this particular authority. All I can say is that whatever treatment they received, it has not satisfied them. As a matter of fact, every Chamber of Commerce and every local authority in Derbyshire has passed strong resolutions against Clause 9. Why? Because there are certain trades and towns which are favourably situated as regards facilities for trade. The only means of transit from Derbyshire are rail and canal, but under Clause 9 of this Bill Derbyshire is placed in the unfair position of having to pay an additional rate for manufactures on the coast. We in these particular constituencies submit that we have a legitimate grievance. We are not asking for preferential treatment, nor are we asking the House to commit itself to a policy which is anything but just and fair; we simply ask that the President of the Board of Trade should recognise that this Clause, if passed as it now stands, will cripple the trade and industries of these particular constituencies.
  Mr. FRANCIS MILDMAY: Notwithstanding the statement of the vice-chairman of the Port Authority that the greatest care has been taken in connection with this scale of charges, we feel that we have good reason to complain. In some respects the charges are so disproportionate that it is our duty to protest

  149
  against them at the very first opportunity. Without going into detail, I would ask the House to compare the charges for cider in cask and beer in cask. The charge to which cider in cask is to be subject is 100 per cent, more than the corresponding charge on beer in cask. For cider in bottles the charges are still more disproportionate. The charge proposed for cider is 1d. per dozen bottles, which works out at 3s. 6d. per ton in weight, whereas for beer it is only 6d. per ton, or one-seventh the charge for cider. These cider charges must be a serious burden upon the agricultural industry in the West of England, and a still heavier blow to the cider industry, which is already languishing. Large quantities of cider in cask are shipped from the ports in South Devon, to be bottled at the depots in London; whence it is exported abroad, so that it is hit both ways. The principle I wish to: lay before the House is that the charges on cider should certainly not be; higher than those on beer, cider being a directly agricultural product. To the charges as now laid down in the Bill I have the very strongest objection, as I believe have other Members. They do not intend to oppose the Second Reading, but I do hope that those in charge of the Bill will recognise that we have a reason for complaint.
  Mr. JOWETT: The hon. Baronet the I Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in his remarks just now, suggested to the House that every industry and every concern managed by a public body, municipal or other, was more expensive on that account. May I point out, in the first place, that this is not a public body, and, in the second place, that the charges against which we are protesting are charges on account of financial transactions which had been previously entered into. But my purpose in rising is to put a point regarding the unfair treatment of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which is concerned particularly in the importation of wool. The original Schedule issued by the new authority named 1s. 6d. per ton as the charge to be levied by the Port Authorities for wool. The traders in the West Riding of Yorkshire took the first opportunity they had to protest against that very onerous charge, being concerned as they are with a vast trade—a trade so vast that many Members of the House would probably be astonished to know what its real volume is. In 1908 the wool catalogue
  150
  of the London Wool Sales, most of which goes to the district in and around the places I have indicated, amounted to no less than 1,083,000 bales. The charge of 1s. 6d. per ton on an industry of that size is a very heavy charge indeed. But the chief ground of complaint lies here: that after the Schedule stated that 1s. 6d. would be charged, and receiving a protest from the traders concerned, the Authority issued a new Schedule from which the word and classification "Wool" was entirely dropped out, and written in ink was an amended charge of 6d. per ton. Naturally the traders concerned felt that their objection had been met, and said nothing else. Judge of their surprise when the Bill was printed to find that the charge was 1s. 6d. per ton, as had previously been intimated. I contend that a change of that sort should not have been made in the way it was made. I believe it was subsequently explained that it was a printer's error. Let that be as it may, it is a very serious matter indeed for a trade such as the wool trade to have such a charge sprung upon it.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: May I say that the hon. Member, in making that statement, is misinformed as to the facts. I understand that the matter has been explained officially by the Secretary of the Port Authority to the Chamber of Commerce in question.
  Mr. JOWETT: The explanation given of it was that it was a printer's error.
  Mr. HERBERT NIELD: I hope a Division will be challenged upon the Second Reading, and, if so, I will certainly go into the Lobby against it. I quite appreciate the misgivings of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Pearce), and of all who are Members for riverside constituencies as to the effects of this Bill. The Bill differentiates most unfairly, and in some instances in opposite ways. It differentiates between those who use the river and those who use the docks. I can quite understand the misgivings of hon. Members representing riverside constituencies, and I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman, himself representing a constituency largely dependent on the river would have seen the danger to the interests of those who use the river for transit over the side into barges, and have no occasion to use the docks at all. I do think it a very grave thing on the part of the Government to saddle the

  151
  whole of this trade, whether it uses the docks or not, and thereby very considerably hamper those dependent upon the prosperity of the river qua river by charges imposed without regard to whether or not any benefit is derived. Even in the Constituency I represent, with its very limited river frontage, I am satisfied very considerable harm will be done to those whose livelihood depends upon unrestrained trade. I think the Government should well consider whether there is not need for making the burden far more just by differentiating between those who get benefit and those who do not, and by preserving employment to those in river constituencies. It does seem to me—and this is the differentiation on the other side—that in a trade like the coal trade, the competition in which is so keen and so finely cut that you are putting difficulties in the way of coastwise traffic because the number of men employed in coastwise-borne coal trade is out of all proportion to the number of those employed in railway-borne coal trade. These are two points that demand the serious consideration of the Government, and unless they can give reasonable assurance that the Committee upstairs will be allowed to exercise independent judgment in this matter we should vote against the Second Reading. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London says, "Of course the Committee will exercise independent judgment on this! Bill," but one knows if this Bill were now before the House upon its merits there would be an overwhelming majority against it, and it is only the fact that the Government are behind it that gives it the slightest chance of passing.
  BUXTONdesire to make a few observations on the points raised, and I think I am entitled to say that the principle of the Bill has met no unfriendly reception this afternoon. There have been a great many criticisms on various points of detail. I think upon one point the House did not quite appreciate the Parliamentary position, and I think there is a great deal of misapprehension as to the likelihood of the effect of the charges which are to be imposed. I think the House should recollect that this Bill is sent into the House in response to, and under the instruction of, an Act of Parliament passed by the House itself a year ago. The Port Authority was created,
  152
  rightly or wrongly, by the House of Commons, and it had an obligation put upon it of bringing the waterways, docks and other accommodation affecting the trades of London up-to-date, and there is also the obligation of raising the necessary funds. It had, however, ibis advantage, that at the time when the Bill was going through for various reasons it was not thought wise that any burden should be thrown on the London rates for the assistance or the advantage of the Port of London Authority. Therefore it had to fall back on its old resources. When hon. Members are criticising this proposal I would remind them that after all, when thrown on your own resources, you cannot fall back on the rates, and, therefore, the authority was limited as to the articles on which it could levy goods. It was specifically intended and understood that these additional rates should be raised by rates on exports and imports, therefore I do not think it is fair for hon. Members to assume or imply that all these proposals of the Port Authority were outside their discretion, and ought not to have been introduced. As a matter of fact, the authority are proceeding under an Act of Parliament passed a year ago. Various points of detail have been raised, but I am afraid I can only echo what has fallen from hon. Members already, namely, that the House of Commons is not really a fair tribunal for considering these matters of detail, which are obviously questions for consideration in Committee. The Committee set up under this Bill is the Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons, in which we all have very great confidence, and the various questions which have been raised will go to it. The points which have been argued this evening will be put before that Committee, and on the other side the Port Authority and others can be heard in opposition, and then the Committee will decide those questions on their merit. It h obvious that it is quite impossible for the House of Commons in a Debate of this sort to arrive at anything like a proper decision.
  With regard to the various points which have been raised, I do not wish to discuss them on their merits this evening, because I do not think in the first place I could deal with them satisfactorily and, secondly, these are matters which are going to the Committee, and I do not wish to prejudge them. There are two points which I desire to allude to the question of fish and the waterside manufacturers. They come into these proposals in this

  153
  way: The object I had in view in dealing with the charge on fish has been to meet the point raised by Lord St. Aldwyn, who proposed that fish should be treated as an import, and should have a special charge upon it. The question how far fish coming from British fishing grounds is or is not an import is a question which is still in doubt, and I thought it unfair to decide a legal question in this way by accepting Lord St. Aldwyn's suggestion to place upon it a certain rate. For this reason 1 struck that proposal out, and left it for the Committee and the House of Commons to decide how far fish should be brought under that category. It will be a question now for the Committee to decide whether fish should be excluded or not. With regard to waterside manufacturers, their position as I understand it is how far without some instruction the question they desire to raise of protection against possible undue imposts being placed upon them would be prejudiced. My hon. Friend proposes a mandatory Instruction with reference to it. I do not think it would be fair either to the Port Authority or to the Committee that a mandatory Instruction should be accepted; but I shall be prepared, when his Instruction comes on, to suggest to him that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to consider this question and deal with it as they think fit. That will give these interests a full opportunity of placing their view before the Committee, and enable the Port Authority to place their view before the Committee. Therefore, on the same grounds that I have deprecated the discussion of Committee points here, I shall endeavour, by the action I propose to take in the case of the fishing interest and of the waterside manufacturers, to put them in a position to be able to state their case before the Committee, so that the matter will be discussed on its merits. I do very seriously ask the House to pass this Bill without an addition. It would be really taking upon himself a very great responsibility, I think, for any Member to oppose a Bill of this sort, brought in by a Port Authority created by Parliament, and under instructions as to the method in which they should raise their revenue, and throw out the general principle, and deprive them of their revenue on a Committee point of detail.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I am prepared to take the responsibility of following into the Lobby anyone who will tell against the Second Reading, because
  154
  this is not only an imposition on the food of the people of London, but also on the work of an industrious and danger seeking class. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another connection that he was gentle to the poor, and I invite the President of the Board of Trade to be tender to the food of the poor in this matter. The fish coming into London forms a larger proportion of the staple food of the very poor than any other article coming into the Port of London. I dare say the fried fish shops in the East End of London are familiar to the right hon. Gentlemen in some respects. Perhaps he knows how many thousands of tons of fish per year are cut up into small parcels and sold as the food of the people in the Metropolis alone. We are to have an import tax upon this food of the people. The late Baroness Burdett-Coutts, out of her own private means, started a market in the East End of London for the sale of fish under favourable conditions. The market was opened with publicity, and it was welcomed by every class in the community, because it was helping to make cheap one of the staple articles of food of the poor. From time immemorial the market at Billingsgate has been free from due. From time immemorial the harvest of the sea has been brought into London for the food of the people without paying any due, and I am not able to see why the needs of the Port of London for deepening the draught of the river in order that big ships may be capable of coming up, should be paid for by this impost upon one of the cheapest and most nutritious articles of diet. Therefore I agree with the hon. Member for Sutherland shire that these charges should be borne by the shareholders or those who have financial interests in this matter, rather than by taxation upon this cheap but necessary article of food. It is with a conscientious conviction that I shall vote against a Bill which is a contradiction of every article of faith professed by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. GUY WILSON: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to amend the Bill so as to ensure the due proportion between the burdens on the river trade and the dock trade, as provided by Sub-section 3 of Section 13 of the Port of London Act, 1908."—[Mr. Pearce.]
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot accept this mandatory Instruction, although, as I have already indicated, I propose to put down an instruction to the Committee giving them power to consider this question if they think fit.
  And it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned, to be resumed tomorrow (Tuesday).

SUPPLY.— [10th Allotted Day.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1910–11.

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    Postponed proceeding on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a further sum, not exceeding £9,124,000, 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, 1911 ":—
    Which Question was, "That Item Class II., Vote 11 (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries), be reduced by £100," resumed:—
    Question again proposed.
    And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote.
    Question, "That Item Class II., Vote 11 (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries), be reduced by £100," put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Wednesday; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

    ILLEGITIMACY AND SEPARATION, ETC., BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Fire minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Financial Relations Return.
  Financial Relations Return.
  Compassionate Allowances (Unestablished Civil Servants).
  Compassionate Allowances (Unestablished Civil Servants).
  Club Male Servants (Licences).
  Club Male Servants (Licences).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Sir F. J. Hort's Estate (Kildare).
  Sir F. J. Hort's Estate (Kildare).
  Ballymena Town Hall.
  Ballymena Town Hall.
  Lurgan Ejectment Decrees.
  Lurgan Ejectment Decrees.
  Postage of Legal Documents.
  Postage of Legal Documents.
  Osborne (Cadets' Bathing Place).
  Osborne (Cadets' Bathing Place).
  H.M.S. "Montagu" (Services of Artificer Engineer).
  H.M.S. "Montagu" (Services of Artificer Engineer).
  Mediterranean (Chief Military Command).
  Mediterranean (Chief Military Command).
  Cordite (Heat Test).
  Cordite (Heat Test).
  Territorial Forces.
  Territorial Forces.
  Army Ordnance Corps.
  Army Ordnance Corps.
  Elementary Schools (Statistics for 1898–9 and 1907–8).
  Elementary Schools (Statistics for 1898–9 and 1907–8).
  Junior School Inspectors.
  Junior School Inspectors.
  Port of London (Receiving House for Aliens).
  Port of London (Receiving House for Aliens).
  Assaults on Children.
  Assaults on Children.
  British Guiana (Primary School Teachers).
  British Guiana (Primary School Teachers).
  Newport Dock Dispute.
  Newport Dock Dispute.
  Iron Trade Unemployment.
  Iron Trade Unemployment.
  Swedish Customs Duties on Black Plates and Galvanised Sheets.
  Swedish Customs Duties on Black Plates and Galvanised Sheets.
  Musical Instruments Imported into United Kingdom.
  Musical Instruments Imported into United Kingdom.
  Post Office Adult Night Messengers.
  Post Office Adult Night Messengers.
  Suez Canal (British Shares).
  Suez Canal (British Shares).
  Post Office Estimates.
  Post Office Estimates.
  High Court (Arrears in King's Bench Division).
  High Court (Arrears in King's Bench Division).
  Old Age Pension Application (Mrs. Quaid, East Molesey).
  Old Age Pension Application (Mrs. Quaid, East Molesey).
  Dutch Meat (Carcases Confiscated).
  Dutch Meat (Carcases Confiscated).
  Small Holdings (Lincolnshire).
  Small Holdings (Lincolnshire).
  Anthrax (British Isles).
  Anthrax (British Isles).
  Black Scab in Potatoes.
  Black Scab in Potatoes.

Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Egremont Urban District Council (Gas).
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
Bristol Gas.
Mountain Ash Water.
Exmouth Gas.
Exmouth Urban District Water.
Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London). [H.L.]
Tramways Orders Confirmation. [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRANSFER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
ASSAM RAILWAYS AND TRADING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
GOWERTON GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
SURBITON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Petition in favour of; of the Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of the Burgh of Partick; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE MEDITERRANEAN COMMAND.
LORD NORTHCOTE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War, with reference to the proposed appointment of a Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, whether the next Colonial Conference will meet before 1911; whether His Majesty's Government will ascertain before that date, and before appointing a Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, if the self-governing oversea Dominions approve the idea of periodical inspections of their military forces by that officer; and, if they do not, how it is proposed that his time shall be utilised for the public services after the discharge of his services at Malta.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the Question is that the next Colonial Conference does not meet before 1911. We were not proposing to ascertain before that date whether or not the Dominions approve of the idea of inspections. Our intention was to discuss that question at the Colonial Conference next year. That, we thought, would be the best opportunity of raising the question as to the advisability of making arrangements. We do not consider this particular question to be in any sense urgent, because, as noble Lords are aware, Lord Kitchener has only just completed his important tour of inspection in Australia and New Zealand, and Sir John French is at the present moment making an inspection in Canada. Therefore, so far as those Dominions are concerned, the question of making arrangements for the possible continuance of this kind of thing cannot be considered at all urgent. Consequently we did not propose to take any steps in the matter before the Colonial Conference meet next year.

927
But I would like to repeat what I said the other night so as to make it quite plain that, whatever may be the outcome of this, such inspections can only take place if invitations are given by the Dominion Governments concerned. That is the reply to the second part of the Question. With regard to the third part, we do not think that the future Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean and Inspector-General of the Oversea Forces will find any difficulty whatever in filling up his time before such arrangements, if they are made, come into force. There are, first of all, the duties that he has to carry out in the Mediterranean, and though, as we have already stated, we do not consider that they will take up the whole or anything like the whole of his time, yet they will undoubtedly fill a large part of it. His duties as Inspector-General of the Oversea Forces will occupy a considerable amount of his time, too. The principal places which he will have to visit are South Africa, West Africa, Bermuda, Ceylon, North and South China, Jamaica, Mauritius, and the Straits Settlements. Besides those there are a large number of smaller places; and, to give your Lordships an idea of the amount of time that this kind of inspectional work does take, I may mention that Sir John French left this country at the end of last year to inspect the troops in Ceylon, Hong Kong, and the Straits Settlements, and that those three inspections alone necessitated his absence from this country for nearly three months. Your Lordships will, therefore, see that this work will take a considerable amount of time. We have, as I have said, no fear whatever that the future Inspector-General of the Oversea Forces will find the fullest occupation of his time, at any rate up till the meeting of the Colonial Conference.
LORD NORTHCOTE: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in explanation of my reasons for putting down this Question. The point is that unless it is made absolutely clear that the General Commanding-in-Chief in the Mediterranean is only to visit the oversea Dominions at their request, I am afraid there may be some jealousy and apprehension aroused in those Dominions at the idea that the Home Government claimed anything in the nature of a right to send an officer out to the self-governing Dominions in the ordinary course. With
928
regard to Lord Kitchener's visit to Australia, that visit, of course, was made by the request of the Australian Government, and I am sure they were very glad to see Lord Kitchener and to benefit by the very valuable report which he made; but I am afraid that they might take some objection to the idea that from time to time any officer might be sent out at the discretion of the Home Government with the view of pulling up the military tree which they had just planted to see whether or not it was growing satisfactorily. The noble Lord has told us that the time of the General Officer commanding would be very fully occupied in ordinary circumstances—that is to say, even if he does not have to go out and inspect the oversea forces. But surely it must make a very great difference whether or not it is part of his duty to visit Australia, Canada, or Africa. My object was to ascertain whether, supposing these self-governing Dominions do not want his presence, there will be sufficient occupation to fill up his full time, and, if so, how His Majesty's Government consider that he will be equally busy whether he has to visit the self-governing Colonies or not.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has desired to make it even more clear, if that was necessary, that there could be no question of our sending from here any General Officer, however eminent, to inspect the forces of the self-governing Dominions except at their request. It is, of course, obvious to anybody who knows the conditions under which the Dominions oversea undertake their part in Imperial defence, that they reserve to themselves complete liberty both as to the character of the forces which they may think it desirable to have and also as to the training and equipment of those forces. But I think it is not less clear—and it became quite clear to us who were engaged last year in the Defence Conference which took place between the representatives of the self-governing Dominions and ourselves—that there is a real desire among them, so far as is possible under their local conditions, to attain uniformity of equipment and to a certain degree uniformity in the character of the forces of the different parts of the Empire. That being so, I think it is exceedingly probable that they

929
will welcome, not so much perhaps "periodical" inspections, to quote the word which the noble Lord used, because that word looks rather as though we were sending out a man from here at fixed periods, but inspections at such times as they may by arrangement consider necessary in order, in the first place, to obtain the advantage of a first-rate military opinion on the spot, and also with a view to maintaining and preserving at any rate that partial, even if it cannot be quite complete, uniformity of training and equipment of which I have already spoken.
My noble friend, I think, dealt with the question of time. I should be quite willing, if it should be thought there was any advantage in doing so, to inquire of the Governments of the different self-governing Dominions whether they wish to discuss this question at once or whether they would prefer to postpone consideration of it until the Imperial Conference of next year. As my noble friend has pointed out, the matter is, in that point of view, not extraordinarily urgent, owing to the fact that the forces in Australia and New Zealand have had the advantage of being inspected by Lord Kitchener, and that Sir John French is now performing the same work in Canada; and, as regards South Africa, I have no doubt the South African Government would say that they wished to be more firmly seated in the saddle before discussing the question of their own national forces in such a manner. But, as I say, if it were thought desirable I should be quite willing at any time to put that question to the self-governing Dominions.
The purely military aspect of the question has been dealt with by my noble friend. I do not think that the difficulty which the noble Lord indicated is a very real one so far as regards the occupation of the time of this officer. As I understand it, he will be fully occupied as a rule in inspecting the oversea Imperial troops and the forces in the different Crown Colonies, but there would be a margin of time which, by arrangement, would from time to time render it possible for him, when on one of those tours, also, if he received an invitation from any particular self-governing Colony, to combine an inspection of their forces as well. It seems to me it would be a matter for friendly arrangement, and I should have
930
thought that it would be easy enough to fit in from time to time, because nobody can suppose that these inspections in self-governing Colonies would have to be very numerous or frequent. It would not be difficult for him to fit them in in the course of one of the tours which he would, as an ordinary matter of duty, be taking for the inspection of the forces in those parts of the Empire which we administer from here. I think that is all I have to add to what my noble friend behind me has said.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am quite sure my noble friend's statement has made it clear that nothing will be done in this matter which will in any way hurt the feelings or invade the privileges of the self-governing Colonies. But I confess I think that the debate the other night left the position of the officer whom it is proposed to appoint in a most unsatisfactory condition, and as regards the discussion which has taken place this evening we are left in a very nebulous position as to what the functions of this officer are to be.
I would remind your Lordships that there are three points now under discussion. The first is, Does Sir John French require additional support in the matter of the inspection of garrisons which have to be inspected by him? His Majesty's Government hold that that is so, and in that case nobody, I am sure, would be more willing than your Lordships to supply or assist in supplying such inspection. Then comes the question whether this officer, who most of us would think is going to be sufficiently employed in Africa, is fit to undertake the inspection of forces in the self-governing Colonies; and the noble Lord the Under-Secretary added to the already unique functions of this remarkable appointment inspections in North and South China and also Bermuda, all of which, we understand, are to be undertaken by an officer who is to be resident at Malta, and who is to be Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean.
I ask His Majesty's Government not to indulge in vague statements about development in the Mediterranean and matters of organisation, in respect of which we have no facts whatever or anything which will guide us, but to tell us frankly and fully whether this officer who is to inspect the

931
whole of the world, and who may be called upon to spend time in Australia as well as in China and Bermuda, is going to command in Egypt and to be responsible as Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean for the command of troops in what is not a British Colony but is still under the sphere of British influence? Is he to be responsible for commanding the troops at Malta and Gibraltar? If so, I would point out that the whole existing organisation of the Army is being overturned by which administration is left in one hand at the War Office, inspection in a second, and command in a third; and I plead for that distinction. If there is anything in the present arrangement it is to keep those three functions distinct. As far as I can understand, all three are going to be jumbled together in the vaguest fashion in order to keep up this appointment of Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, for which no man alive, except the spokesman of His Majesty's Government, can say a good word or find a reliable argument. I would ask that we should be told before this appointment is made, and not afterwards, whether this multifarious assortment of duties is to be continued.
Next we should be told—what I ventured to press His Majesty's Government for on Monday last—what were the duties assigned to the Duke of Connaught which he found it impossible to discharge to the advantage of the country, and what were the duties proposed to be assigned to Lord Kitchener which he found, in his judgment and with his experience, incompatible for a Field-Marshal to discharge. May I plead that we should have a little of that clear thinking of which we have heard so much from the Secretary of State for War, and that His Majesty's Government should put into language that your Lordships can understand the answers to what seem to me the very legitimate questions I have ventured to put.
No noble LORD rising from the Government Bench to reply,
VISCOUNT MIDLETON said: I would press the Under-Secretary to kindly give me an answer with regard to the undertaking he gave a week ago that he would consider what Papers could be laid.
LORD LUCAS: The noble Viscount will remember that I undertook, the last time
932
this question was raised, that I would communicate with him as to the Papers we could lay on the Table. I had hoped to be able to give him this information to-day. I trust within a very short time to be in a position to do so. I think we shall be able to furnish a good deal of what he wants, and to lay Papers which will define clearly what we expect this officer to do.

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government (1) whether agricultural colleges and institutions which at present receive or may be entitled to receive grants from the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture may also receive grants from the Development Commissioners direct; and whether in those circumstances such institutions would be subject to the regulations of three sets of Government officials; and (2) how soon the Agricultural Commissioners will consider schemes to assist agricultural education. I also desire to move for the Minute (referred to in [Cd. 4886] of 1909) constituting a Rural Education Conference for the discussion of all questions connected with education in rural districts.
Your Lordships are aware that agricultural colleges are admittedly in great straits for Government grants. One of the greatest difficulties we had was the delimitation of the spheres of influence between the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture, and the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture was able to inform your Lordships last July that an agreement had been arrived at between the two Boards. That was followed, in September, by the Memorandum to which I venture to call your Lordships' attention. It is not my business now to go into all the details of that Memorandum, but I regret that they are not more in consonance with the Report of Lord Reay's Committee. It had one feature, however, which appeared to be very desirable, and that was that His Majesty's Government intended to constitute a Rural Education Conference for the discussion of questions relating to agricultural education, and on which there were to be representatives of the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Education, the County Councils' Association, the Royal

933
Agricultural Society, and other bodies. We were, according to this Memorandum, to have that body constituted last autumn, but it has not been set up yet, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to promise us the Minute this evening.
I should like to say a word as to why I am pressing personally for this Conference. The matter is, perhaps, a local one, but I think it is not altogether untypical. Under this Memorandum the college with which I am associated in the South of England has been turned over from the Board of Agriculture to the Board of Education, except in very small respects for outside work. The grants from the Board of Agriculture have ceased altogether, but the grants from the Board of Education have not begun, and we do not know what they are likely to be because they are wrapped up in the peculiar block-grant system to which I have already referred in your Lordships' House. We were anxious to know what we should get and we met the Board of Education officials, who told us that we had been working on wrong lines, and that in future we were to have short courses and the whole system was to be altered. The Board of Education may be right or they may be wrong, but we should like to know what money we are going to get before we carry out this local revolution. I venture to think that a great change of this sort is a matter which should be brought before this Conference, which would be a very suitable body to consider and advise upon it, and therefore I would ask the noble Earl whether he cannot give us a promise that the Conference shall be called together as soon as possible.
There is another authority besides the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture which is appearing on the horizon, namely, the Development Commissioners. As I understood the Development Act, all grants to agricultural colleges were to come either through the Board of Education or the Board of Agriculture—that is to say, through a Government Department. But I understand that the wording of the law is by no means clear on that point. At any rate, local authorities do not quite know whether they will or will not receive grants direct from the Development Commissioners, and I think it would be to the public advantage to know how the grants to agricultural col-
934
leges from the Development Commissioners are to be administered. Finally, as we hope a great deal from the money which will be received from the Development Commissioners, I would ask the noble Earl if he can hold out any hope that the Commissioners will soon get to work. I believe that a prominent member of the Commission is serving under the noble Earl the Leader of the House as Permanent Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office. No doubt that is a good thing for the Colonial Office, but we would like to know when we may hope that the Development Commissioners will get to work, and when we may see the result in some form of pecuniary assistance to agricultural education.
Moved, That there be laid before the House the Minute (referred to in [Cd. 4886] of 1909) constituting a Rural Education Conference for the discussion of all questions connected with education in rural districts.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an answer to his first Question at once. Agricultural colleges and institutions are not debarred from receiving grants direct from the Development Fund by reason of their receiving Government grants from the Board of Education or the Board of Agriculture. There is no prohibition in the Act forbidding grants in such cases, and it would be unfortunate if there were, as a number of the leading agricultural institutions in the country would be ruled out. Each case must be dealt with on its own merits. At the same time, care must evidently be taken to prevent overlapping grants and jurisdictions. Steps to this end were taken when the recent agreement was arrived at between the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education as to the limits of their respective functions in regard to agricultural education. This was laid before Parliament in a Command Paper in 1909, and under it institutions giving, first, advanced instruction, and, secondly, instruction in a special branch of agriculture, were assigned to the Board of Agriculture; and the other institutions—farm schools, county lectures, and so forth—were given to the Board of Education, except that farms in connection with farm schools, of which, I think, there are three, are to be maintained under the supervision

935
of the Board of Agriculture. As between the two Departments, therefore, there should cease to be, even if there were any in the past, any overlapping of functions.
Though it is premature to make any promises until the Development Commissioners have recommended specific proposals, it may confidently be stated that it will be the policy of the Treasury to prevent overlapping between the Commissioners and the two Departments. In considering what sums should be placed on the Estimates for agricultural education this year, the Treasury, before the appointment of the Development Commissioners, had occasion to consider the point with the Board of Agriculture, and the Departments agreed that grants for aiding original research and equipment grants for agricultural institutions should not be placed on the Board of Agriculture Vote, but should be considered as charges upon the Development Fund.
The noble Lord put a personal question to me in regard to a college in which he takes a great interest—the college at Uckfield. There are only two of these institutions in regard to which the amount of the grant to be given has not been settled, and I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord that Uckfield is one of the two. I am afraid I cannot say more at the present moment. Every application, other than those by a Government Department, for assistance from the Development Fund must be referred by the Treasury, under Section 4 (1) of the Development Act, to the Government Department concerned, who will forward it with their report thereon to the Development Commissioners. This arrangement we hope will be a further safeguard against overlapping.
In his second Question the noble Lord asks how soon the Agricultural Commissioners will consider schemes to assist agricultural education. The Agricultural Commissioners are presumably those members of the Development Commission who are interested in agriculture. Your Lordships will remember that there were originally six, but these Commissioners have been increased in number to eight. Lord Richard Cavendish is the Chairman, and Sir Francis Hopwood is the salaried Vice-Chairman. The preliminary work of reporting on schemes to assist agricultural
936
education will be done by the Departments concerned, and it is not possible to state at present how soon the Development Commissioners will be able to apply themselves to this work. I have endeavoured to make the answer as plain as possible, and I hope it will to some extent be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: May I ask whether the noble Earl proposes to lay on the Table the Papers from which he has been quoting at some length in the course of his reply?
EARL CARRINGTON: Yes, with pleasure.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl has answered the latter part of my noble friend's Question as regards the Conference to be held to consider this question of agricultural education. In the Minute which is in your Lordships' hands there occurs a paragraph to the effect that the Conference will be constituted by a later Minute to be issued in the course of the autumn—that was the autumn of last year. We are now well advanced in the year 1910, and I should like to hear from the noble Earl when this Conference is to meet. I do not think that the Board of Education or the Board of Agriculture can complain that those who are interested in agricultural education have not brought this matter before His Majesty's Government. I have before me a number of Questions asked in the other House upon it. In March last a Question was put by Mr. Bathurst and replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, Mr. Trevelyan, in which an assurance was given that if we would wait a little longer we would find that there would be no delay in the Conference being held. Then on April 12 Mr. Bathurst was reassured by Mr. Trevelyan that every effort was being made to expedite the Conference. Again, as lately as the 15th of this month the President of the Board of Education, Mr. Runciman, stated that the noble Earl hoped to be in a position to make the promised announcement in the course of a few days. Those few days having elapsed, my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton considered that it was time the point should be raised again and an endeavour made to ascertain from the noble Earl why, notwithstanding those

937
assurances, nothing has been done to appoint this Conference which has been promised now for upwards of a year.
During the period I was President of the Board of Education I took great interest in the agricultural education of the children in rural elementary schools, and I did so for this reason. I considered that if we were to retain the children as agriculturists on the land in the future the objects and interests of agriculture could not be too early instilled into their minds. I remember quite well appealing to my noble friend Lord Onslow, who was then Minister for Agriculture, and he placed at the disposal of the Board of Education a very valuable gentleman, Mr. Dymond, who assisted us in the instruction of these children in all matters of country life. Therefore, having seen this system working well, I am anxious to see an efficient scheme of agricultural education set up in the rural schools of this country. It stands to reason that the curriculum in a school situated in a rural district should be different from that in an urban school, and that children attending rural elementary schools should be interested in the industry to which it is hoped they will eventually devote their interest. Time is flying, and those children who are waiting for agricultural instruction in rural elementary schools may be leaving those schools before having an opportunity of deriving that benefit which my noble friend had intended should be placed at their disposal. It is because I think no time should be lost that I regret that the noble Earl has not given a decided answer to the question as to the holding of this Conference. The noble Earl's colleagues in another place have repeatedly promised the representatives of agriculture that the Conference should take place "shortly," yet the Conference seems to be further off than ever.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, before my noble friend says a word in reply to what has just fallen from the noble Marquess opposite, I should like to make one observation with regard to the speech of the noble Lord who initiated this discussion. My noble friend behind me dealt with the general question, but I think I can venture once more to reassure the noble Lord on this question of overlapping. He spoke of a third Department being brought in to assist in administering affairs which are already administered by
938
two Departments. My noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture pointed out that so far as it is possible to avoid overlapping in a mixed subject such as this particular kind of technical agricultural education the arrangements now proposed will avoid that defect. Of course, it is obvious that where you have to deal with a subject like education, which is under the control of one Department, and agriculture, which is under the control of another Department, you can hardly in a sense avoid some double action, even though you may do your best to avoid overlapping. But so far as the Development Commissioners are concerned, they will not introduce any third element which could be described as overlapping. What I take it would happen would be this, that in the event of a request being made to the Development Commissioners for a grant the matter, as my noble friend behind me pointed out, would become the subject of discussion between the Departments concerned and the Development Commissioners. The Development Commissioners, in considering it, would naturally take into consideration the whole scheme of such an institution as an agricultural college, and before deciding whether they would make a grant, with the administration of which they should not concern themselves, they would have to be satisfied, no doubt, on this question of overlapping, among others, and on the general merits of the particular case.
Then the noble Lord opposite spoke about the position of Sir Francis Hopwood, the Vice-Chairman of the Development Commission, on which I ought, perhaps, to say a word. It is quite true that Sir Francis is still acting as Permanent Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office. That is an arrangement which, of course, cannot be permanent, but it is necessitated by the special rearrangements necessary in view of the creation of a new Department. If the noble Lord will reflect he will remember that it very frequently happens that for a time some important Civil Servant holding the position of Undersecretary is employed on work outside his office, as, for instance, on the work of a Royal Commission, which takes sometimes a considerable part of the day, and in an office such as the Colonial Office special arrangements have, of course, to be made to see that an undue burden is not thrown upon the individual concerned.

939
I can assure the noble Lord that so far as the present temporary arrangement is concerned, we do our best to see that Sir Francis Hopwood is not overburdened. He takes his share of his work at the Colonial Office, and is also able, I am glad to say, to give such time as is required in its initial stage for the work of the Development Commission.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must apologise for not having answered the noble Lord's third Question, but I did not understand that he put all three Questions together. I may say that, far from complaining of, we are indebted to noble Lords opposite and members of the Opposition in another place for the co-operation and assistance they have given us in this matter, and we value very much Lord Londonderry's practical work in days gone by in this direction, which I can assure him is in no way forgotten. The Minute for the Conference was signed by myself on Saturday, and I believe it has also been signed by my right hon. friend Mr. Runciman, and will be issued without delay. It looks, on the face of it, as if there had been a good deal of unnecessary delay, but I think noble Lords opposite will see that it was not easy to get the answers all at once. We issued invitations to the
940
various associations who are to be represented at the Conference. Those invitations went out on January 15 of the present year, and the last reply was received as lately as the 9th of this month. It is a very large Conference. Forty-two or forty-three noblemen and gentlemen have consented to serve, and I hope that the names will receive the public appreciation which in my judgment they so thoroughly deserve. I will lay these Papers at once on the Table of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I presume that the Conference will begin sitting as soon as possible? That is important.
EARL CARRINGTON: I will do all I can to get the Conference to meet as soon as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 59.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.