Sitting of 14 June 1911

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The Clerk at the Table (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting:—
Whereupon Mr. Emmott, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. Deputy-Speaker laid upon the Table Report, from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Penllwyn Railway Bill [Lords].
Brighton, Hove, and District Railless Traction Bill [Lords].
Chapel Whaley and District Gas Bill [Lords].
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Deputy-Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),— Mr. Deputy-Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Winchester Corporation (Electric Supply) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.
Swansea Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Lloyd's Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL (BY ORDER).
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I have got the Amendments to this Bill. There seems to be a number of other Amendments in addition to those which have been read out, and it would seem to be only respectful to the Lords that we should consider them all.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It has been the practice for a long time to read any two Amendments when there are a number, and the usual course has been adopted in this case.
Mr. BOOTH: The two Amendments that have been referred to by the Clerk are more or less drafting Amendments. The principal one to omit Clause 13 altogether and substitute a new Clause 13 is the substantial Amendment.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to object he can object. Otherwise we are adopting the usual course in putting the question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
Mr. ESSEX: What are we here for when alterations have been made, if we have no knowledge of the Amendments? I have no doubt that the practice is being followed, but the deletion of one Clause and the substitution of another does seem to me to be a substantial alteration.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Amendments can be seen by any Member in the Vote Office before they are passed in this House.
Mr. BOOTH: Might I explain that I personally have taken the trouble to bring these Amendments to the notice of the Chairman of the Committee, and I have asked him to peruse them, and he has advised me that I may allow them to go through without objection.
Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred.

CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
Return ordered, of Copy of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Acts, indicating the extensions and amendments thereof proposed by the Smallholders (Scotland) Bill. —[The Lord Advocate.]

POST OFFICE (MEDICAL CHARGES).
The following notices of Motion for returns stood on in the Paper in the name of Mr. Edmund Harvey:—
No. 1. Post Office (Medical Charges)— Return showing remuneration paid to Medical Officers for attendance on—

(a) postmen (staff), (b) postmen (auxiliaries), (c) sorters, (d) telegraphists, (e) telegraph messengers, (f) general clerical staff, (g) male telephone employés, (h) female telephone employés, (i) female clerks (Savings Bank Department, (j) female clerks (counter and telegraph), in each of the following districts and towns:—

Large towns: (1) London Postal Area, (2) Bradford), (3) Glasgow, (4) Dublin, (5) Belfast, (6) Portsmouth, (7) Bristol, (8) Liverpool, (9) Manchester, (10) Newcastle, (11) Leeds;

Smaller towns: (12) Guildford (Surrey), (13) Cirencester, (14) King's Lynn, (15) Hereford, (16) Canterbury;

1508

Rural areas: (17) Yorkshire (West Riding), (18) Gloucester, County of, (19) Cumberland, County of, (20) Suffolk, County of;

Special rate, if any, paid for official examinations of each class (a to j) mentioned above, and the scale of pay in cases including the cost of drugs.
No. 2. Police (Medical Officers),—Return showing remuneration paid to Medical Officers for attendance on the Police Staff in each of the following towns and districts:—

Large towns: (1) Metropolitan Police Area, (2) City of London, (3) Leeds, (4) Bristol, (5) Portsmouth, (6) Derby, (7) Blackburn, (8) Liverpool, (9) Birmingham;

Smaller towns: (10) Reigate (Surrey), (11) Shrewsbury, (12) Oxford, (13) Stratford - on - Avon, (14) Saffron Walden;

Rural areas: (15) Bedford County Police, (16) Devonshire County Police, (17) Suffolk County Police, (18) Carmarthenshire County Police, (19) Lancashire County Police, (20) West Riding County Police;

and Statement of cases where the payment includes drugs; where the rates vary with the grade of the Police official; and where a special rate, if any, is paid for the official examination of the Police Staff.
Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I beg to move for No. 2 return—Police (Medical Officers).
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that No. 1 is agreed to, but not No. 2. Does the hon. Gentleman desire to move it?
Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I received no communication with regard to No. 2. received one with regard to No. 1.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): There is no objections to No. 1.
Return No. 1 ordered.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Submarines (Officers' Qualifications).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an officer who has once been notified in the Navy List as qualified in submarine boat duties is regarded as being permanently so qualified, or whether the qualification, when it has been earned, covers only a limited period?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): An officer who has once qualified in submarine duties is regarded as being permanently so qualified.

  Carpenters (Royal Navy).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what was the number of carpenter lieutenants and carpenters authorised to be borne on the active list of the Navy; what are the numbers actually borne; whether the shortage of carpenters is prejudicial to the sea-going efficiency of the Fleet; and whether any steps, either temporary or permanent, have been taken to bring the numbers borne up to those authorised?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is 300, and to the second part, 270. As stated in the reply to the question of the hon. Member for North Kensington on 22nd May, there is no shortage of carpenters in the Royal Navy. The number borne on the list is regulated by requirements, and not by the establishment authorised, which represents the maximum number which the Admiralty has power to make if they are required.

  Armoured Ships (Great Britain and Germany).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that on the 31st March last Great Britain had 14 armoured ships under construction, including two from the Dominions, to 12 for Germany; whether he is also aware of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 16th March, 1909, that we could no longer take to ourselves the consoling and comforting reflection that we have the advantage over Germany in the speed and the rate at which ships can be constructed; and whether, in view of these facts, it is his intention to propose an immediate increase in our shipbuilding programme?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The number given in the first part of the question is incorrect so far as this country is concerned. There were 15 and not 14 armoured ships under construction on the 31st March last. With this exception, the answers to the first and second parts of the question are in the affirmative, and the answer to the third part is in the negative.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied from these figures that we are maintaining our maritime superiority?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need entertain any apprehensions. We are making ample provision for the national security.
  Mr. BYLES: Having regard to the pending arbitration between Great Britain and America could the hon. Gentleman not see his way to decrease the shipbuilding programme?

  Kola Nuts (Taxation, Nigeria).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether new or increased taxation has been placed on kola nuts in the Gold Coast or Nigerian Colonies; and, if so, on what grounds does he justify a tax on the food and trade of the natives of these colonies?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): There has been no recent increase in the import duties on kola nuts.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure himself that there is no intention to increase this tax, and will he take personal note of the fact that, if imposed, it would be a tax upon the food of the people and the trade of the country?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I will make every effort necessary in order to secure that we shall have no such proposal. I cannot accept the hon. Member's description of Kola as a food. I am told that it is a stimulant, and therefore aphrodisiac.

  Trinidad.
  Mr. POINTERasked if the Secretary for the Colonies had now received from Trinidad the Industrial Training Ordinance which prevents a skilled artisan from suing his employer in any court of the Colony for any wages higher than those of an unskilled labourer unless he holds a certificate of the training board; and, if so, whether it had yet received his assent
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Ordinance has been received, and His Majesty has been advised not to exercise his powers of disallowance with regard to it. A further Ordinance is in contemplation amending the provisions of Section 11 to which the question refers.
  Mr. POINTERasked for what purpose the Government farm in Trinidad was established; what is the amount of products produced annually; how many head of various cattle are raised; how much

  1511
  milk, butter, cheese, eggs, etc., and what other kinds of products; how they are marketed, in open market or otherwise, or by both methods, and, if the latter, in what proportion; whether any of the products find their way to the Governor's table; and, if so, to what value and upon what terms?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Government farm in Trinidad was established to improve the breed of stock; its receipts were $9,555 in the year 1909–10; there were 539 head of cattle; milk brought in $4,865, butter $493, poultry $137, eggs $97, and miscellaneous receipts $51; the balance is accounted for by sales of stock, pasture fees, and stud fees. Sales of stock are conducted by auction, but I am not aware in what manner the dairy products and eggs are marketed; the bulk is taken by the public hospitals and other public institutions. The Governor purchased 7,007 quarts of milk.
  Mr. POINTERasked how many indentured East Indian labourers were during 1910 employed in Trinidad; and how many received the minimum, promised them in India, of 5s. 2½ per week, or £13 12s. per year; how many failed to reach that amount; how many received £15 per year; and how many received £18 per year or more; whether he is aware that most estates keep two sets of pay sheets, one for use at the pay office and another for official inspectors showing increased amounts paid, and that owners in Trinidad of sugar and cocoa plantations, employing indentured labour, when disposing of their properties transfer their indentured labourers in the same way as goods and chattels; and would he say what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have not at present received the returns from Trinidad for the year 1910, and am, therefore, unable to answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question in full. But it is scarcely accurate to suggest that emigrants recruited in India are promised a minimum wage of 5s. 2½d. per week. The terms of service offered to intending immigrants provide that able-bodied emigrants shall be paid at the rate of 1s. 0½d. for each day's work; and the amount earned in a week depends upon the number of days an immigrant actually works; the stipulation is that he shall have the opportunity of earning the sum in question. With
  1512
  regard to the latter part of the question, I shall be happy to investigate the matter, if my hon. Friend has any information tending to substantiate the allegations which he has made and will place it at my disposal.
  Mr. POINTERasked the exact quantity of sugar on which export duty has been paid by sugar planters of Trinidad, employing indentured East Indian immigrants, towards the reimbursement of expenses for the collection and introduction of immigrants during the years 1908, 1909, and 1910; the exact quantity of cane cultivated by cane farmers and sold during these years to sugar factories in which such immigrants are employed; and whether separate accounts are kept in such factories of the quantity of sugar manufactured and exported, and an account given to the local government of such portion, if any, in which indentured labour is not employed?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Export duty was paid on 792,366 cwt. of sugar in 1908–9, and on 906,600 cwt. in 1909. The figures for 1910 are not available. There is no means of differentiating between sugar produced by indentured and that produced by unindentured labour. I have no statistics as to the amount of cane cultivated by cane farmers and sold by them to sugar factories in which immigrants are employed.
  Mr. POINTERasked if the Colonial Secretary's attention had been drawn Lo the method employed by the Government of Trinidad in dealing with applications for prospecting concessions on the Morne l'Enfer Reserve; whether the decision to offer plots of 500 acres was, instead of being published in the gazette, kept unduly secret, and that, instead of being offered in open competition, leases were allotted in order of application to those who were fortunate enough to receive early intimation of the Government's intention; whether he was aware that the result of this method has resulted in prospectors Obtaining a lease for £5 and immediately reselling for £5,000; whether, in view of this loss of thousands of pounds to the Trinidad exchequer, he will cause full inquiry to be made and arrange that in future concessions full and public notice shall be given and that the full value of the lease shall be secured for the Colonial treasury?
  Mr. HARCOURTNearly two years ago the Governor reported that numerous applications for prospecting licences over

  1513
  the Morne l'Enfer District had been received, but that these applications referred to lands which overlapped each other entirely or in part. With my predecessor's approval, the Governor directed a resurvey of the district, and decided that, on the completion of the survey, licences for blocks of 500 acres should be allotted according to priority of application. There has been no secrecy and no favouritism, and I see no reason for issuing any instructions to the Governor in the matter. The sum of £5 is the usual deposit required with all applications, and has nothing to do with the consideration received by the Government for a mining lease.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in fixing the medical expenditure at 6s. per head of insured persons under his insurance scheme, he has obtained information from the Post Office, police authorities, and similar public bodies, as to how much they pay per head on their employé;s for medical attendance; and whether he can state how his scale compares with theirs?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The information was obtained from a variety of sources, but a comparison of the scales of payment in the cases mentioned would be misleading.

    EMPLOYERS' PAYMENTS.
    Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether payments made by employers under the National Insurance Bill will be allowed as a charge against profits for Income Tax, or whether they will be disallowed, as is at present the case with hospital and other subscriptions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham on the 25th May.

    Russia and Siberia (Revival in Trade).
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he was watching the revival in trade which is taking place in Russia and Siberia, and the opportunities that may be presented to British traders to secure a portion of this trade; if he has had any Commissioners to make reports to him on the subject; and if he proposes to take any steps to supply
    1514
    information to merchants of the opportunities that may be offered of increased trade?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am well aware of the expansion that has taken place in the foreign trade of Russia in recent years. Information with regard to trade possibilities in Russia is constantly received both through His Majesty's Commercial Attaché and His Majesty's Consular Officers, and is either published in the "Board of Trade Journal" or communicated to Chambers of Commerce and interested firms. I find that during the past financial year 278 reports with regard to Russian trade were published in the "Board of Trade Journal." His Majesty's Commercial Attaché (who in 1903 carried out for the Board of Trade a special commercial inquiry in Siberia) periodically visits the principal Chambers of Commerce in this country with a view to affording information and assistance to British merchants engaged in or contemplating trade with Russia.
    Mr. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that immense possibilities are opened up for trade in Russia and Siberia, and may I ask if his Department is paying the very closest attention to that fact in order that greater facilities may be given to our trade
    Mr. BUXTON: I think the answer which I have given shows that we are giving very careful attention to the matter.

    Chairmen and Directors of Companies (Salaries).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) Whether the annual Returns of public companies to his Department contain the names of the chairman, vice-chairman, and directors, with the remuneration of salary paid to such persons; and, if so, whether he will give details for 1909 and 1910 of such payments in each case of the Aldridge Colliery Company, Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Company, Gloucester Railway Carriage and Waggon Company, Great Western Railway Company, West London Extension Railway Company, Legeh Concessions Syndicate, Limited, Metropolitan Bank of England and Wales, and Messrs. Baldwins, Limited; (2) Whether the annual Returns of public companies to his Department contain the names of their chairman, vice-chairman, and directors, with the amount

    1515
    of the remuneration or salary paid to such persons; whether he will give details for 1909 and 1910 of such payments in each case of the African City Properties Trust, Limited, Atbassar Copper Fields, Limited, Manitoba Mortgage and Investment Company, Siberian Syndicate, Limited, Spassky Copper Mine, Limited, and Whitehall Court, Limited?
    Mr. BUXTON: The annual returns of public companies to the Board of Trade do not contain the remuneration or salary paid to the chairman, vice-chairman, and directors, and I am consequently unable to give the details asked for.
    Mr. J. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us information in connection with directorships, as to whether one of the emoluments is a free pass over railways?
    Mr. BUXTON: I think that is the rule. Though I cannot say, I believe it is so.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the hon. Member for the Bewdley Division of Worcestershire, and will he also ask the hon. Member for—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the remuneration received by the directors, may I ask whether it is possible for his Department to compile from its records the names of Members of this House who use their position as Members to become professional company promoters?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That also does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman said he could not give the remuneration. I want to know whether he can give the names of those Members, and how many of them are opposed to payment of Members.

    Labour Exchanges
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the number of labour exchanges there are open at the present time in Lancashire, the number of the staff in each, the amount paid in wages and salaries per month in each, and the yearly rental of each exchange?
    Mr. BUXTON: There are thirty-eight labour exchanges open in Lancashire at the present time, with a total staff of
    1516
    167 officers. The amount paid in wages and salaries is £1,182 per month, and the amount paid in rent is £3,008 per annum. If there is any particular exchange about which my hon. Friend desires further details, perhaps he will communicate with me.

    Old Hill (Staffordshire) Postal Facilities.
    Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a petition, with 207 signatures attached, asking for the establishment of a sub-post-office in Station Road, Old Hill, Staffordshire; and whether, in view of the fact that the district is a populous one and that there is no post-office between Blackheath and Old Hill, a distance of three miles, he will grant the facilities which are asked for?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A memorial asking for an additional post office in the neighbourhood of Station Road, Old Hill, has been received. The hon. Member has apparently been misinformed as to the circumstances, as there are two post offices at distances of less than half a mile in opposite directions from the locality in question. These adequately provide for the present requirements of Old Hill, and I should not therefore be justified in complying with the request.

    Combined Drainage (Position of Local Authorities).
    Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the state of the law with regard to sewers and drains, by which local authorities are placed in an unfair position as regards combined drainage; whether he has received resolutions on the subject from many municipal corporations and urban district councils; and whether he will undertake to bring in a Bill dealing with the subject and to press it through in the present Session?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I am aware of the difficulties arising out of the present state of the law on this subject, and I have received resolutions from a number of local authorities with respect to it. I could not, however, promise to introduce legislation dealing with the matter this Session.

    Government Contracts (Rate of Wages).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as represent-

    1517
    ing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, when inquiring into the rate of wages paid by Mr. Musgrove, contractor, of Carlisle, who is executing work at certain Government buildings in that city, the rate of wage paid to workmen engaged on other than Government work by this firm was ascertained; and, if not, will he make further inquiries, as it is alleged that this employer pays many of his workmen considerably less than the standard rate?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): In conformity with the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution, the Office of Works undertakes to see that all men employed on its contracts shall be Laid the rates of wages current in the district. The Department satisfied itself that this was the case at Carlisle, and the First Commissioner is not in a position without further information to undertake the further inquiries suggested.
    Mr. J. WARD: In deciding the current rate does the right hon. Gentleman's Department first of all take into account the agreed rate between the employers and workmen of the locality?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Yes, I think so, though I am not quite sure.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Are inquiries made or is any notice taken when workmen paid at other works are not paid in accordance with the standard rate. Suppose the current rate is 8d. per hour, and it is found that the men employed by another firm working on other contracts are paid 7d., is that firm considered a fair firm?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: If information is brought to the Office of Works inquiries are made.

    Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in preparation for the promised measure of full self-government for Ireland, he will have prepared and issued as a Parliamentary Paper an impartial synopsis of the substantive findings of all the members of the Financial Relations Commission; and, if not, will he state the reason for refusing?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No, Sir. Hon. Members can read the report for themselves and draw their own conclusions, if they have not already done so.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will a new edition of the report be published?
    Mr. GINNELLasked what witnesses, other than Treasury witnesses, are to be examined by the committee investigating Ireland's financial relations for the sole benefit of the Cabinet; will the witnesses be selected by the Treasury or appointed by Irish local bodies; when and where will the examination be held; and will their evidence also be kept secret?
    Mr. BIRRELL: These are matters for the committee themselves.
    Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask how the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile that with his statement that the question of Home Rule will depend upon what the committee reports?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I made no such statement.

    Estates Commissioners' Annual Report.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether any office reason exists this year, as did last year, to delay the issue of the Estates Commissioners' Annual Report for six months after its completion; and, if so, what the reason is, when the Report will be completed, and when it will be issued?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Report has not yet been completed, but it will be finished by the end of next month, when it will be immediately presented to Parliament. No reason exists for delay in issuing the Report at once after completion.

    National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of pensionable teachers who left the service of the Board of National Education, Ireland, from 1900 to 1910, inclusive, and the number of these who were given full pensions, reduced pensions, and no pensions, respectively; whether he is aware that the cause of many leaving the service was that their activity in teaching Gaelic was not then approved; and, now that the educational value of Gaelic is recognised, whether any inducement will be offered to bring such teachers back to the service?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The number of pensionable teachers who left the service of the Board of National Education from 1900 to 1910, inclusive, is 2,068. Of these 1,098 received the maximum pension of their class and 970 received pensions less than the maximum. No pensionable teachers

    1519
    left the service without pensions during this period. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the negative.

    Staffordshire Territorial Association (Drill Hall).
    Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Staffordshire Territorial Association, having abolished the Artillery battery at Brierley Hill, are now proposing to sell the drill hall there; whether he is aware that certain negotiations have been proceeding with a view to establishing a company of Territorial Infantry at Brierley Hill; and whether he will take steps to prevent the sale of the drill hall being proceeded with until the question of the establishment of an infantry company is decided?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): This drill hall is not War Department or association property, but is vested in trustees. As things stand at present it is doubtful if the association has any jurisdiction over the property. Negotiations are still proceeding with a view to establishing an infantry company at Brierley Hill, and further inquiries will be made as to the position of the association in regard to the property. So far as the War Department is aware, it could not intervene to prevent the sale of the drill hall.

    Criminal Aliens.
    Mr. HODGEasked the Home Secretary if he will state what number of criminals during each year between 1907 and 1910, inclusive, came from America, Germany, and Russia?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The only figures I can give relate to aliens received into prison on conviction, and the separate nationalities are available only for the years 1909 and 1910. They are as follows:—During 1909 the prisoners claiming birth in America numbered 622; those claiming birth in Russia, 517; and those claiming birth in Germany, 455. For 1910 the figures are:— America, 607; Russia, 394; Germany, 357.
    Mr. HODGEasked upon what basis the alien population is calculated for the purpose of working out the percentage which alien criminals bear to that population?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as the Home Office is concerned, no attempt has been made to calculate the percentage which alien criminals bear to the alien population; and I do not think we have at present any trustworthy materials on which such a calculation could be made.
    Mr. HODGEasked what percentage of criminals belong to American, German, and Russian aliens, respectively, living in this country after deducting the various offences connected with the white slave traffic?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We have at present no trustworthy returns of American, German, and Russian aliens living in this country, and no percentages based on such returns can therefore be given. In any case no useful result could be attained by deducting from the records of alien crime the offences indicated in the question.

    Plague in India.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. Ginnell to ask the following question, which appeared on the Order Paper: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state the recorded number of deaths and the estimated total number of deaths, respectively, from plague in India in each of the last ten years, and in the whole period?
    Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask whether the answer to question No. 24 would be of such a character that the Government are ashamed to give one?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Montagu) was not in the House when the question was first asked. I called upon the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell) to ask his question again so as to get the answer.
    Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask it now.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have to apologise to the hon. Member for not being present. I propose to circulate the answer with the Votes, as it includes a long column of figures.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. GINNELL: This question has been on the Paper three weeks. I have been asked to postpone it. I have done so, and I ask for the answer now.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am going to give the hon. Member his answer to-day. It is customary with a long series of figures to circulate the answer with the Votes.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the hon. Member entitled to conceal the answer when it is ready?
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not concealing the answer. It is usual when a Minister thinks his reply to a question would take up too much of the time of the House to allow the Minister to have it circulated with the Votes.
    Mr. GINNELL: Half an hour of the time for questions remains yet.

    Naval Review.
    Mr. FALLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice. Why a turbine steamer of such length as the "Rewa" was chosen for the accommodation of the Members of this House; if it is not her length which is said to prevent this steamer from following the Royal yacht, and whether on the last occasion of a Naval Review the steamer selected for the Members of this House did follow the Royal yacht and Admiralty yacht; and why such a precedent has been departed from; whether the "Rewa" will be anchored in the line, and so afford Members of this House small opportunity of viewing the Fleet; and whether it is not still possible to provide a ship, or even two ships, which can follow the Admiralty yacht; and whether any facilities for landing from the "Rewa" or other steamer will be afforded to those Members who may wish to land at Portsmouth instead of being carried back to Southampton?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: On the last occasion of a Naval Review one ship only was chartered by the Admiralty for the accommodation of guests. Nine vessels have been chartered for the accommodation of guests at the forthcoming Naval Review, of which two, the "Rewa" and the "Eskimo" will carry Members of this House. It will be quite impossible for those nine vessels to follow in procession on account of there being insufficient turning room. As was stated by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, they will steam through the lines before taking up their berths.
    Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask why vessels of such length were chartered and why not vessels of a reasonable length?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a question of the number of guests we have to accommodate with comfort, and as far as the length
    1522
    is concerned, the "Adriatic" was considerably longer than the vessels to which I am now referring.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Has the number of Members of the House of Commons increased since the last occasion
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; but the number of guests has so much that we require nine vessels. On the last occasion there was only one vessel, the "Adriatic," and now that there are nine we could not take the responsibility of taking those nine vessels down the lines in procession. They will, as I say, steam through the lines before taking up their berths.
    Mr. PICKERSGILL: May I ask why a larger number of guests have to be accommodated in those nine vessels than on the last occasion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of the guests for the review on the 24th comprise Members of the House of Commons and the guests each Member is entitled to bring with him, the Members of the House of Lords and their guests, the Indian Princes, the Colonial Representatives, and the Press, who will now form part of the general guests—they were last time rather badly treated, inadvertently—all those make up a much larger number to be provided for than on the occasion to which I have referred in 1909.
    Mr. FALLE: My question referred only to Members of Parliament. We naturally wish that our guests should be properly treated, but that is no reason why the House of Commons should on that occasion be neglected.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Members of the House of Commons going down in the "Rewa" and "Eskimo" will go down the lines before taking up their berths. I understand the hon. Gentleman suggests that we should let those two vessels take part in the procession, but then that would be a rather invidious discrimination. I am afraid I cannot put any slight on the House of Lords. Then there are the Colonial Representatives, and we would wish to treat them in precisely the same way, and the members of the Press. Taking it altogether we cannot discriminate. The whole nine must go down or none at all. It would not be safe to send the whole nine vessels down the lines.
    Mr. ESSEX: If these vessels can go down before, why can they not go down after?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Taking up their berths prior to the Review proper will be a much more leisurely proceeding. To go down after the Royal yacht would, in my opinion, be not safe. The hon. Member s proposal is that these vessels should go down after the Review. The length of the vessels, the narrowness of the line, and the difficulty of turning vessels of this character make it impossible for that to be done.
    Mr. STANIER: Is it only the Admiralty yacht that goes down with the King's yacht?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly not. The Trinity yacht goes first, by ancient tradition; then the "Victoria and Albert," then the "Alexandra," and then the "Enchantress."

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL (CENTRAL DIVISION) PETITION.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER informed the House that he had received from the Judges appointed to try the several Election Petitions the following Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Central Division of the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull:—
  In the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division.
  The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
  The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
  Election for the Central Division of the Borough of Kingston - upon - Hull, holden on the 7th day of December, 1910.
  Between Marriott Morley, Charles Wray, and Benjamin Musgrave.
  Petitioners.
  and
  Sir Henry Seymour King, K.C.I. E.
  Respondent.
  To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  We, Sir Edward Ridley, Knight, and Sir Thomas Townsend Bucknill, Knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales, do hereby certify, in pursuance of the said Acts, that, upon the 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 29th, 30th, and 31st days of May and the 1st day of June, 1911,
  1524
  we duly held a Court at the Sessions Court, Hull, for the trial of and did try the Election Petition for the Central Division of the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull, in the county of York, between Marriott Morley, Charles Wray, and Benjamin Musgrave, Petitioners, and Sir Henry Seymour King, K.C.I.E., Respondent. And in further pursuance of the said Acts we certify that, at the conclusion of the said trial, we determined that the said Sir Henry Seymour King, K.C.I.E., being the Member whose election and return were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected and returned, and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
  And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—

  1. That the corrupt practice of bribery was proved to have been committed by the said Sir Henry Seymour King, K.C.I.E., who was a candidate at the said Election, but, with the excepton of the corrupt practice of bribery committed by the said Sir Henry Seymour King, K.C.I.E., as aforesaid, no corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any candidate at the said Election.

  2. That no person other than the said Sir Henry Seymour King, K.C.I.E., who was proved to have been guilty of the corrupt practice of bribery as aforesaid, was proved to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice.

  3. That corrupt or illegal practices were not proved to have been nor have we reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the said Election (or at all).

  4. That no candidate has been proved to have been guilty by his Agents of any corrupt or illegal practice at the said Election.

  5. That the said Sir Henry Seymour King, K.C.I.E., has been furnished with a certificate of indemnity.

  A Copy of the Evidence and of our Judgments, taken by the Deputies of the Shorthand Writer to the House of Commons, accompanies this our Certificate.
  Dated the 13th day of June 1911.
  EDWARD RIDLEY.
  T. T. BUCKNILL.
  And the said Certificate and Report were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
  Copy of Shorthand Writer's Notes laid upon the Table by Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  SUPERANNUATION (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY) BILL.
  "To amend the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Superannuation) Act, 1865, and the Queen Anne's Bounty (Superannuation) Act, 1870," presented by Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSON; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.

  NAVAL PRIZE BILL.
  "To consolidate, with amendments, the enactments relating to Naval Prize of War," presented by Sir EDWARD GREY; to be read a second time upon Monday, 26th
  June, and to be printed.

  SECOND PEACE CONFERENCE (CONVENTIONS) BILL.
  "To make such amendments in the Law with respect to International Tribunals, Neutrality, and other matters as are necessary to enable certain Conventions to be carried into effect," presented by Sir EDWARD GREY; to be read, a second time upon Monday, 26th June, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WAYS AND MEANS).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings in Committee of Ways and Means, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 48.

Division No. 248.]

AYES.

[3.25 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Fenwick, Charles

Menzies, Sir Walter

Adamson, William

Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Millar, James Duncan

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

France, Gerald Ashburner

Molteno, Percy Alport

Armitage, Robert

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Morgan, George Hay

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Morrell, Philip

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Glanville, Harold James

Neilson, Francis

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Goldstone, Frank

Norman, Sir Henry

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barton, William

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

O'Grady, James

Beale, W. P.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendaie)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bentham, G. J.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Helme, Norval Watson

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Bowerman, C. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Brace, William

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Pringle, William M. R.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Higham, John Sharp

Rendall, Atheistan

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hinds, John

Richards, Thomas

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.H.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Byles, William Pollard

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Cameron, Robert

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hudson, Walter

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Robinson, Sidney

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Roch, Waiter F, (Pembroke)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Johnson, W.

Rowlands, James

Clough, William

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Scanlan, Thomas

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Scott, A. MacCailum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Kellaway, Frederick George

Seely, Colonel, Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Crooks, William

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Shortt, Edward

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Melton)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)

Leach, Charles

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dawes, James Arthur

Lewis, John Herbert

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Logan, John William

Sutton, John E.

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tennant, Harold John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Callum, John M.

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

M`Micking, Major Gilbert

Toulmin, George

Essex, Richard Walter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Esslemont, George Birnie

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Falconer, James

Martin, Joseph

Wadsworth, J.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Webb, H.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Wardle, George J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Waring, Walter

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major-William

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Fell, Arthur

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A.

Baird, John Lawrence

Fisher, W. Haynes

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Gilmour, Captain John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goldsmith, Frank

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Barnston, H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Snowden, Philip

Bathurst, Hon. Alien B. (Giouc., E.)

Hardy, Laurence

Spear, John Ward

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Stewart, Gershom

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Swift, Rigby

Bigland, Alfred

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Diwn, N.)

Bird, Alfred

Jowett, Frederick William

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

Lansbury, George

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

Campion, W. R.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Carlile, Edward Hildred

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

Croft, Henry Page

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Doughty, Sir George

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

G. Lloyd and Mr. Stanier.

SUPPLY [12th Allotted Day.]
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [12th Allotted Day.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    ESTIMATES 1911–12 [VOTE ON ACCOUNT].
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,895,000, 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, 1912, namely:—

    CIVIL SERVICES.

    Class II.

    £

    Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

    30,000

    Class I.

    Royal Palaces

    10,000

    Osborne

    2,000

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    20,000

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    8,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    13,000

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    15,000

    Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

    15,000

    Revenue Buildings

    80,000

    Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain

    20,000

    Public Buildings, Great Britain

    100,000

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    25,000

    Harbours under the Board of Trade

    10,000

    Peterhead Harbour

    3,000

    Rates on Government Property

    200,000

    Mr. EDWARD STRAUSS: I beg to move, "That Item, Class II., Vote 11 (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries), be reduced by £100."
    In referring to the administration and working of the Small Holdings Act, I must of necessity traverse familiar ground which has been surveyed in this House on many previous occasions. I would say at once that I believe that the large majority of Members of this Parliament, just as were the large majority of the Members of the 1906 Parliament, are in favour of small holdings. At the same time we cannot, and we must not, close our eyes to the fact that there is a very powerful opposition in certain quarters to the proper-working and administration of that measure. The matter which I particularly-

    1531
    wish to bring to the notice of the hon. Baronet, who represents the Board of Agriculture here, is in reference to the administration of that Act in North Berkshire, in a constituency that I had the honour to represent in the 1906 Parliament. Anyone who is not intimately acquainted with that particular part of the country would really believe that the Berkshire County Council are anxious and willing to further the small holdings movement, because shortly after the passing of the Act in 1907 that county council made a great splash, and purchased two farms, comprising about 1,000 acres. They found they had some difficulty in letting these two farms for small holdings.
    In fact, that had to go to the extent of advertising for small holders. On purchasing these two farms they promptly turned out the two tenants that had been in possession for many, many years. I need hardly point out to the Committee that this proceeding on the part of the county council engendered a good deal of bad feeling, which local partisans used for political purposes. They directed that feeling against the Liberal Government and against the then sitting Member. If I mistake not, the hon. Baronet the senior Member for Oxford, rushed into print to expose the thing as one of the results of bad Liberal legislation. It was pointed out that these two farmers had been sacrificed owing to the working of the Liberal Small Holdings Act. I have reason to suppose that if those two farmers had been approached by the county council—at the time I went so far as to inform the members of the county council—I am not sure whether I did not write to the county council—they would have been quite willing to have surrendered sufficient land to have satisfied the local demand for small holdings, and they could have been on their farms at the present time. They had to clear out, and that caused a good deal of feeling. There is a great deal of truth in the fact that there was great difficulty in finding small holders for so much land. At the present time, I believe, only seven or eight of the eighteen small holders who rent direct from the county council are local men; the others come from considerable distances.
    The point to which I wish particularly to draw the hon. Baronet's attention is how the Berkshire County Council have treated the North Berkshire Small Holdings Society, of which I happen to be
    1532
    chairman, and which is affiliated to the Agricultural Organisation Society. This society applied for 2,000 acres of land. Before the application of this society was even entertained the Berkshire County Council insisted upon a guarantee, with the result that this society had to pay something like £6,000, which was the equivalent of about two or three years' rent. This £6,000 was held by trustees for something like twelve months, and after protracted negotiations with the county council, the North Berkshire Society succeeded in getting something like 500 acres for small holdings, but only upon the condition that they deposited that sum equivalent to two years' rent which was placed in the hands of trustees. I am very glad to say that other landlords in North. Berkshire did not treat this Small Holdings Committee in the same way; we succeeded in getting another 500 acres from two private landlords in that county, and they did not ask for such guarantee, and the tenants are doing well and pay their rents regularly, with the exception of one, who does not pay, not because he cannot pay, but because he thinks he has not got the right sort of land. The reason I point out these matters to the committee is that I was under the impression the Small Holdings Act was framed upon the principle that no difficulties should be placed in the way of a society endeavouring to help in establishing small holdings.
    There is just one other matter in connection with this society which I wish to mention, namely, that but for the fact that it had given its financial backing to the applicants it would have been impossible for them to have secured the land which they are farming now for two or three years past. There is another public body holding land in North Berkshire, and that is the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Some time ago the Commissioners wrote to me asking whether our society were interested in a farm in the Ashbury district. Negotiations were opened; rent was suggested considerably higher than the old tenants were paying, but still we were prepared to pay it. I offered to settle the question of the rent with the applicants, and it was settled quite satisfactorily; and I was all the more surprised and disappointed when I was informed by the agent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners afterwards that the Commissioners did not intend to let us have the farm. I then approached the county council because I was told the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would only let the farm through the local

    1533
    authority. After various negotiations with the Berkshire County Council they also refused to let us have this farm. I did not think there could be any particular reason for this refusal. I approached the President of the Board of Agriculture and I was informed that the Board had sent down a Commissioner to North Berkshire to inspect the farm and that this Commissioner had reported that the farm was not very suitable for small holdings. I should say in this connection that I think the Commissioner would have done well if he had interviewed the land steward of our society and interviewed some of the applicants before he drew up his report; because the land steward of our society has farmed in that locality and has managed various farms, and the applicants would have been able to inform the Commissioner what they thought of the land for farming purposes.
    He did not think it worth his while to interview either the land steward or the applicants; that was why I approached the President of the Board of Agriculture, and I am glad to say the President received me very sympathetically and he expressed his great indignation that this farm was refused to us. And I arranged an interview for some of the applicants to see him. We had the interview with the President of the Board of Agriculture and he promised to take the necessary steps to give us this farm. But things have since drifted and we do not seem to he any nearer getting the farm. Afterwards I put a question here in this House as to what steps the President of the Board of Agriculture was taking to secure this farm for us and the reply of the hon. Baronet, the secretary to the Board, was something to the effect that there were some local difficulties, and that if the farm was let for small holdings a number of cottages would be displaced and that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had determined to give us some other land instead. I inspected that other land and I and our land steward and other members of our society were of opinion that that land was quite unsuitable for small holdings and the applicants would not have it at any price.
    We again approached the President of the Board of Agriculture, and he made a suggestion that I should communicate with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and I did. I then informed the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that our society was prepared to compensate these cottagers and to give them a year's rent in advance and
    1534
    to give guarantees for the proper farming of the land. Despite this we could not get the farm from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Various communications passed between the Board of Agriculture and the county council and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and I have come across a letter which appeared in the minutes of the Berkshire County Council dated the 29th of December, 1910, and signed by the assistant secretary of the Board of Agriculture. It is rather long but I should like to read it:—
    "I am directed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to advert to your letter of the 16th instant and previous communications with reference to the question of acquiring the Idstone Rectory Farm, Ashbury, for the purposes of small holdings for the Shrivenham and District Small Holdings Association, and I am to say that, while the report of the Small Holdings Commissioner does not support the view that the farm is suitable for small holdings, the Board are informed by Mr. E. A. Strauss, M.P., and by the Secretary of the Association, that the applicant members who know the land are satisfied that the farm is suitable and are willing to pay rents which may be expected to cover all outgoings. Moreover, Mr. Strauss states that he is prepared to enter into any reasonable financial arrangement under which the fulfilment of the terms of the lease to the Association would be guaranteed by him. The terms of the guarantee have not been discussed with Mr. Strauss, but assuming that it would adequately protect the council from risk of loss on the scheme, the Board do not think that the council would be justified in refusing to proceed with the acquisition of the farm from fear that the anticipations of the applicants might not be realised. The Board would suggest, therefore, that a definite option of taking the land at a specified rent for a specified term should be obtained from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and placed before Mr. Strauss and the Association."
    I am sorry to say the Berkshire County Council would not recede from the position they had taken up. They would not take the option of this farm or purchase it. I need hardly say that this action on the part of the county council and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners has caused a great deal of bad feeling. I have here in my hand the resolution passed by the parish council condemning the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and also a resolution passed by some of the applicants for this farm expressing their indignation at the way they were treated. I should like to refer to a speech made by the most reverend Primate in 1907, when the Small Holdings Bill was discussed in another place. In supporting the Small Holdings Bill the most reverend Primate stated that—
    "of 250,000 acres held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 1,750 acres were let in allotments, and the remainder comprised 3,000 holdings, of which two-thirds, or some 2,000 holdings, were under fifty acres, and the one-third were holdings all under 100 acres."
    I am afraid the most reverend Primate was not correctly informed, because I find that some of the tenants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners rent farming land to

    1535
    the extent of 750 acres, 1,000 acres, and 942 acres, all of them tenants in the Ashbury district. I understand that the new tenant of the Idstone Farm is the son of a neighbouring farmer, who already farms 1,000 acres in that district. The father of this new tenant farms himself something like 750 acres in that particular district, which he rents from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In the four parishes of Ashbury, Bishopstone, Kingston, and Idstone, the combined area of which exceeds 8,000 acres, there are only five small holders in that area, and three out of the five have their holdings sublet to them by large farmers at very high rents. I think this proves that there is a great demand for small holdings in that district. I understand that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are approaching some of the tenants of our society, trying to induce them to take less land than they originally applied for. They are indignant because the son of a neighbouring farmer has got this farm and they are left out in the cold, notwithstanding the promise made to them by the President of the Board of Agriculture.
    When we find cases like the one which I have brought before the Committee it looks as though all this sympathy for small holdings, about which we hear so much, is nothing more nor less than hypocrisy. I know that the Board of Agriculture has no statutory powers over the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but they are not like private landlords. They are a public body administering property belonging to the Church of the whole nation, and therefore I am surprised that, a body like that should thwart and frustrate the legitimate aspirations of the poorer class of workers in the rural villages, who, after all, only want to earn little more than a bare living. If the President of the Board of Agriculture would exercise the power which he possesses over the three gentlemen who represent the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—I understand that of the three gentlemen who are all-powerful, two are appointed by the Crown and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury—he could soon get them into line and bring them to their senses and get them to carry out what is the desire of the President of the Board of Agriculture. Even if he fails in this, he has compulsory powers. The letter which I have already read to the Committee shows that the President of the Board of Agriculture does not possess sufficient courage to attack reactionary bodies. I
    1536
    hope the hon. Baronet who represents the Board of Agriculture will do his best and use his influence with the President of the Board of Agriculture to see that he carries out the promise which he made to the applicants for Idstone Farm in the interview he had with them.
    Mr. GARDNER: Before the hon Baronet decides upon the merits or demerits of the action of the Berkshire County Council, I hope he will apply to the fountain head for information in considering the case which has been brought forward by the hon. Member opposite. An attack has been made upon the County Council of Berkshire as well as upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are very well able to defend themselves, I am a member of the Berkshire County Council, and consequently I feel that they have only a feeble defender in myself. I had not the least idea that an attack of this kind was going to be made upon the county council. I do not know whether it is usual to give notice of an attack of this kind. If it is not usual I think it wouuld be well in future to do so, in order that the real facts might be brought before the House.
    Mr. E. STRAUSS: The President of the Board of Agriculture has had no end of communications with the Berkshire County Council, and he is very desirous that we should have the farm.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. GARDNER: There is not another county council less open to attack on this question of small holdings than the Berkshire County Council. I am a Berkshire County Councillor, and I know the council bought a large area of land which was not altogether in accordance with the judgment of some people, but they dealt with the matter honestly. They bought a large area of land to supply the wants of those who might require small holdings. They have done their best to rent land in various parts of the county, and if they did not rent this particular farm about which the hon. Member has attacked both the Berkshire County Council and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it should be borne in mind that the report made to the county council by an expert was that it was not a suitable farm for division into small holdings. County councillors are mostly professional men, tradesmen, and retired officers, and they are not supposed to be experts upon matters of this kind, but they acted upon the report of an expert. Under these cir-

    1537
    cumstances, after they had been advised that this land was not suitable for the purpose, the county council would have been much more worthy of condemnation if they had taken it instead of refusing to do so. The hon. Member has attacked the county council in. regard to its proceedings in reference to the Charnley property. At that time I was a member of the committee, and I remember well all the negotiations affecting the dealings of the county council of Berkshire and the Small Holding Society. The hon. Member, to his credit—I wish to say that sincerely—did the best he could for the parties from his point; of view, but he forgot he was dealing with a public authority, and, although I suppose there is not a man inside or outside this House who would not be only too pleased to take the personal guarantee of the hon. Member, he would not understand that a personal guarantee was no use to a public authority. That was the whole stumbling block between the North Berks Small Holdings Society and the Berkshire County Council. We tried to meet these people in every possible way, and we could not do it, because those who represented the society wanted to treat us, not as a public authority, but as private individuals. The hon. Member has attacked us in connection with our dealings with two farms at Charnley. How on earth can they get small holdings without turning out somebody? They forget that in getting small holdings for small holders they do an injustice to men who have been on farms for a long time. The Berkshire County Council have tried to avoid that difficulty, but they could only avoid it in one way. They could only avoid it by buying up farms when they came on the market. That, of course, does not obviate the difficulty that the tenant has to go when the farm is sold over his head; but it is not the county council who does it in that case but the person who sells the farm. The county council therefore could not helping turning people out when they—
    Mr. E. STRAUSS: Two tenants were quite willing to give up sufficient land for small holdings, and they would have remained on if the county council had allowed them.
    Mr. GARDNER: As I understand the hon. Member, two tenants were willing to give up sufficient land to provide small holders with holdings in the neighbourhood. If that is so, where comes in the
    1538
    complaint that you had not land? If there was land enough for small holdings there, why do you want more land? The thing contradicts itself.
    Mr. E. STRAUSS: The farm I was speaking about just now is many miles away from the Charnley property.
    Mr. GARDNER: That is just another mistake gentlemen who advocate small holdings make. They forget you cannot move land from place to place. If you want a small holding for a small holder, a small holder must go to the holding. You cannot bring the holding to the man. A small holder, in the view of the hon. Member, ought to have any particular plot of land wherever he wants it. That is the mistake he makes. He forgets that would put the small holder into a position altogether different from that in which a tenant farmer has been for generations. If a tenant farmer leaves the farm, he cannot go to the one next door. He perhaps has to go into another county or many miles away. So with the small holder. He must take his small holding where he can get it. The county council of Berkshire has done its best from start to now to find small holdings with the least possible injustice to other people, but it is impossible for small holders to come and demand at any moment that any land they may want shall be given up to them. The county council has realised that, but it is meeting the case as far as it can. The hon. Member said there is a good deal of hypocrisy about this. I do not know where it conies in, but, at any rate, it does not come in with the county council if there is any proof in the fact that they are willing to spend money in advancing this Act. Only the other day I helped to vote some county money for the purpose of administering the Act, notwithstanding I agree with it so little. I say the county council of Berkshire has not only attempted, but has, I believe, succeeded in administering this Act justly and fairly to the small holders, fairly to those it has had to turn out, and, at any rate, it has not spared the ratepayers. It has made some charges on the county rates for the purpose of administering the Act.
    This Act, in my opinion—I speak after long experience of small holdings—is based altogether upon wrong lines. It is based upon compulsion in one direction and upon official management in another, and if you get official management and compulsion together you are bound to get into difficulties. It may seem an extra

    1539
    ordinarily fantastic statement, but I will make it even at the risk of some ridicule. I sincerely believe you would get cheaper small holdings in far greater numbers, administered in a far more satisfactory way and at a great deal less cost to the public at large, if you carried this matter out voluntarily in this way. If, instead of having all this official management, costing goodness knows what, you simply provided that any land let for small holdings on leases at rents and on terms and conditions approved of by the Board of Agriculture should be free from Estate Duty, you would get far more small holdings at less rents and far better administered than you get under present conditions, and you would get them at a cheaper rate. It is inconceivable to suppose that small holdings would be extended in any one year to the extent of £1,000,000 worth, and it is also inconceivable that on land of that kind you would pay more than 5 per cent. of Estate Duty. That amounts to £50,000 a year. This Act is not going to be administered for £50,000. There will be more than 150,000 thrown away, to say nothing of all the bother and trouble which has resulted. We should not then have all the dissatisfaction raging which there is now. I really rose to defend the Berkshire County Council, to which I belong. I believe this is a very unfair attack upon it, and it is so direct an attack that I think the hon. Member should have given some intimation to someone whom he knew belonged to the county council that he intended to make it, because, if the necessary materials could have been found, I think a very adequate defence could have been made.
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: The House perhaps will forgive me if I do not follow the domestic quarrel between a member and an ex-member of the Berkshire County Council. I think everyone is grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out how difficult it is in places where there is determined opposition to the Small Holdings Act to get anything done. I will only trouble the House with one obvious platitude. The success of agriculture depends upon the landlord, the farmer, and the agricultural labourer. The landlords, as a class, are at any rate not unrepresented in this House or in another place. The Small Holdings Act is an Act for the labourer and not for the farmers or the landlords. Almost all landlords are against it, and almost every farmer is opposed to it. It is an Act for the labourers, and naturally,
    1540
    therefore, those in sympathy with labourers should have a large share in the administration of it. It is for this reason we on this side of the House welcome, as we do cordially welcome the latest move of the President of the Board of Agriculture in appointing as Small Holdings Commissioners not, as I think many hon. Members opposite had hoped, merely land agents and those in the pay of landlords, but men who, whatever their politics—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Hon. Members opposite may know more about their politics than I do, but, looking through the list, it would strike an impartial judge that those men, whatever their politics, are men who have studied agriculture, and who do sympathise with the labourers' point of view. For this reason we on this side of the House do welcome these appointments. There is another point of view which to us is especially important. I think in all quarters of the House people are apt to say and feel that agriculture is in a bad way. Various remedies are proposed, and different means are suggested, of restoring agriculture to its former place. We think agriculture suffers from the lack of co-operation among those engaged in the industry. No industry, agriculture or any other, can hope to prosper if those engaged in it buy all their things at retail prices and sell them at wholesale prices. No other industry prospers in that way. No other men would attempt to buy at retail prices and sell at wholesale prices, as the farmer does, and we think that only by co-operation and reorganisation can agriculture regain its former place in the country. We believe in our hearts that the way to restore agriculture is to begin with those labourers who will co-operate, and who will become, as small farmers, the backbone again of agriculture. We believe if, instead of the way the hereditary farmer manages his land, we can get a body of labourers together to become small farmers, and they are ready to co-operate in matters of buying and selling, they will put agriculture again on its legs, and for this reason we are determined to do what we can to back the Small Holdings Act, and to see to it that more small holders are placed on the land of England.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I do not desire to pursue the subject which has occupied the last few speakers, but I should just like to say I cannot agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that all landlords are entirely adverse to the Small Holdings Act.
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: I did not say "all."
    Mr. HARDY: The remarks of the hon. Member are in the recollection of the House.
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: I said "most."
    Mr. HARDY: "Most, and all tenant farmers." The whole contention of the hon. Member was to assume that landlords and tenant farmers are entirely adverse to it. I believe much the more lasting small holdings have been created by cooperation with the landlords, and probably after a few years they will be the ones found to survive. I wanted to allude to other agricultural questions and especially to those which deal with one particular Department in the Board of Agriculture, namely, that concerning fruit. I think it is very much to be regretted—I do not know who is responsible—that for the second time we should have this discussion on agriculture on a Vote on Account, because it is impossible to centralise the discussion on any particular question. In reference to the fruit industry, I congratulate the hon. Baronet on the book that we have now dealing with it but I cannot congratulate the Board on the promptness with which they bring out their figures. The Destructive Insects Act and the Board of Agriculture Act were the subject of a Report by the Board's representatives on the 28th October. It dealt with the year which ended at the end of March, 1910, and we only received the Report in this House some considerable time after the beginning of the Session, 1911, quite a year after the statistics were given. In dealing with these matters, in dealing with the statistics in reference to gooseberry mildew and other diseases, it is very important the country should have the information at a very much earlier date than it now does. I cannot see why the delay has occurred. Very elaborate maps have been prepared, and they might be of considerable importance as showing where the disease exists, but it is of no use giving such information when it is really out of date. I hope the hon. Baronet will urge his Department to give us these statistics at a very much earlier date than they do at the present time.
    We have had instances during this year showing the desirability of the Board pushing these matters forward very much more quickly than they have done in the past. I was myself identified with bringing forward in this House the question of the
    1542
    gooseberry mildew, and this brought a certain amount of ridicule upon myself for putting such an absurd thing before the House of Commons. ["No, no."] At any rate, I was made the subject of caricature in a leading journal, and was labelled "Gooseberry Mildew," a sort of thing which one should never bring to the notice of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the Board now devote the greater portion of their intelligence report to this particular disease, and it is admitted that the neglect in dealing with it in its first stages has resulted in very great expense both to the country and to county councils. We have had practically the same thing in connection with bee diseases. The Board are at last taking an active interest in this question. In their Report they state that during the year 1909 an event occurred which had been feared for some years, and which was of great importance to beekeepers, namely, the spread of the Isle of Wight bee disease to the mainland of England. The Board admit that they were warned of this danger in 1909, but, it was not really until this year that they took any measures whatsoever to deal with the question. That is not the way in which public departments should deal with matters of this sort; they cannot say they had no information, because they were informed of the existence of this peculiar disease in the Isle of Wight. They took no real measures to deal with it, they did not make the researches which they are now making, and the result is that the disease spread through practically the South of England and has caused great anxiety this year in regard to the bee industry in this country. This, I think, is proof that the Board are not active enough in dealing with the first stages of diseases like this. I think they want some different methods of dealing with these questions. I will only again suggest that they cannot, do better I ban look at the recommendations made to them by the Fruit Industry Committee, a few years ago, to the effect that there should be a special department, to deal with these matters.
    There is another question, in connection with one of the most prominent industries associated with agriculture, which I wish to raise. As I have said, it is quite time we had a special department to deal with certain industries in order that they may be helped in fighting such diseases as I have named in their very early stages. We have to discuss this matter on a Vote on Account, and we are, therefore, somewhat

    1543
    limited in our opportunities for raising questions connected with the Board of Agriculture. But I do hope the hon. Baronet will be able to inform us what real progress has been made in connection with the Development Grant as affecting agriculture. We do not know what has become of the sum of £400,000 which was to be largely administered through the Board of Agriculture. We had no opportunity of raising this question on the Estimates; we could only do so in an indirect way, and I will, therefore, ask the hon. Baronet to give us a good deal more information in reference to this very large sum of money. Many of us believe that great delay has taken place in making use of this money. Obviously, the best method of using it would be the encouragement of research, and we say that this has been very much delayed in its operation, even if it had been carried out to any large extent at all. Cannot the hon. Baronet see his way to arrange that the Board shall proceed on rather newer lines than it has adopted in the past. This Development Grant might well be used to encourage industries in this country which, at the present moment, require more encouragement than they can get from individual effort. One industry which obviously might thus be encouraged is the sugar beet industry, and I think that now that we have a grant of this sort, the Board which has the administration of it might well use it for the support and encouragement of an industry like that. It is difficult to do this by private enterprise, and there is much the Government might do in connection with this matter. It is certainly a question to which they might well turn their attention when they are deciding on the allocation of this Development Grant.
    There is another industry in which I am interested and one which is very materially connected with the fruit industry—I mean the encouragement of the growth of tobacco in this country—there have been experiments made lately with a view to proving that it is possible to grow a form of tobacco in this country suitable, not for smoking, but for use in insecticides and sheep dips. The question was brought up on the Revenue Bill this year, and a deputation also discussed it with the Treasury a week or two ago. The fruit growers are practically unanimous in the opinion that tobacco thus grown provides one of the best insecticides possible. They find it extremely difficult at this time to get
    1544
    insecticides, except at a prohibitive price, owing to the tremendously strict regulations which must hold whenever the tax on tobacco is so high as it is at the present moment. We want, if we can, to find some means by which growers may be able to grow their own tobacco for this particular purpose, under, of course, Government regulations. Still, that they should be able to grow it so that they may use it for sprays or sheep dips. This is a matter to which some attention has been given, and it is clear it would be a great help to them if the Board would take the matter in hand and give us some encouragement, both by way of Government sanction for the scheme, and also by making experiments to carry it out with the aid of the Development Grant. I hope the hon. Baronet will carefully consider this matter with a view to using some of this money for the purpose, as it would be undoubtedly a great advantage to the agriculturists of this country.
    There is another familiar subject as to which I desire to put a question, and that is as to what the Government are doing or intend doing in connection with hops. We have not heard so much about hops this Session; but I would ask the Government still to consider whether it would not be better for them to turn back to the report of their own Committee on this question, and endeavour to do something on the lines that Committee recommended. I know I am approaching rather near legislation when I allude to this matter, but still I submit that even by administration the Board could give considerable help. At this time of the year, especially, the Government could largely help both fruit and hop growers by acquiring accurate statistics as to fruit and hop crops in foreign countries—in the United States and on the Continent—so that our growers may have information as to the competition which they are likely to be called upon to face.
    Mr. E. STRAUSS: Foreign hops are at present much dearer than English hops.
    Mr. HARDY: That may be so, but it does not affect the argument which I was endeavouring to develop; if the fact be as the hon. Member stated it would be a great advantage to our growers to have information as to markets to which they might send their hops with a prospect of getting a much better price than they can at home. That is the very kind of information we desire, and the hon. Gentleman's interruption entirely corroborates

    1545
    my appeal to the Board of Agriculture to collect the statistics and to supply them to our growers. Fruit growers in the County of Kent are constantly raising this question. They ask, "Why cannot the Board give us the information of this sort as regards foreign competition and to some extent home competition as well?" The Intelligence Department ought certainly to do it; they could collect the information and send it to the districts. There are many large associations in connection with fruit growing, and it would be perfectly easy to supply them with the information and for them to disseminate it at the earliest possible moment. By administration the Board might do a good deal in connection with this matter. There is only one other matter to which I desire to refer. I was rather glad, in reading the last report of the Board a few days ago to see that a good many prosecutions had been undertaken under the Fertilizers Act, and that they have succeeded in obtaining a conviction in the majority of cases. But I would remind the hon. Baronet there is still great dissatisfaction in connection with this Act. Those interested are satisfied neither with its provisions nor with the administration of it, and there is a strong feeling that it would be far better if some arrangement could be made by which the veto of the Board could be removed and the county councils left free to undertake prosecutions without the Board sitting in judgment upon them. I hope the hon. Baronet will give his attention to this matter.
    Mr. LOGAN: I desire to say a few words as the representative of a large number of poor agricultural labourers. When the Act of 1908 was passed, agricultural labourers looked upon it as their charter of liberty. But I am bound to confess that there are a large number of men in the country at the present time who are, I think very rightly, dissatisfied with the administration by the Board of Agriculture of that Act. The agricultural labourer who has got his little bit of land is grateful to the Act; there are a certain number who have got land, but there are a still larger number who are without it, and it is upon their behalf that I desire to say a few words to-day. The Report which the Board of Agriculture published a couple of months ago amply justifies any criticism which I may venture to pass upon their administration of the Act. In that Report they admit that they have had a
    1546
    total—I am giving it in round figures—of 30,000 applicants for small holdings. The number of acres in round numbers applied for was 500,000. Out of the 30,000 applicants no more than 17,000 have been provisionally approved and the number of acres which those would-be small holders ask for is 256,000. Out of the 256,000 acres which those provisionally approved of applicants applied for less than 100,000 have been given to them, and the number of applicants put upon the land is only 7,500 out of a total of 30,000 who applied. It is satisfactory to us who speak for the agricultural labourers to have got even 7,500 of them put upon the land. The Act of 1908 is a very vast improvement upon the Act of 1902, and for the simple reason that it has compulsion behind it, and it is to ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Agriculture to apply a little more compulsion that I am standing up in my place to-day. Land for 7,500 labourers is no doubt so much to the good, but I want to ask him what is to become of the 22,500 who are still waiting?
    The figures in that Report prove conclusively that what is wanted is more compulsion, and I am pleased to know that the Board have recently appointed, owing to the applications that we have made from these benches, six additional Commissioners. But I am here to say that they did not take that step one moment before it was wanted. The proof of that is that during the last year, 1910, there was a falling off of 6,000 acres given to men, as compared with the number of acres given in the previous year, and the Report to which I have alluded gives us the reason, because, it says, that this is only to be accounted for by the increasing difficulties of obtaining Land by agreement. There is no doubt, therefore, what is the cause of the delay and what is the reason that these men cannot get on the land. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Berkshire County Council has, I am sorry to say, gone, because I wanted to tell him what was the real reason for this condition of things. The real reason is want of sympathy on the part of most of our county councils from one end of the land to the other. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I repeat that the real reason is want of sympathy. In the Report to which I have alluded the two Commissioners went out of their way to smear with praise the action of the county councils. This seems to me to be a very undeserved tribute to action on their part which existed simply

    1547
    and solely in the imagination of the two Commissioners. There can be no greater proof that there is want of sympathy than to listen for a few moments to the hon. Member himself, because he asks that the State should bribe him and his colleagues who speak as land owners to hand over their land to these poor men who are clamouring for something upon which to exercise their labour.
    The hon. Gentleman complained of the cost of the administration of the Act being charged upon the rates, but that is not so, because when they let land which they rent the great bulk of them invariably put such a price upon it which the poor agricultural labourer has to pay that they actually make a good thing out of it. Then let us consider the manner in which they deal with land which they buy. I am surprised that any Liberal Government should allow such a provision to appear in an Act of Parliament., but in regard to land which the county councils buy, in letting it to poor men who work for 12s., 14s., 15s., or 16s. a week, the county councils actually put upon the rent which the poor man has to pay sufficient to cover the sinking fund, with the result that at the end of eighty years the poor man will have paid for the land which the county council will own. That does not appear to me as being likely to throw any charge upon the rates owing to the action of administering this Act. The reason I ant asking my hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture to-day to use a little more compulsion is that we are convinced—you may say we are wrong—but we are convinced that the present state of things is due to want of sympathy on the part of the county councils. Let me read what one of the ablest and most sympathetic Pressmen in this House said in reference to this Act dealing with this very report which I have referred to. I use his words because they are not so powerful and not so irritating to hon. Gentlemen opposite as my own would be. He says:—
    "It is clear that a powerful barrier exists in the character of a great number of the county councils and of the committees of squires, land agents, and large farmers through which they act. On no other theory can we explain the fact that the great mass of the acquisitions of land go through a comparatively small group of county councils in Wales and in the Eastern Counties. Five counties together have barely supplied 100 acres between them against thousands of acres which Norfolk and Cambridgeshire have found.
    That is placing the thing before you in the coolest and calmest language that a man can find, but do we expect squires and land owners and large farmers to be
    1548
    anxious that the agricultural labourer should obtain land. Personally, I am inclined to say that one reason why we do not get land for the agricultural labourer is because human flesh and blood is too cheap in our English villages. As a proof that it is too cheap I would point out that there are thousands of men to-day who have not a decent habitation to go to tonight and tens of thousands of them who cannot get a decent bit of land in order to enable them to eke out the miserable wages that they are paid. Personally, I do not think that any man should be called upon to go to an allotment and eke out his wages after the day's work which he has done for somebody else. He should be be able to do the same as we do, and that is after a day's work go home and rest himself. Therefore, it is, I say, human flesh and blood is too cheap in our villages, and I say more than that, namely, that the agricultural labourer who expects the land owner or farmer to do anything until there are so few men in our villages that There will not be sufficient labour to till the land, is leaning upon a broken reed.
    I am here to say that the instinct of the farmer compels him to wish to keep the labourer off the land. I do not say he does it purposely, he cannot help himself, but he does desire to see the labourer dependent and not independent, and God knows that dependent he is. The agricultural labourers are slaves to-day. Half of them work for 15s. a week, or as an hon. Friend told me last night, in one county for 12s. a week. They live in cottages out of which they are liable to be turned at the end of a week. What is that man but a slave? He is neither more nor less. He earns 15s. a week, is liable to be turned out of his cottage in a week, and then to become a miserable dependent upon charity and beg a bit of bread to keep body and soul together. Who are these men? They are not foreigners or aliens, but they are descendants of the men who have worked generation after generation for long ages past upon the same land. To-day you will find the great grandson of the man who worked on the same plot of land and how much is he paid? At the very outside 18s. and the average is, I think, a great deal nearer to 16s. 6d. My hon. Friend who spoke just now, tried, as I am afraid is becoming the habit of landlords, to draw a miserable picture of the condition of agriculture. That condition is not perhaps as flourishing as it ought to be in this little island of ours, but if there is one thing it

    1549
    suffers from more than another it is from the want of labour.
    If you had more labour on your land you would get better results, but as it is I donot think agriculture is doing so very badly. At any rate, it is not doing sufficiently badly to justify the owners of land paying the men the miserable wages that they are paying to-day; and, after all, it is the owners who are responsible, because we know that in most cases the farmer in this country is the landowner's bailiff, working piecework. It is, therefore, the landowner who is answerable, and not the farmer, for the miserable wage which is paid to the agricultural labourer. I say that the condition of agriculture does not justify the payment of any such wage, and if I were thirty years younger I should feel inclined to go about the country and see if I could not get the agricultural labourers to combine and join in a union. I may tell the Labour party that they should realise that it is the depopulation of the country village which sends the overflow population into our towns and keeps down the wages of those whom they represent. Until, therefore, you keep the men at home on the land hon. Members will never get the wages in the towns up. But is the state of agriculture as bad as they say it is? A few months ago "The Times," which takes endless pains and trouble in gathering information, sent a man round the country on what they called a pilgrimage of British farmers. What is their report?
    "The industry of agriculture as a whole is in a prosperous condition, and has healthily and steadily recovered from the greatest depression which lay upon it as recently as fifteen years ago. Farms are very rarely to be let, good farms are always bespoken long before they are vacant, and rents are rising. We have heard over and over again of reletting at an increased figure, especially when the farms were put up to competition."
    That does not justify my hon. Friend in saying that the condition of agriculture is not prosperous, and I do not think anyone, on that side of the House at least, will charge "The Times" with putting too rosy a view upon the condition of agriculture. I am here to plead the cause of the agricultural labourer, one of the worst paid white men in the world. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) said in his younger days, he is the most pathetic picture in our whole social system, a man who is condemned to a life of unremitting toil with nothing before him but the workhouse. Now, thanks to a Liberal Government, he has the munificent provision of 5s. made for him, but in bringing that about I am sorry
    1550
    to say, in the opinion of Lord Lansdowne, our Front Bench have demoralised themselves and demoralised the poor man. Hope springs eternal in man, and our agricultural labourers are still looking for the Small Holdings Act to do them good, and I implore my hon. Friend to use his influence at the Board and to ask the President to see to it that the compulsory powers of this Act are put into force and to ask him to remember what "The Times" said in its better days, that whatever the charges and encumbrances upon land the first charge must always be the maintenance of the people reared and trained upon its bosom. Our society exists on that tacit understanding that the superfluity of the few shall not be enjoyed until provision has been made for the existence of the many. I implore my hon. Friend to use his best sympathies and to do what he can to see that I he blessed word compulsion is taken full advantage of.
    Mr. ORDE-POWLETT: The agricultural labourers in my Constituency would greatly resent the statements made about them by the hon. Member. He spoke a great deal about compulsion with regard to county councils. I belong to the County Council of the North Riding of Yorkshire, which has had a certain amount of compulsion put upon it. File Board of Agriculture has sent down a Commissioner to inquire into their action in the matter of small holdings, and the result was simply that, I think, only about half the number of men who applied to the council applied to the Commissioner, and I think his visit did not result in one single acre of land being found. What is compulsion? Is it to be on the landlord or the county council or the farmer? I have every sympathy with this small holdings movement, but the only possible ways of getting more land are first of all by creating the land, which I do not think even hon. Gentlemen opposite can do, or by turning men off the land who are at present in possession of it. As far as the North Riding County Council is concerned, we are determined not to turn out men who are in possession of the land, because we think it is perfectly right that they should remain in possession. Hon. Gentlemen opposite sometimes think that if a man farms, say, 300 acres of land he can easily give up fifty or sixty acres for small holdings, and, at the same time work the rest of his holding economically. That is perfectly impossible, and I think everyone who has any knowledge, at any rate of

    1551
    north-country farming, will agree that when 250 acres, say, is moorland and highland it is absolutely necessary that the farmer must have so many acres of lowland so as to treat the high land economically. The only land that a small holder could possibly put to economic use is that good land which he must have for the economic use of his other land.
    I rose, however, to draw attention to another question and to beg the Board of Agriculture to use their best endeavours to overcome the difficulties which the dairy farmers in the North-Eastern part of England are met with at present owing to the milk regulations. Under the present regulations the farmer, more particularly in the North-Eastern districts, has to contend with a presumptive milk standard of 3 per cent. of butter fat, and in face of prosecution he has also to contend with the possibility, and in many cases the probability, that the magistrates will turn this presumptive standard into an absolute standard. At the same time he has to contend with the irregularity of the quality of his milk. The farmers in the North-Eastern district are not asking the Board of Agriculture in any way to protect the dishonest man. There is every difference between dishonest adulteration of milk and inequality of the quality of the milk owing to circumstances over which the, farmer has no control, and it has been proved many a time that the very best farmers and the most honest men, the men with the best herds, feeding their cattle under the best possible conditions, have had milk which has been of a quality which has not passed this 3 per cent. standard. It is impossible for these farmers to have any guarantee that this milk can always be up to that quality. Experiments have been made at the Durham County Council Farm, and at the experimental farm of the Yorkshire County Councils, and the experience of nearly every practical farmer in these districts who has had his milk analysed regularly has been that for some reason the milk cannot be guaranteed at every time to return a 3 per cent. standard of milk fat. The North-Eastern district farmers do not ask the Board of Agriculture to do away or to lower the 3 per cent. standard, but they ask for an inquiry in this district without delay as to what are the reasons for the deterioration in the quality of the milk. Experiments have proved that it goes down, no matter how the cows are fed and no matter what is done, and the
    1552
    farmers would like a full inquiry into the cause of deterioration at certain times of the year, in order to discover how in the future they can feed their herds that the milk may be up to the standard of quality at which everyone wishes to see it.
    There is an ever-increasing demand amongst the farmers in my Constituency for some amendment of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act. I believe there is at present a Bill before a Committee in another place, and I can only hope that the Board of Agriculture will induce the Government to afford facilities for its early passage into law. I believe that Bill would to a great extent enable the farmers to obtain the value for which they pay, and I believe it would go a long way to prevent the adulteration of the stuffs that they buy, and I hope the Board of Agriculture, with a view of getting rid of the limits of adulteration, will give every facility for the passage of the Bill into law.
    5.0 P. m.
    Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSON: I wish to refer to the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in regard to a farm in Berkshire which they have refused to be let for small holdings. They have been accused of unwillingness to help on this question of small holdings. That is by no means the case. For many years past they have done a very great deal, and their custom is, whenever a farm which is suitable for small holdings falls in, to make an offer of it to the county council. That was done so that they might see if it was suitable for small holdings being made under the Small Holdings Act. That has been done in every case where application has been made to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. At that time we were informed that the county council of Berkshire had no applications which would justify them in entering into negotiations for the farm in question. Subsequent to that we began dealing with the Small Holdings Society direct. But before doing that it was necessary that the Commissioners should find land actually suitable for small holdings. We sent one of our own agents down to inquire into the circumstances connected with the farm, and his report was that it was certainly not suitable for small holdings. There is what seems to me to be a very good and sound reason for that view. It is a long farm, with a certain amount of the land at a higher level than the rest. There is a gradual rising up of the land, and one of the principal difficulties was that it is impossible to get any water at the top. That

    1553
    being so, it is very difficult to see how men could carry on small holdings when there was no available water supply at their command.
    Mr. EDWARD STRAUSS: How did the late farmer carry on if there is no water available?
    Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSON: It was all one farm, and that makes a difference. In addition to that, the Commissioners have already let land for grazing. It is not exactly in the same district, but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are very glad to get tenants wherever we can. We have let certain land out for grazing, and it would be impossible therefore to cut up this farm into small holdings. If it was done it would have to be after the expiry of the present tenancy of twenty-one years. A difficulty arose as to turning out people who have been residents in the district for a great number of years. There were old people employed on the farm, and they and their predecessors had been there for generations. The Commissioners could not really consent to these people being turned off unless some proper arrangements were made to accommodate them. I have said that this is a very long farm, and I wish to add that there is practically very little fencing between it and the neighbouring farm, which is also part of the estate of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If we gave up the farm for the purpose of small holdings that would necessitate a great deal of fencing. The extent of the fencing would be about 4½miles, and the estimated cost of that is £600 or £700. That would be a serious item added to the cost of the farm if it had to be sold for the purpose of making small holdings. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners came to the conclusion that this farm is really not suitable for that purpose. They went further than this. They opened negotiations with the County Council of Berkshire. The county Council sent down their own land steward to inspect the farm, and the Board of Agriculture also sent a representative to do likewise. I am given to understand that both of these gentlemen reported to the Berkshire County Council that the farm was unsuitable for the purpose of small holdings. I think under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the agent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and also the official of the Board of Agriculture have reported against it, it must be pretty clear to any impartial man that this is not a farm suitable for small holdings.
    1554
    It is suggested that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have shown themselves rather in opposition to small holdings. I would like to point out that since 1907 they have increased the provision for small holdings to the extent of nearly 5,000 acres, besides selling to the county council 900 acres, making a total provision of something like 6,000 acres. Under these circumstances, I think the accusation which has been made against the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is really a baseless one. We have always shown ourselves willing to provide land for small holdings, if it can be done on a good sound business basis. We are the trustees for a very large portion of land, and it would be exceedingly wrong if we were to deal with this matter merely from the charitable point of view. The Commissioners must attend to it from the business point of view. We consider that the charge which has been made against us with respect to this particular farm is not justified.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I feel after the somewhat temperate and restrained speech of the hon. Member for the Harborough Division of Leicestershire (Mr. Logan) it is presumption on my part as a landlord to get up and speak before the Committee. I must ask their indulgence. I recognise that, being a landlord, one is no fit company for certain other Members of this House. I am not really going to attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's attack on the Board of Agriculture. I am not here to defend the Board, and I am certainly not here to defend the Radical Small Holdings Bill. In his criticism I think the hon. Member might have been a little fairer, and might have mentioned some other places where there are no small holdings. He talked a great deal about the county councils and about the landlords, but he might have talked about the land of the Duchy of Lancaster, where I understand there are no small holdings. That is one of the places which apparently missed his attention.
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): It is quite incorrect to say that there are no small holdings there. There is a very large number of small holdings on the Duchy of Lancaster estate.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will remember a discussion which took place some time ago, in which he explained to, us that a great many acres had been

    1555
    offered for small holdings in the Duchy of Lancaster. When he was asked how many were accepted I think he said "None."
    Mr. J. PEASE: That referred to the particular instance in respect to which the question was framed.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Yes, but I think that the right hon. Member understood that I referred only to the time in which he was in charge of the Duchy and to new holdings under the Bill only. At any rate, I do not wish to enter into the discussion of that point. It is not the point I really wish to raise to-day. I do think that if a great many of the hon. Members who sit near the dividing line on the opposite side are really interested in dealing with small holders, and with promoting the prosperity of the people who have to get a living on the land, instead of abusing landlords and pulling them by the ears they would do a great deal better if they brought those concerned in the land closer together, in order to see each other's interests, and to see things from each other's point of view. If, instead of trying to drive people apart, and to make all the mischief they possibly can, they were to do as I have suggested they would be better employed. The hon. Member was returned no doubt by an agricultural constituency, and because of that he has got it into his head that he is serving the interests of agriculturists by making the speech we have heard from him to-day. I was also returned by an agricultural constituency which not so very long ago was a Radical one. In that part of the country we manage to carry on very well with the people who are connected with the land, and we shall continue to do so as long as there is not too much Government interference in future. I come from a part of the country where there is a large number of small holdings by consent, but the moment compulsion comes in there will be considerably fewer small holdings made. I would point out also that if hon. Members opposite want small holdings to succeed, there is no use planting men on the land without any market. There is a great deal more to do than the mere putting men on the land, because it is admitted that one of the things you have to do is to secure a market for them, and to try to protect them in the market of their own country.
    1556
    The question to which I wish to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy), namely, the question of bee disease. The hon. Gentleman has already taken much interest in the subject, and he states that he has done what he can in the matter. I think the Board of Agriculture might have done rather more for those interested in the bee industry in this country than they have already done. I know that when I have asked questions here and spoken to the hon. Gentleman on the subject he has always been most receptive and kind, and anxious to do what he can. But with all deference I would say without any disrespect that there is not much use in expressing sympathy unless he can speak for his Board. I wish that the Board would back him up and do something, or allow him to do something more than express his sympathy. The Board so far has done nothing to help us. I am speaking especially for those in my own part of the country, and I hope that I shall have the support of Scottish Members. This is a very great industry in my part of Scotland, though it is not an organised one. It is a common practice for a small holder to have his skep of bees, and it is really one of those industries which can be worked with very little labour indeed. It can be worked at, very little cost, and it brings in a very good return. No doubt I shall have the sympathy of some hon. Members when I state that the bee is one of the few things that the landlord is not anxious to interfere with, or to turn off his land, or to prosecute for trespass. It is an industry which can be carried on with considerable impunity by small holders. It is one which ought to be encouraged by those who wish to benefit the small holder. The poorer the land the better the honey is likely to be. The bee brings in a great deal of wealth to those people—quite sufficient to pay the rent and more—and it would be a thousand pities to do harm to it, but if you do not try to stop this disease, it very probably and almost certainly is going to stop the industry. I do not wish to dogmatise in the matter or to go into the history of the disease, but I would remind hon. Members that the first instance we had in this country so far as I know—I do not pretend to be an expert in bee diseases, though I keep bees—was when the disease appeared in the Isle of Wight in 1904. By 1907 the island was infected practically all over.

    1557
    The people there requested the Board of Agriculture to send down an expert to examine into the matter. By 1908, out of the immense number of bees kept in the Isle of Wight, there were only two of the original stocks living. That shows how extensive the disease was all over the island.
    To all intents and purposes in 1908 the disease was confined to the Isle of Wight. That was the opportunity for the Board of Agriculture to do something. Instead of that they did nothing, save that a certain amount of advice was given and various experts were sent down. One quite realises that it would have been impossible at that time to have really suggested any remedy, but they might have done a great deal by legislation to stop the spread of the disease over other parts of the country. You cannot blame them for the disease coming in, but you can blame them for taking no steps to prevent the disease spreading over the whole country. In 1909 it had spread to Hampshire, Dorset, Sussex and Surrey; and to show the amount of harm that was done, I may mention one case of a man who, I was informed, was making his whole income, something like £240, out of a bee farm. In June of that year he had 160 hives, but in October there were only 30 left, and those were all in a diseased state. I think he has probably got none now. The disease, so far as I know, has come over from Bavaria, where practically the same disease destroyed the whole of the bees. I think there is no doubt that if the Board of Agriculture had realised this they could have done something to stop the spread of the disease, especially when they had the example of, for instance, the silkworm disease in France, where in one year damage to the extent of something like £3,000,000 was done by en analogous disease.
    Speaking for Scotland, I know for a fact that the disease has got into the Highlands, where the keeping of bees is a very useful industry. In one village close to my own house one individual anxious to improve his bees, brought three years ago a hive from Surrey. The result of that was that every single beehive in the district got infected, and there are no bees there at all at the present day of those that were in existence at that time. The only assistance that the Board of Agriculture gave was to offer to send an expert up to examine the matter. That is all very well in its way, but what we do want
    1558
    is some measure of the compulsion which hon. Members are so fond of applying, which will be of some use in order to give the county councils a certain amount of control in the matter and enable them to bring out orders with regard to the importation and exportation of bees from diseased areas to prevent these stray bees from coming in; diseased areas ought to be scheduled, and no bees should be allowed to be exported from them until they are declared clear. They must also be allowed to destroy these hives, because there is no use in doctoring a hive; it has got to be destroyed by fire, and this has got to be done in time, or the disease will spread to another, so that you must have compulsory powers, and I would go further and say that where the bees belong to a man of below a certain income, to what I would call a working man, he should be compensated within reason for the destruction of the hives, because it is a very big matter to some of these poor people.
    I cannot see why the Board should not pass a measure dealing with the matter; it would secure the consent of all parties in this House, because really it is necessary. I suppose the reason why they have done nothing is that there may be some persons with big interests in bees who are afraid of being taken in hand if they have got diseased bees on their farms. I do not see why any party, especially a Liberal party, should be frightened by these, what I may call, bee monopolists in this country, or why these particular people with large farms should be able to prevent action from being taken. If compensation were given, I am perfectly certain that they would be very glad to fall in. I know that the small crofters in my part of the country have asked me to speak here about it. They depend upon it for a great part of their living, and they are perfectly willing to have a measure of compulsion brought in for their protection. Last year, when they found that the Board were powerless 10 act, and that the Secretary for Scotland could not act, and probably would not if he could, they formed a committee and destroyed all their own hives so as to stop the spread of disease. I wish to remind hon. Members that probably this disease is inherited, and that it is absolutely necessary to take away the diseased stock or the disease will spread over the whole country. I hope that the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will give me some satisfactory answer, although I doubt it, because if he wished to do so I should have had it long

    1559
    ago in answer to questions, but if the Board are going to do nothing they will again be responsible for all the loss that will take place in this country.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: The Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine), in his opening observations, made some reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough's (Mr. Logan) observations. The Noble Lord suggested that the best thing to do would be to bring the respective parties together in order amicably to adjust this desire for land on the part of the small holders. I presume that everybody will agree that where it is possible to work amicably we should do so, but I feel it right to point out that the landlord and the farmer, prior to the passage of the particular Act in question, had ample opportunity for coming together with a view to satisfying the undoubted demand for land that exists on the part of the labouring classes.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I point out that what I meant is you do not necessarily make a man love you by abusing him.
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: You do not necessarily create a love of the landlord class by declining to accede to reasonable demands for access to the land. My hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough delivered a very forcible speech, and pointed out in plain language the condition of a large section of agricultural labourers in the country. Some people might have thought that that language was somewhat immoderate or exaggerated. For my own part I am prepared to aver from my personal knowledge that the hon. Member did not in any way go beyond the confines of actual truth. In the part of the country whence I hail there are agricultural labourers working for 11s., 12s., 13s., or 14s. a week. I remember once being contradicted in this House because I stated that there were some working for 11s. a week. I am prepared to testify to this fact. There are relatives of my own working in Norfolk for rates as low as that, and the condition of affairs thus pictured by the hon. Member for Market Harborough cannot be designated other than that of actual slavery, because large sections of these men are afraid to agitate owing to the fact that as soon as they are remarked they are given notice to leave their particular cottages, and there are no other houses available. Therefore they
    1560
    are compelled by sheer stress of economic circumstances to acquiesce in conditions which I feel are truthfully referred to as little removed from actual slavery.
    My hon. Friend suggested that the Members of the Labour party would do well to go about the rural districts with a view to organising the agricultural labourers and inspiring them with a desire for better conditions. I am able to tell my hon. Friend that such week-ends as I am able to give I devote to that particular branch of the work. This last week-end I spent as much time as I possibly could among the agricultural labourers in Norfolk with a view to inspiring them with a little discontent with the degrading conditions under which they are living, and I hope that the work on which I am engaged may secure the hearty co-operation of the landlords and the farmers in that particular part of the district, because I can assure my Noble Friend and every landlord and farmer really desirous of promoting the welfare of agricultural labourers there is ample ground for us to work upon together. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough was perfectly true. I do not charge landlords or farmers with being unsympathetic, but I do say that his charge was substantially correct, that the economic life of the farmer does very largely rest upon keeping the agricultural labourer in a dependent condition.
    The agricultural labourer has looked to a comprehensive and sympathetic administration of the Small Holdings Act with a view to extending his personal liberty. If he can get access to land on reasonable terms necessarily it makes him less dependent upon his farmer employers. It is an unfortunate fact that we have to direct any charge in this House against any class of people in the country, and to say that undoubtedly the unsympathetic administration of this Act by the county councils has been due very largely to the interpretation by landlords and farmers of their economic interests. Nobody will charge me with ever indulging in an exaggerated charge against any other section of the community. Rather I am hopeful we might be able to consolidate these various interests. But, nevertheless, I am here as the representative particularly of the working classes. I come from an agricultural family myself; I have already stated that I have to-day relatives working on the land for the miserable pittance of or 12s. a week. I have seen them bring up families as respectably as they possibly

    1561
    can. They have contributed units both to our Army and our Navy, and I say that those who have rendered such useful service to the State are entitled to fuller consideration and to a higher standard of living than they are able to get at the present time, and if legislation is passed, which in my opinion is helpful in that direction, and that that legislation is being frustrated by an unsympathetic administration of county councils, I say we are perfectly justified in asking the Department to exert itself in order that the hope and inspiration of these workers may not be destroyed through the action of the county council.
    I am pleased to observe that a slight change for the better is coming over the Department. Lord Carrington himself a few days since admitted that in his extreme desire to establish a reputation for fairness on the part of the Department, he had refrained from applying the power that he undoubtedly possessed under this Act. That sentence alone is an ample justification for the criticism that certain Members have passed upon the administration of this Act by the Department in this House. Previously I have joined in criticism of the Department, and I still feel that there is much that ought to be done. Nevertheless so long as I see any inclination to essay an improvement I am never prepared to withhold a tribute and a hope that that may succeed. New Commissioners are to be appointed. So far so good. But that step even by itself is not quite sufficient. An hon. Gentleman who preceded me in this Debate pointed out there are other things required, even beyond placing people on the land. You have got to organise the methods of acquiring the things that are necessary for the cultivation of that land. You have also got to make organised provision in order to insure that the produce may be carried to market, and be realised under the best possible conditions. This is all work we have contemplated that the Department ought previously to have taken in hand.
    I am pleased to be able to give expression to my appreciation of the new spirit which seems during recent weeks to have animated the Board of Agriculture, and my pleasure has reference not so much to what they have done as to those things which the President has foreshadowed in his recent speeches. I am hopeful that his promised Bill for establishing credit banks may secure a speedy passage through this House, for I am prepared to bear testimony to the fact that the hope
    1562
    which has inspired the agricultural labourer—at least I am able to speak for my own part of the country—is being very largely dissipated owing to the extreme difficulty which is experienced in getting suitable and appropriate land under this Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough pointed out that the Commissioners in a recent report made a great display of the fact that under this Act in three years we have put something like 9,000 persons into small holdings. So far so good; but, in my opinion, 30,000 might easily have been placed upon the land in small holdings had the full powers which the Act conferred been utilised by the county council and by the Department itself. After all, it is not sufficient to blame the county council alone. It must, be remembered that the Board itself has powers of initiative under this Act, and we are hoping that what has recently transpired may prove an earnest of the Board's intention to take full advantage of the powers which it undoubtedly possesses. I desire to direct the attention of my hon. Friend representing the Department to a particular point which has been brought under my notice by a number of tenant farmers in the county of Norfolk. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy), in his interesting observations, rather resented the fact that he had been caricatured because of the representations he had made here about gooseberry mildew in the country.
    I apprehend there are many public men who would hail with satisfaction being made the subject of the caricaturist's skill, because when an hon. Member once reaches the stage at which he is caricatured at any rate he may be assured that he is notorious, if not exactly famous. The point I desire to refer to may excite ridicule, just as much as the question of gooseberry mildew. Representations have been made to me by certain tenant farmers in Norfolk that the cats they keep for the purpose of killing rats are destroyed by gamekeepers. We have recently heard a great deal of what is almost approaching a rat plague in certain parts of the eastern counties, and my informants very largely attribute this to the practice of gamekeepers destroying cats. I suppose the gamekeeper's first consideration is to protect the game of which he has charge; nevertheless, I think there are other ways in which they could perform their duty, and that they ought not to be allowed to destroy cats, which are kept for the very useful purpose of keeping

    1563
    down rats, of which we have heard so many complaints of late. I would ask the hon. Baronet whether similar representations have been made to him, and whether it is possible for the Department to make any provision in regard to the matter through administrative action. The hon. Baronet representing the Department delivered a speech in the eastern counties a few days since, when he took part in laying the foundation-stone of a new bacon factory near Bury St. Edmunds. Perhaps he has come to the conclusion that the Department has some scope for its activity in this direction. Encouragement given to the co-operative movement in establishing bacon factories would in an indirect fashion very largely serve the purposes of the small holding movement under this Act. Mr. Rider Haggard has done service to the small holdings movement by the inquiry which he has recently conducted, and by which he is thoroughly convinced that the success of dairy farming is very largely, if not entirely, due to the use made of co-operative principles.
    There are co-operative movements for all forms of produce, and we know that in Denmark they are enabled to supply us with a very large amount of produce which we might just as well raise from our own land by the adoption of scientific methods of cultivation. If we reared pigs in the same way as they do in Denmark we should have a stock on the land of 8,700,000 instead of 2,600,000, as at the present time. I am one of those who believe that pig rearing is one of the great possibilities of the small holdings movement. I do not claim to be an expert on pigs; nevertheless, having been brought up in an agricultural district, and seeing that I have relatives who are still there, I feel that pig rearing is a great possibility. I trust that encouragement will be afforded to the establishment of bacon factories, as I am glad to think the hon. Baronet has recently done, because I believe it will give a stimulus to small holdings and at the same time meet a great demand in our own country, which is now very largely supplied by a foreign although a friendly nation. Although Denmark has been engaged for a comparatively short time in this particular form of production, yet it has now most flourishing bacon factories. There are two specific points to which I wish to call the attention of the hon. Baronet. One is, in connection with small holdings, the lack of proper housing accommodation. That
    1564
    is one of the most crying evils in our rural districts. Many of us are familiar with the little rose-bowered cottage, which looks very fair from without and inspires many an artist. But when we go inside such cottages we find them to be veritable death traps, because of lack of accommodation and their unsuitability as dwellings. I spent part of my holiday in examining the conditions of certain Norfolk villages, and I was astounded to find the insufficiency of sleeping accommodation. Though I had been reared in these conditions, I was amazed to think how it was possible that agricultural labourers and their families could continue in health, let alone decency, in such conditions as those under which they now live. I think we do right in directing the attention of the Department to this particular evil and that we are justified in asking it to stimulate the local authorities in order to improve housing accommodation, which I feel sure, irrespective of party, every Member desires to see effected in our rural districts.
    A specific point which I wish to bring to the notice of my hon. Friend is one arising out of the principles of valuation. The hon. Baronet will remember that some week or two since I put a question to him in the House arising out of two cases from Erith and Cheshire which had been brought to my notice. The landlords and the tenant's interests of course are rightly safeguarded in anything we do. It is very often alleged that we who sit on these Benches are quite regardless of any vested interest in the country. Perhaps we are not so sympathetically disposed as those who happen to be personally concerned in those vested interests; nevertheless, from the ordinary point of view of justice, we are all desirous that interests shall be properly safeguarded in anything that we do, whether legislatively or administratively. But the landlord's interest can very easily be settled when it is a question of land acquisition. Land can be easily valued, despite the statements to the contrary. The land is being valued at the present time, and the State valuation might form a very fair basis when we are acquiring land. Then we come to the question of tenant rights, and I presume we have to admit that the tenant is entitled to compensation for crops, tillage, and so forth, and that these matters have to be taken into consideration when we negotiate for the acquisition of land. Some of these things, of course, are likely to be a benefit to the incoming tenant, and

    1565
    it would be very easy to settle the matter, because the county council could pay for them in the price of the land, and then charge the amount to the new tenant of the farm by increasing the rent. In the two particular cases to which I made reference, large demands have been made for prospective profits. That is the particular point to which I would desire the hon. Baronet to give his attention. What is the principle recognised by the Department in such a case as this? In the Erith case negotiations were opened up for the acquisition of some land. I am not going through the whole of the negotiations, but I will simply say that the time arrived when the council decided that powers had to be taken to compulsorily acquire some fourteen acres of land. The land owner claimed £3 per acre.
    While negotiations were proceeding the tenant negotiated for a further lease of nine years. The unexpired portion of his lease was five years; therefore he was seeking to get possession of the land for another fourteen years. I would point out that four-and-a-half years of his lease were unexpired at the time the negotiations were undertaken; therefore, it is four-and-a-half years that we have to take into account. It seemed to me an extraordinary claim that, £928 should be asked for prospective profits. Of course, if that is to be the principle recognised under this Act it is going to allow prohibitive charges to be made, and it will certainly diminish the possibility of anybody being able to get on to the land under such conditions. The county council employed a valuer who agreed that £928 was extortionate, and submitted that the claim should be £600. I wish to know to what extent does the Board recognise it to be desirable that compensation for prospective profits is to be taken into account. I can quite see that it will be a very profitable thing for a tenant to claim a lump sum as compensation for profits that he might not make in the years that are to come. I have been told that profit-making in agriculture is very doubtful; but, when we want to acquire land, we find that the profits are very substantial. If they can get those profits out of the land well and good. I am not arguing that compensation for prospective profits is wrong; all I desire to know is to what extent and on what principle does the Board recognise it to be right that this element should be taken into consideration when proposals for the acquisition of land are brought before it. The landowner, as
    1566
    I have remarked, simply asked £3 per acre, but the council valuer granted him £3 10s. per acre, or 10s. over and above what he asked. My hon. Friend may say that that is one piece of evidence of the good that can be effected by conciliatory action between the two parties. I am not going to say I support that, but I feel that there is a substantial point as to this question of compensation for prospective profits. I say that I quite agree that there might be a very reasonable element of claim in the matter, but the demand made by the tenant in this particular case was admitted to be exorbitant. Nevertheless, even then the, amount granted by the council valuer in my opinion made the land so costly that the price asked of the small holder was so prohibitive that the scheme had ultimately to be abandoned.
    I feel sure that everybody in the House will agree that it is desirable that we should get the people on to the land. We are constantly having statistics showing how the agricultural population are drifting away to the Dominions across the sea. Nobody offers objection to the agricultural labourer or anybody else emigrating, but it is eminently desirable that we should keep as much of the agricultural population at home as is possible, because it is the very foundation of our nation. We have got to offer them as good inducements as are offered to them in the Dominions. I feel that in this Act there is certainly one, inducement to them which buoys them up with great hope. We claim: that, unfortunately, unsympathetic administration to which the Act has been subjected has prevented it realising the full fruits which we contemplated would flow from it. I venture to hope that the now spirit which seems to be animating the Board of Agriculture may not be merely mere platitudes in the President's utterances, but may ultimately prove that the Board is convinced that it has got to avail iself to the full of the power it undoubtedly possesses. I hope that the ultimate result will be not 9,000 placed on the land in three years, but that the whole of the applicants shall have it made easy for them to apply, and shall have facilities to get on the land, and that the next three years will prove that the agitation which has been conducted in this House and the country has borne a great deal of fruit, and that the agricultural labourer, wherever he may be, who is desirous of having possession of a small plot of land shall have it made easy for him to acquire it under the beneficent provisions of the Act.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): I intervene at this stage not with any desire that the Debate should not go on, but as I think this is a suitable opportunity to deal with those questions which have been raised as regards bee disease, small holdings, and also questions affecting the action of the Commissioners and the President of the Board of Agriculture. First of all, let me deal with what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Edward Strauss) in moving to reduce the Vote. He began by saying that the Berkshire County Council were greatly to be found fault with because, after buying land for the provision of small holdings they had not allowed two tenant farmers on that land to remain in occupation. I would remind the hon. Member that I imagine the Berkshire County Council, when they bought the land bought it under the ordinary conditions that the tenants of those holdings had notice given by the landlord. My hon. Friend went further, and said that the county council did not require the whole of this particular land, and that they ought to allow the farmers to remain there and only take a portion. I would point out to him that county councils are only enabled to buy land for the purpose of the provision of small holdings, and not for the purpose of keeping large farms and having tenants on them. My hon. Friend passed on from that to the question of the Berkshire County Council having been applied to for some 2,000 acres of land by the North Berkshire Small Holdings Society, for which he has done so much. I should like to say that the Board fully recognise the public-spirited way in which my hon. Friend has dealt with this question of small holdings in Berkshire, and how he has enabled a large number of men to be put on the land. I give him every credit for the labour he has devoted and the money which he has been ready to risk in furtherance of this question. I would remind him that under the rules and regulations of the Board of Agriculture it is absolutely necessary that a county council in letting land to a Small Holdings Association shall ask either the rent to be paid in advance or a certain amount paid up equal to so much rent, in order that there shall be full and adequate protection, that there shall be no chance of any charge falling upon the local rates in consequence of any failure of any such society.
    Mr. E. STRAUSS: But not equal to two or three years' rent. Before they entertained our application they wanted nearly three years' rent in advance.
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I did not know my hon. Friend was going to raise this point. Some years ago this question was before me, and, speaking from memory, that is not the usual procedure at all, but only whatever is necessary to guarantee the county council against loss. I think they are perfectly justified in asking that so long as it is not unreasonable. My hon. Friend further on complained of the action of the Board of Agriculture and also found fault with the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. As far as I gathered, my hon. Friend complained that the President of the Board has not done all that he might have done as regards using his compulsory powers as to land which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Berkshire County Council refused to allow to be used for small holdings. My hon. Friend knows that I personally am not acquainted with all the details of this case. He was good enough, with his usual courtesy, to give me full and adequate notice that he proposed to raise this question in the House to-day, and therefore I had the opportunity of seeing Lord Carrington in this matter. He told me exactly how the situation was. The view of Lord Carrington is this, that he promised to do what he could for the Small Holdings Association and that he has carried out his promise. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners asserted that land could not be profitably worked for small holdings, and declined to let it even though they were offered a guarantee that would protect them from any loss if the experiment turned out a failure, as they anticipated it would. The applicants for whom the association applied required in all 105 acres, and six applicants for larger holdings required 535 acres. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners state that they are taking steps to satisfy the local demand for small holdings, and it is quite clear that the Board could not enforce the compulsory acquisition of the farms.
    If the President of the Board has information that the local demand for small holdings is not satisfied according to arrangements he will instruct one of the new Commissioners at once to bring the case to the attention of the county council with the view to the acquisition of the necessary land, and if the county council fail to satisfy the demand of the Board, he, the President, will at once do so in default of

    1569
    the council. Any ground that my hon. Friend may have of complaint is due to the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and for that the President of the Board of Agriculture is not responsible. I have informed my hon. Friend of the view of the President of the Board in this matter, I would hope I have been able to satisfy him that there is rather a misunderstanding on this question, and that the President of the Board is quite ready, if need be, to take very stringent measures to see that the small holders, in whom my hon. Friend takes so much interest in Berkshire, shall get their small holdings within a reasonable time and have them provided with them in some way or other. As regards what has been said on the subject of co-operation by the hon. Member for the Wokingham Division of Berkshire (Kr. E. Gardner) as to small holdings increasing the rates, that was a very alarming statement to make, but as far as I am aware both as county councillor and as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, I have heard of no alarming increase in the rates. To begin with, the increase in rate is limited to ld. in the £, and as far as I am aware no county council has yet had to raise that. It is not at all likely to happen when we know of the sum of money that was voted by Parliament for the purpose of paying the expenditure on the acquisition of land. In fact, almost every possible expenditure the county council can make for small holdings is provided for out of the grant of £100,000 which, as the House very well knows, was more than was required. The whole object of that was to secure that there should be no charge on the local rates for the acquisition of land for small holdings. A much more likely tendency would be to increase the county assessments and therefore have the tendency rather to diminish the county rate than to increase it. As a matter of fact in this matter there is not the slightest fear that the local rates are to be increased.
    6.0 P.M.
    The Member for North Bucks (Sir Harry Verney) spoke about the question of cooperation and seemed to thank that the Board of Agriculture were not alive to the keen necessity for co-operation. I am afraid my hon. Friend was not present at the luncheon given to the President of the Board of Agriculture some little while ago. I myself was not present at it, but I think I read in the papers that he was reported to have stated that one of the objects of the new Commissioners and in having an
    1570
    assistant secretary and a new land branch was that the assistant secretary should have more time for dealing with this very question of co-operation amongst other matters. I had not the opportunity of hearing my noble Friend on that occasion, because, curiously enough, on that particular day I was speaking in the County of Suffolk on the subject of co-operation amongst the large tenant farmers near Bury St. Edmunds, over 400 of whom have lately come together with a view to setting up a factory on the lines which have been so very profitable in the interests of agriculture in Denmark. Therefore, my hon. Friend may rest assured that both the President and myself are doing everything in our power to encourage co-operation amongst farmers, large and small, in order that they may get the legitimate profits which at present they do not always obtain. The hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. L. Hardy) asked why the vote for the Board of Agriculture had been placed first in the Vote on Account. He being an old Member of the House, should know that the vote to be put first is selected not by Members on this Bench, but by the Front Opposition Bench, and if he has any complaint to make he should make it to his leaders and not suggest that the fault is ours.
    The hon. Member complained that there had been great delay in the preparation of statistics, and that the Report lately presented to the House, had only been made after an interval of more than a year. Some of the delay arose from the fact that a General Election intervened, making it impossible to lay the paper on the table and proceed with the printing of it. It should be remembered, however, that that report, unlike other reports, is rather a record of the work of the year. The procedure of the Board as regards giving immediate information is to issue leaflets and to publish notices in their monthly journal. If the matter is more urgent, and it is necessary that the information should be given as speedily as possible to agriculturists, it is supplied by means of Press notices, so that farmers may read it in their daily or weekly papers. If hon. Members can show us what more we can do to bring information quickly to the notice of farmers we shall be glad to receive their suggestions. The hon. Member also complained that in connection with hops, farmers did not, receive speedy information as to prices.

    1571
    We give to the Press as early as we can the information that we get from official sources, but the hon. Member is aware that official reports from abroad are frequently received at a later period than the information obtained by the societies themselves. Complaint was also made of delay on the part of the Board in dealing with pests and diseases. I think the hon. Member was rather unreasonable. If we had attempted to introduce a Bill enabling us to deal with pests and diseases before those pests and diseases had obtained some magnitude, it would have been said that we were unnecessarily applying compulsion, and farmers, like other people, dislike compulsion unless it is absolutely necessary.
    As regards a fruit branch of the Board of Agriculture, I can assure the hon. Member the question has not been lost sight of. Steps are being taken by the Board to get money if possible either from the Development Fund or from the Treasury, to set up the special fruit farms which the hon. Member desires to see established. The Board are most anxious to establish this branch, and if they can get the funds they will certainly do so. Hon. Members have referred to the existence of bee disease, and have complained that the Board of Agriculture have only taken the matter up lately, and then in a rather casual manner. That is not the case. As long ago as 1907 the Board first began to investigate the question. A great difficulty as regards bee disease is that it has been found impossible to isolate the bacillus or the particular parasite by which the bee is infected. Investigations are going on at the present moment, and our investigators hope to find the parasite responsible. But many difficulties exist. It is easy to say that the Board have not done all that they ought to have done in the matter, but before you can provide a remedy for a disease it is necessary to find out exactly what the disease is, and whether it is infectious or can be carried. The Noble Lord opposite (Marquess of Tullibardine) suggested that we had done nothing as regards isolation, control, or destruction. Control or isolation is very difficult. It is difficult to prevent the exportation or importation of bees on their own initiative.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Can bees fly away after they have been burnt?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: If the Noble Lord says that the remedy he proposes is destruction that is another matter. I understood him to propose control and restriction, and I was pointing out that it was somewhat difficult to control and restrict the movement of bees. The Noble Lord, however, may have some plan. I cannot deal with the question of legislation except incidentally. I brought the matter before the President of the Board of Agriculture, together with the view which has been expressed that such legislation would be uncontroversial. The feeling of the President is that legislation is not desirable until we have ascertained exactly what the disease is, whether it is infectious, and whether the proper remedy is destruction, in which case there would have to be compensation. I cannot say more than that investigations are being made, and that if the President is satisfied that legislation is desirable, he will be ready at some future time to bring forward legislation dealing with the control and destruction of bees affected with what is known as the Isle of Wight disease.
    The Board have been strongly, but I do not think very fairly, attacked for remissness in the matter of making applications to the Development Commissioners in the interests of agriculture. I believe that no Department has been so active as the Board in making applications for grants. Agriculturists also have made applications to the Board, and those applications have been sent on to the Development Commissioners. Not only is it the duty of the Board of Agriculture to make applications, but it is also the duty of agriculturists themselves who desire grants for the development of agriculture to send applications to the Board in order that they may be sent on to the Commissioners if the Board think them deserving of consideration. What has happened up to the present? The Development Commissioners have already made a grant of £40,000 a year for the development of horse breeding. They have also made an extra grant of £9,700 to certain institutions and agricultural colleges. That money is in addition to the sums received by those institutions in other years directly from the Board of Agriculture. The grant has been made for the year 1911–12 for the specific object of investigation and research in agriculture.
    Further, the Board of Agriculture are discussing with the Commissioners a great scheme of agricultural research and investigation, which I believe will be of the

    1573
    greatest advantage to agriculture in the future. The Development Commissioners have provisionally agreed to grant £40,000 a year for that purpose to the Board of Agriculture, subject to the sanction of the Treasury, whose approval has to be obtained. That will be a very useful grant indeed. For the first time in our history we shall have in this country money provided by the Government to the extent of £40,000 for investigation and research by skilled and properly paid men, devoting their whole attention to the work, as they do in other countries, with a view to finding out new ways of benefiting agriculture. This is a matter which has been too much neglected up to the present in this country, both from want of funds and from lack of proper machinery. Other applications have been made to the Commissioners and are at present under their consideration. If further applications are sent in by agricultural bodies they will be forwarded in due course to the Commissioners. It is a complete mistake to suppose that the Board have been at all lax in this matter. On the contrary, they have acted very expeditiously, and, as I have pointed out, have already obtained or have been provisionally promised for the assistance of agriculture, very large sums of money, amounting to nearly £100,000 a year, an amount which I hope may be still further increased. I can only assure the House that I myself will not be in any way satisfied until we have a great deal more money than that applied to the purposes of education, research, and investigation on behalf of the agriculture of this country, which, as we all know, has been so neglected up to the present. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire gave us one of his usual animated and brilliant speeches—he always keeps so much to the point, and speaks from the heart, and he has laboured earnestly on behalf of the working classes of this country£but I think he is a little mistaken in thinking that 30,000 approved applicants remain unsatisfied.
    Mr. LOGAN: Twenty thousand unsatisfied. There were 30,000 applicants, and of that I gather 7,500 have received adequate attention. I asked what has become of the other 20,000?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: My hon. Friend asks what became of those applicants who apparently had not been satisfied? The answer to that is that we found a large number of them to be unsuitable or to be not qualified. My hon. Friend will
    1574
    agree with me when I say that after due investigation—and I speak myself as a member of a county council and of the Small Holdings Committee of that, council—and after carefully investigating and sifting the applications, we are not only acting in the interests of the county council, but also in the interests of the applicants themselves, if we reject those who do not fulfil the conditions. The worst service we could do to a man is to put him on land where he Would lose the little money he has got. I would also remind my hon. Friend, too, that there were a large number of men who made applications for land, and who afterwards withdrew their applications, because they had changed their mind, and had lost their desire for a small holding, or because they desired to make application in another part of the country. These, of course, would swell the list of applications. My hon. Friend said that 7,000 applications had been satisfied. The last, figures I saw showed there were nearly 10,000 applicants who had been satisfied with small holdings. That is not only counting those who have been directly satisfied by the action of the county councils themselves, but is taking into consideration the large number of men who have got small holdings indirectly. I myself have been approached and asked whether I would let some particular land for small holdings. Upon my saying that I was ready to let it, either directly or through the county council. I was told by the applicants that they would prefer taking it from myself.
    It was urged that owing to the difficulty and slowness of getting land, more compulsory purchase was needed. The hon. Gentleman who raised that point knows perfectly well that I am one of those who never for one moment has flinched from putting into force the compulsory powers of the Act. In fact I am rather inclined to go further than some hon. Members desire. At the same time I would like to point out to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who think that we are going too slowly in this matter, that there are some objections to compulsory purchase from several points of view. It takes longer actually to get possession of the land by the county council; also when you have to obtain it by compulsory purchase, for one reason or another you generally find you have to pay more for it than if you bought in the open market, or by agreement. There is the case of leases in which large compensation may have to be paid if the lease has a long

    1575
    time to run and you desire to get immediate possession. And it is no use taking land by compulsion if you are not going to use it at once. I do not for one moment shrink from putting compulsory powers into operation where necessary, but I think it is one of those matters to be dealt with with great caution in the interests of small holders themselves. Where a man is able to pay a living rent, it is well. It is no good letting land to a man which he may have to pay a rent for that will not enable him to make a living out of it. There is the danger if the land is taken by compulsion.
    A great thing to do and to encourage—and I have always urged it on my own county council—is to buy land in the open market. My experience has been that where you buy land in the open market, you very often are actually able to reduce the rent of the tenant when he comes in as a small holder. Owing to the fact that county councils have been able to buy land when other people do not want to buy, and when there is not so much competition, they have been able to buy as I have indicated. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board is fully alive to the necessity of seeing people do get holdings within a reasonable time. That is one of the reasons that, as hon. Members are aware, the President of the Board of Agriculture has only very lately appointed six—I should say seven—additional small holdings commissioners, in order that county councils may be assisted in acquiring the land they need. It was only called to my notice the other day that an old Member of this House, who took the chair at a meeting of the County Councils Association, said that he welcomes the appointment of these new commissioners because he believed they would be a very great assistance to the county council in endeavouring to deal with the difficulty of getting land for the provision of small holdings.
    There was a question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire, the very important question of the milk standard. This I know has been agitating, and is agitating agriculturists at the present moment, especially those in the north-east of England, in Yorkshire, and in Durham. It is rather curious how people forget the origin of these milk regulations. To judge from a report of a great meeting like that lately held at Darlington, where it was said
    1576
    there were 400 farmers present, it might be supposed that the Board of Agriculture had issued these regulations on their own initiative. It was owing to an agitation on the part of the agriculturists in the country when there were no regulations, that the Board of Agriculture issued the new milk regulations to protect the good, honest milk-seller. If I remember rightly the farmers and agriculturists themselves recommended a higher standard of milk, and a larger percentage of fat than the Board of Agriculture desired for a moment to put forward. Now we are asked either to reduce that standard or to make other regulations for particular areas. It is perfectly impossible to treat one part of the country different to another, or to differentiate between different parts of the country. This is only a presumptive standard. I remember very well soon after these regulations came into force that Mr. Hanbury, who was then President of the Board of Agriculture, issued a circular pointing out to the local authorities—and I believe also to the benches of magistrates—that this was only a presumptive standard and that local authorities should not prosecute a farmer on the first occasion, but should rather wait the result of two or three sales of milk, and note the changed conditions under which the milk was obtained. I am afraid the local authorities—certainly in some cases—have not acted upon that circular. I think also that benches of magistrates have been inclined to take too narrow a view of the object and meaning of these regulations. I believe one of the great difficulties in this matter has been the question of cream. What happens? When a milk-seller is prosecuted for selling milk below the standard he immediately produces a guarantee which he had got from the farmer, and in the present state of the law the farmer is summoned on account of the milk because he gives a warranty that it is pure when it leaves his farm. The remedy, it seems to me, is that the liability for the purity of milk ought to cease when the farmer has ceased to have any control of that milk; that in common fairness and justice no man should be made responsible, no warranty or guarantee ought to be allowed to make him responsible, for any milk that has passed out of his hands, and which he has no control over. It is quite clear however honest a farmer may be he has no power to prevent that milk being adulterated by a dishonest dealer after it has left his possession. It makes a great deal of dif-

    1577
    ference whether milk is that of the same morning or the evening. You may have the one milk with a 4.10 percentage of fat and the other as low as 2.5.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich spoke of cats being destroyed by gamekeepers, which is the only other point I wish to deal with. I will remind the hon. Member that the Board have no power over this matter, nor of the housing question, which belongs to the Local Government Board. I quite agree with him though that the housing conditions in many parts of the country need improvement. And in parts of the country the accommodation is wholly insufficient. I think we ought to take heed of the need for more housing and better accommodation. Then my hon. Friend raised the question of the excessive valuation of land. Of course that is a question entirely outside the province of the Board of Agriculture. All the Board of Agriculture does is to appoint a valuer, and when the decision of the valuer is taken there is no appeal either on the part of the county council or the landlord, or the tenant against the decision of the valuer. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that if the land is let upon lease for a term of years it is right and proper that the value should be reckoned having regard to these conditions, but we have no power over that, and the question is entirely in the hands of the valuer, who settles the rate of compensation. It is for the county council to say whether that is too high and whether they will accept it or not. We know that it has been the case that many county councils have thought the rate too high. I think I have dealt with all the points raised, and, as I said at the beginning, if there are any points that I have not covered I shall be glad to deal with them later on.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: With regard to the question of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I cannot quite leave the matter where the hon. Baronet has left it. I think he has unconsciously reflected injuriously upon the Commissioners, and perhaps I might also claim the indulgence of the Committee, because of the magnitude of the Commissioners' estates and the consequent importance of their relation to this question of small holdings. First, let me say, that the hon. Baronet could not have left the matter as he did, if my hon. Friend and colleague had not left unsaid certain things which would have made it impos-
    1578
    sible for the hon. Baronet to leave the case as he did. First of all let me take the question of the Commissioners' general attitude towards small holdings, and I go back before 1907 to show that the action of the Commissioners was not compelled by the force or fear of public opinion. Before the Act of 1907 passed, of the agricultural holdings held by the Commissioners, 75 per cent. were under a hundred acres and 66 per cent. were under fifty acres. That shows that there could not be any unsympathetic feeling to the idea of farms being held in small quantities of land. After 1907 the Commissioners have by lettings to county councils no less than 5,000 acres in small holdings, and by sales nearly 1,000 acres more. The Committee will naturally want to know what is now the general policy of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with regard to small holdings. It is this, that whenever a termination of tenancy takes place, except where it is merely a technical termination, then as a matter of course the instructions of the Commissioners are positive, that all suitable farms and possibly some that are unsuitable, as in the case of this farm, are to be offered to the county council, and that the county council should have the option of taking them for small holdings whether suitable or not.
    What I rose to protest against was the idea that the only thing that prevented the hon. Member for Southwark getting this farm for his list of applicants was the particular reason he gave. He did not say that there was another reason which was in operation long before the hon. Member made his application and before the Commissioner's agent advised that it was unsuitable and before the advisers of the Board of Agriculture settled that it was an unsuitable farm for small holdings. Anyone who knows Berkshire farming will appreciate the reason, and that is that it stood self-condemned from the beginning as suitable for planting small holdings upon it. The land is high above the sea and far removed from a water supply, and was in fact only suitable for sheep farming. For these reasons, I think it is only right that the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should he put properly before the Committee. And that makes me say something else. That while the hon. Member for Southwark asked for twelve small holdings we have on this and the adjoining farm created six. We have created six small holdings, with an average of thirty-four or thirty-five acres, and we are able to say that if we have not

    1579
    satisfied all the applicants we have at least satisfied the local applicants. Many applications came from a distance, and some of them for holdings of from eighty to two hundred acres. We have satisfied all the small applicants and the local applicants, and there remains of the land nothing more than is necessary to conduct a sheep farm in the only way in which such a farm can be run. The hon. Baronet, in his speech, admitted that at any public inquiry, with a view to compulsory action, it would be shown that this farm was mostly high down land with no water supply and that compulsory acquisition for small holdings could not result from such inquiry.
    Mr. STANIER: I am not going to follow hon. Gentlemen opposite into their excursions as to why they cannot get land and as to why intending small holders are at present without land, but if they would read the report of the Board of Agriculture they would find out there was a very important reason other than that which has been stated as the action on the part of the landlords, and that is the enormous growth of the urban authorities in this country. In the report of the Board of Agriculture they will find that in the last eighteen years 22,000 small holdings have been submerged by the growth of the urban authorities of this country, and that at the present moment I believe I am correct in stating there are less small holdings than when this Government came into office and brought forward their Small Holdings Bill. Now that is one of the great reasons, and I do not think that the whole of the blame ought to be thrown upon the landlord class.
    Turning to the Vote we are going to give to the agriculture of this country; it is a small vote which comes to about £30,000, and that comes out of a total of £194,000. We, as agriculturists, expect a great deal more and we are entitled to a great deal more. The hon. Baronet told us one or two things that he would do if he had the funds to do them. I contend that the present Government ought no longer to complain that the agriculture of this country has been neglected; they have had plenty of time since they came into power to put it on a very much better footing and if all has not been done that could have been done they are to blame. They appointed a very small and select advisory committee not long ago; we do not know what they have done or whether they have sat or how often they have sat, and what is more I
    1580
    believe they are only a name. But to return to the Vote. What is the agricultural budget of this country? Those who have taken an interest in the budget of this country often ask for information with regard to the budget of other countries. The question has been often asked of the Board of Agriculture, but they have always declined to give the information. A question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to give the information. Possibly the Government are absolutely ashamed to say what they vote for the agriculture of this country. If you analyse this Vote for £194,000, you can cut it up in rather a nice way. You first of all have to slice off an item for the Botanical Gardens. You cannot call that agriculture. Then there is the cost of the collection of statistics for the fishing industry. That cannot be called agriculture. And then there is the North Sea Fisheries. If you take the £33,000 which go to these funds, you really only leave about £161,000 for agriculture for Great Britain, and that comes to about ld. per head to the population of this country.
    Are the Government pleased or are they ashamed of it? If they are ashamed of it, why cannot they follow the example of other countries? I have some friends who live in Ireland. One cannot complain of the amount of money they receive, but it is out of all proportion. There you will find that the Board of Agriculture receive £426,000 a year, making per head of the population a sum of 2s., as against ld. Per head of this country. There, must be some reason—is the reason political, or that they shout the louder? If they shout it behoves the Opposition to shout at the Government and ask why they are not treating us in a better manner. Hon. Members opposite are quite ready to speak for any of their particular fads. The fad of the Government of the clay is small holdings, and we have had ample evidence to-day to show that that fad can be carried through the ramifications of the Board of Agriculture to suit their own ends when other subjects are forgotten and left behind. I can point to the case brought forward to-day of the reports issued by the Board of Agriculture which are so collated that they are practically not worth the paper they are printed on. I have brought this question forward for the last four years ever since I became a Member of the House, and during that time we have had these reports issued when they are

    1581
    nineteen months old. On the other hand, the reports relating to small holdings are produced at the earliest possible moment, because they suit the particular views of the Government in power. I do not complain of this, but it shows that those reports can be brought out earlier if the Board chooses to do so.
    The point I was making was with regard to the Budgets of other countries. Although we are denied in this House the information we ask for from the Government Department we can easily gather information from other sources if we take the trouble. I have taken the trouble, and I find that the expenditure is in about the same ratio as Great Britain is to Ireland in foreign countries as compared with this country. Take the United States of America. Probably you will tell me that there are 90,000,000 people there wholly de pendent on agriculture. That I deny, because there are large numbers who have got their works, and they are rapidly increasing. There they give £3,000,000 to agriculture besides grants for educational purposes. A little country like Denmark, with 3,000,000 inhabitants, has been held up to us very highly for its great co-operative work. Yes, but in Denmark the Government give as much as they do in this country for agricultural work, and yet we have 37,000,000 people and they have only about 3,000,000. That is the extraordinary way in which we do things. I think it is most laughable when the hon. Baronet, representing the Board of Agriculture, gets up in this House, as he did this afternoon, and says he would have done so and so if he had had the funds. Agriculture has long been neglected, and the Board of Agriculture certainly ought not to make such an excuse. It has been said that the elections in the winter delayed the work of the Board. I cannot see how that can be a fair excuse, because the elections are not connected with the officers of the Board.
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I said the Dissolution of Parliament.
    Mr. STANIER: The hon. Baronet mentioned the election. Perhaps it is the Dissolution that he means, but that can only affect two heads of the Department, the President and the representative of the Board in this House. During the election the rest of the officials ought to be at their work, and if they were not they ought to have been.
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I said that the
    1582
    difficulty arose when Parliament dissolved because there is no House to present reports to, and they cannot be presented until the House meets again.
    Mr. STANIER: If that is so, how is it that you laid on the Table the Diseases of Animals Report in dummy on the 29th March this year, and when I asked a question on the 29th May, you said it would he issued in a few weeks? How can you put those two things side by side? The report I referred to was laid in dummy on the Table on the 29th March, and still we are told it will be issued in a few weeks time. I have here the last report issued which is for the year 1909, and it was issued on the 20th July last year. I asked a question about the report, and I was told it was only a coincidence, and it would not occur again. I verily believe that we shall be nearer the 20th July before that report is issued. I wish to put the question of small holdings in another light to that in which it has been put before the House this afternoon. We have been told that it is very hard indeed to get small holdings on large farms and large estates. I agree that it may be hard, but even if it is this is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. If you want to make a success of small holdings you must make them in proportion. You must have small holdings growing up from the size of cottage holdings to the size of the farm itself. I studied this question long before I ever thought of going into politics, not only as a farmer but also as an agent, and a landlord. My father before me also worked out this problem, and we have some very elaborate details upon the subject, and every day they are growing in strength and they are a very fair basis to work on.
    The amount of land which a small holder requires is according to the value of the land. The value of the land, for the sake of argument, may be taken, if it is fairly rented, by the rent itself. If you take the rent of agricultural land at 25s. an acre you will find that you can get a most suitable cottage holding of about six acres, which is most useful to the cottager. Then you should take the next basis as 13 acres and put a man who has certain members of his family who can work on it. You can then allow a man to climb from the 6 acre holding to the 13 acre holding, and afterwards you will get that man to climb from a 13 acre holding to a 33 acre farm, which is the size that must be given if you want

    1583
    a man to give his whole work to that farm. Then you will find you can work up from 33 acres to 120 acres, and even to a larger farm than that. In this way you can allow the man who goes on his cottage holding to climb the ladder of life and bring him to the larger and better farms. If you want proof of this I can mention cases where this has actually been done. If you divide the whole of a district into small holdings or into large farms you destroy farming in both directions. First of all you make too many small holdings. If you have not the larger farms for the men to work on during the time that they have not got work on their own holdings, then they will not make their own holdings pay.
    7.0 P.M.
    Often the big farmer wants the man on the small holding to help him when he requires extra labour which he does not employ permanently the whole year round. If you can work this question economically and get a proper proportion of small holdings, middle sized farms and bigger farms, you will find that you are working more for the good of the country than by cutting off the big farms and making too many small holdings. The question of swine fever has been raised by the hon. Member for Rye. The agriculturists of this country are grateful that the Departmental Committee have reported, and that their report has been put before this House and the county in a comparatively small time. I want to impress upon the Board of Agriculture the fact that since that report has been issued swine fever has increased in the most alarming manner. During the week ending 27th May this year there were eighty-three outbreaks of swine fever and 756 animals were slaughtered. In the corresponding week of last year there were only twenty-eight outbreaks and 180 pigs slaughtered—an increase of nearly three times the amount of swine fever in this country. On 3rd June the case was a little better, but it is still alarming to a degree. If it is still so alarming I should like to ask the representative of the Board of Agriculture what he intends to do to carry out some of the recommendations of this report. I would like to know if those recommendations will be issued as soon as possible in order to prevent this disease increasing in the way it has done recently. There are one or two recommendations which are excellent in themselves, but which I do not
    1584
    think are quite fair to the local communities. One of those recommendations is that which refers to the local inspection of markets. The report says that this inspection ought to be done by the local veterinary officers. I contend that it is absolutely wrong. The local veterinary officers are the local veterinary surgeons, of the district, and they therefore have to look at and perhaps have to condemn pigs belonging to their customers. You are asking a man to condemn his own bread-and-butter, and I am absolutely certain you will never get the thing to work until you have put on the veterinary surgeons of the Board of Agriculture, who do not have private practice, who are above suspicion, and who have a perfect knowledge of the disease. That is a deep flaw in the Report, and I hope the Board of Agriculture will take note of it. There is on the other side the, question of the registration of castrating surgeons. We have in my own county tried that for some time, and it has been an undoubted help in tracing the disease, and I am absolutely certain if you would carry it out throughout the country you would gain very great help.
    You must slaughter animals that are exposed to contagion. If you do not I believe all the money you are spending trying to eradicate this disease might as well be thrown into a brook. There are at the present time any number of pigs that have been exposed to contagion that have not been slaughtered, and that have been allowed to remain on the premises till they have either got well or the farmer has either killed or disposed of them. In my humble opinion the pigstyes have a great deal to do with the disease. Many of them are far from sanitary, and many of them have been condemned by the sanitary authorities and the inspectors of the Board. Yet they have never been put in proper order, and the pigs have been allowed to go back into them. There is no shadow of doubt that the pigstyes ought to be closed and kept closed till the alterations are completed and done according to the order of the authorities. I should like there to be uniform procedure throughout the country, and much more rapid action by the authorities. I know very often there is unavoidable delay, but I firmly believe more rapid action could easily be taken if there were more uniform procedure throughout the country. There are different ways of doing things in different areas, and that has a great deal to do with the delay. There are several other points,

    1585
    but at this late hour of the evening, and as the hon. Baronet has replied, I suppose on behalf of the Board, I feel it is very difficult to go on asking questions when we shall have no reply.
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, I will certainly reply.
    Mr. STANIER: The last time I was accused of bringing forward agricultural matters without having given notice, notice was not given because there were grave reasons why it could not be given. I was very pleased to hear one speaker ask what is going to be done about the milk in this country. I am one of those deeply disappointed that the Government has not thought fit to bring in a Milk Bill. I know that is no part of the duty of the Board of Agriculture, but there is something that is the duty of the Board of Agriculture, and that is the Tuberculosis Order. Agriculturists have passed resolutions and made requests that that Order should be brought forward. There is a great deal of fear in the agricultural world. It is thought that not only the consumer of milk, but also the herds of this country should be protected. It is an undoubted fact that foreign buyers of stock in this country are beginning to wonder why nothing is done to prevent this scourge among cattle, but that is nothing compared with the consumer, who ought to be protected from this virulent disease. There are at present many orders given at different times. Not long ago three different orders were given by three different authorities with regard to a farm I have. It was an absolute physical impossibility to comply with them all. The first man said the windows must be made to open, and there must be more air in the cow-house, although it was of ample dimensions. The next man who came along did not think anything about the windows opening, but said "we must have perfect light for the cows." I do not know whether it was in order that the cows might read the newspapers early in the morning or what it was, but he wanted perfect light The third man who came along did not care a bit about the windows being opened or about there being perfect light; he wanted the manure yard which was in the centre of the fold taken 150 yards away. The three towns are Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham. They receive the milk from the same farm. Liverpool receives it weekdays in the morning, and Manchester at night, and because the trains do not suit either of those towns the milk goes to Bir-
    1586
    mingham on Sunday. Therefore the three authorities came and made three different sets of regulations for this one farm. How can that be for the good of the country or for the good of the farmer, or for the good of the milk itself? It shows the time is long past when we ought to have had a Milk Bill in order to protect the farmer, who is subject to having these extraordinary orders made upon him. I also want to touch upon the reports that have been made to this House on the subject of tuberculosis. It is extraordinary how little notice is ever taken of those reports. The other day I was reading one issued in 1888, and on page 25, paragraph 79, we find this statement:—
    "Since all authorities are agreed that the disease is hereditary, we think it highly desirable farmers should in their own as well as in the public interest discontinue breeding from tuberculous stock."
    One member of the Committee, who still ranks among the leading surgeons of this country, felt so strongly on the matter that he went on to say:—
    "Tuberculosis is notorious even among the laity as a disease which is transmitted by the parent to the off-spring."
    If those are the facts, how is it you cannot bring forward the Tuberculosis Order and pass it without the Milk Bill, which you will say belongs to another department. Why should the two go together? Why cannot the Board of Agriculture bring for ward their Order and put it into force. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a complaint about it, could you not refer him to some of the facts I stated at the opening of my speech and show him how the agriculturists of this country are treated compared with other countries. He is bringing forward Sanatorium Clauses in a Bill which is of great importance and which now is before the country, and, if you are going to attack the disease, it will be no good doing it by half measures. You must absolutely eradicate it, and the only way to eradicate it from the animals of the country is on the basis of the order made at the time the last Milk Bill was before the country. It is grossly unfair on the urban authorities to put off this Milk Bill. I have been one of those who have blocked Bills belonging to urban authorities for the last two or three years. I helped to destroy the milk clauses in the London County Council Bill, and I did it on the understanding there was to be a Milk Bill brought forward in this country so that there would be uniform action throughout the country. If the Bill is to, he put off, I shall not myself block the milk clauses—
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order, is the hon. Member in order in referring to the Milk Bill?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lyell): The hon. Member is in order in referring to the administration by the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Member in order in referring to a possible introduction of a Milk Bill?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have listened to the hon. Member, and I do not think he is out of order.
    Mr. STANIER: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme does not see the seriousness of the case. If he had thought a little more about it, I do not think he would have made the remark he has clone. I should like to know what is being done by the Board of Agriculture to attack anthrax disease in this country. At the present moment anthrax is, perhaps, not as severe as it has been, but still it is far too prevalent, and when one comes to think of the number of human beings who are attacked by anthrax in consequence of corning into contact with the disease in the animal, I think it behoves the Board to see if they cannot do something more to find out whence the disease comes. There are several ways in which it may come here; it may be imported through the feeding stuffs used by the farmers themselves, but the more critical point arises from the manner in which hides are brought into this country in ships, and afterwards the vessels are used for the conveyance of feeding stuffs. I cannot see myself why ships that have been loaded with hides and reloaded with feeding stuffs cannot be reported to the Board of Agriculture.
    I ask also that something should be done to help forward the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Amendment Acts that are now before the House. We have had no word from the Board of Agriculture as to what their attitude is to be regarding these Bills. The Member for Oswestry has a most excellent little Bill on that subject, and I think the Board of Agriculture might well help it forward, especially if it is, as it certainly ought to be, a non-contentious measure. It is one that will be to the advantage, at any rate, of the farming community. Perhaps I am treading on ground that may call for another interruption from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but I will ask the hon. Baronet if he really cannot think seriously, if he cannot do something to
    1588
    help the agriculturists of this country? He has often made promises at meetings to do various things, but I have never yet heard him denouncing his own Board. I think before long we ought to hear him do that, especially if he brings forward excuses such as he has advanced to-day. I earnestly thank the House for having allowed me to ventilate some of my grievances.
    Mr. BECK: I do not think the hon. Member who has just sat down can be blamed by his Constituency for not thoroughly covering the agricultural field. I am only thankful, as one who is also desirous to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes, that the question of bee disease in the Isle of Wight had been mentioned before the hon. Member approached it. He made a rather curious speech in regard to small holdings. He first accused the Board of Agriculture of adopting small holdings as a kind of hobby. He apparently suggested that it had, nothing whatever to do with the Board of Agriculture to advocate a small holdings policy, but in another part of his speech he told us that the solution of the agricultural problem was to be found in an agricultural ladder, starting with the small cottage garden and going step by step up to big holdings. It is an absolute figment of the imagination to state that any man ever suggested that all big farms should he cut up into small holdings. But what we complain of is that in large tracts of country, in county after county, the lower rung of the agricultural ladder has been knocked away entirely, and it is impossible for an agricultural labourer to get even a rood of agricultural land.
    We are glad to congratulate the President of the Board on having appointed six additional commissioners; our complaint is however that that Board—the one authority which should have had full faith in small holdings, the authority which we so warmly supported in passing the Small Holdings Act, has not administered it in either a courageous or efficient manner. For my part, I do not complain either of the county councils, the landowners, or the big farmers. None of these particular bodies, with few exceptions ever suggested that they had any particular faith in a Liberal Small Holdings Act. But we did believe that the President of the Board of Agriculture had great faith in that Act, and what we do complain of is that that faith has not been shown by the works of his Board. The difficulty has been this,

    1589
    instead of the Board of Agriculture spurring the movement on, it has proved to be a delaying authority. Those of us who were responsible for the 1907 Act have on our consciences the 8,000 applicants whose claims are still unsatisfied, whose applications have been submitted to every test in regard to efficiency and respectability, and who still are unable to obtain a foot of ground. It is for that reason we are thankful for the appointment of more Small Holdings Commissioners. But we do want to be shown at the Board of Agriculture real faith in our small holdings policy. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to sneer at our Small Holdings Bill; if it does not work better than at present it must be deemed to be a failure. But we believe the fault does not he with the Bill: the fault is in the administration of it. I do not for a moment suggest that you can get a small holding with the same ease that you can buy a pound of sugar over the village shop counter. The acquiring of land must be a long and difficult process, and you can never build up a satisfactory small holding system in any country on a basis of injustice. You must do justice to the man in possession of the land. But there are opportunities in every district in England for forming small holdings. Land is constantly coming into the market, and advantage should be taken of that. I believe no more satisfactory way of acquiring land for small holdings could be devised, and any excess land thus purchased could, I am sure, be disposed of without material loss. With regard to the new Commissioners, I think we all wish them God-speed; their course will be one of considerable difficulty; some have very large areas to administer. I cannot say that the division into areas is entirely satisfactory. In parts of the country I know it seems that some of the most progressive county councils have been given very active Commissioners who have jurisdiction over very small areas; whereas, in some of the most unprogressive counties, you have eight, nine, and even twelve counties lumped together under one Commissioner. I do not wish to pre-judge them; I can only say that we earnestly hope that the Board of Agriculture is at last going to tackle this question earnestly and sincerely.
    I should also like to join in inviting the Board to do its utmost for co-operation. It was my privilege on the occasion mentioned by my hon. Friend to hear him
    1590
    speak some very weighty words of wisdom to co-operators near Bury St. Edmunds. We do not accuse my hon. Friend of any want of sympathy with agriculture. I think, indeed, he has proved that the cause of agriculture is very near his heart, but we do hope that the sympathy which he feels will be communicated more rapidly and in a more galvanic manner to the Board over which he presides. I do not think it would be right for me to plead with the Board of Agriculture for any relaxation of tire swine fever regulations, but I do trust they will keep this matter earnestly before them. My Constituency suffers greatly because its pigs are not allowed to be imported into Scotland. Scottish farmers may buy Welsh pigs, but they do not find them so satisfactory as the Essex pigs. I add my voice in all modesty and sincerity to those which have been raised in asking the Board of Agriculture to leave no stone unturned to deal wit h this very serious hindrance to one of the great industries—pig breeding and pig feeding—in this country.
    Those of us who have taken an interest in small holdings are not ungrateful to the Board for meeting us in the way they have done. Any criticism we may indulge in is not made in an unsympathetic or hostile spirit, but we do feel there is a grand opportunity for doing something to stop that constant draining away of the best of our men from the agricultural districts. It is easy to laugh at men whose feelings carry them away and induce them to exalt, the agricultural labourer into a sort of angel, and to suggest that he suffers great torture, but it is indeed a terrible spectacle to see a countryside denuded of the best part of its population. For the ordinary man with brain and enterprise the English village is not a suitable home; it is only those who are content to go on without hope of advancement or without hope of a rise in their circumstances who can continue to live in the villages. I believe that every hon. Member, in whatever part of the House he sits, is anxious to see this problem solved, and to give a greater inducement to men to remain on the land. Therefore we do trust that the Board of Agriculture will leave no stone unturned to work to the very utmost of its capacity the Act for which we are so largely responsible—the Small Holdings Act of 1907.
    Mr. SPEAR: I rise to ask if the hon. Baronet can give us any further report on the researches of the Departmental Committee on the question of epizootic abor-

    1591
    tion in this country. Agriculturists are looking with great anxiety and are hoping that, as a result of their researches, some preventive or some remedy may be found for this disease, which has devastated our herds and which, I venture to say, is menacing our milk supply. We are very much in the dark on the whole question. We do not know whether the disease is infectious or contagious, or how it is caused, and if the Departmental Committee could settle these questions so that we could deal with it they would confer upon agriculture the greatest possible service. I know how anxious the hon. Baronet is to rind a remedy for this disease, and I can assure him that if, through this Departmental Committee, he can find a preventative or a remedy he would render a great service to agriculture.
    I am aware that the Departmental Committee have made certain suggestions and the Devon County Council and the Devon Farmers' Union are moving in this matter. I hope and believe the hon. Baronet will endeavour to co-operate with them in doing something to deal with this difficulty. The Departmental Committee have given some interim advice suggesting that there should be compulsory notification of suspected cases of disease—a most valuable suggestion—and that there should be veterinary inquiries to establish the existence of disease on any particular premises and temporary isolation and restriction on the movement of any animal that has recently been imported. If the hon. Gentleman could induce the Board to put into operation some, if not all, of these suggestions, I think he would be travelling in the right direction. I know the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that some county should first make an experiment in applying these suggestions of the Departmental Committee, but I venture to submit that there should be uniform action throughout the country, and then we might hope to do something to exterminate this disease. I believe, moreover, that the hon. Baronet suggests that the cost of carrying out these suggestions of the Departmental Committee should fail upon the rates, but I venture to say that this is a question of national concern, and the expense of dealing with it should be paid from the Imperial Exchequer rather than from local rates. There are a great many ratepayers who are not directly interested in this question, and who, I feel sure, would so object to the rates being
    1592
    used for this purpose that such a policy would prevent local bodies from co-operating with the hon. Baronet in the direction desired.
    We were reminded just now of the small amount of money expended from the Imperial Exchequer in this country in promoting the interests of agriculture, and we were told, and correctly so, that last year the total amount was £194,000, and £33,000 of that was used for other purposes than promoting agriculture, fisheries, and matters of that kind. Then we were reminded further of the amount of money expended by the United States and also by Denmark. I venture to give, in. addition, the amount expended by France; which annually devotes £2,500,000 to the promotion of agriculture. That is 12½ times more than is expended in furthering the interests of agriculture in this country. Belgium, moreover, also spends 2½ times more money in promoting agricultural interests than is expended in this country. Therefore, I venture to hope that the hon. Baronet will persevere and utilise the labours of the Departmental Committee in order to deal with this great evil, which is a greater evil, and I think a much greater hindrance to agricultural prosperity than any other matter, certainly than any other disease existing in the country. I feel that we have a right to expect that the cost of any such remedial proposals such as have been suggested by the Departmental Committee should be paid from the Imperial Exchequer rather than front the local rates seeing that we expend in this country such a small sum in furtherance of the interests of agriculture as compared with other countries. I think it is reasonable under those circumstances that we should press this expense should be paid from the Imperial Exchequer.
    With reference to small holdings, we on this side of the House are as anxious as hon. Members opposite to see more people living on the land, and t he only way to do that, as I have ventured to say before, is to make it better worth while for people to stay there, and the removal of any unjust burden resting upon the agricultural community will operate in that direction. The hon. Member below the Gangway opposite, I have no doubt with perfect sincerity, pleaded the cause of the agricultural labourer, but I venture to say that the land policy which is supported from that side of the House is doing, and will do, more to depress the rural classes and reduce the rural population than any other movement that is taking place. On this

    1593
    side of the House our object is with due regard to the rights of other sections of the community to deal fairly with the rural classes of all sorts, but if you menace capital as applied to the development of the land you curtail labour, you reduce the nett food supply and deplete the rural population. We appeal to the hon. Gentleman to help us, and I know his heart is with the rural classes. We ask him to give such just encouragement to the agricultural classes as shall induce more people to live in the rural districts, and result, as we hope, in better pay and circumstances for the agricultural labourer.
    One or two speakers pointed out that we want to give the agricultural labourer a lift up in his position, and all of us on this side of die House put that in the forefront of our proposals for agricultural help. I may say that I have, in a humble position, co-operated with others in Surrey and we have bought land and divided it into small holdings; but I am bound to confess that we only secured one labourer as an occupier of one of these small holdings. I am a member of the county council of Devon and of a local committee, and there our county council has laboured to give the Small Holdings Act a thoroughly fair trial. I see from a Plymouth paper recently that the Devon County Council bought three properties at public auction to divide into small holdings, and therefore I say that we are thoroughly alive to the necessity for this movement. But we must have the right men and place them in the right position, as it is positively cruel to take a man who does not understand the business and place him in a small holding. It will only punish him as long as he lives. I quite agree as to the desirability of the county councils purchasing farms offered in the market, rather than evicting tenants out of part of their holdings in order to secure land for small holdings. I know perfectly well that in the administration of the Small Holdings Act in the county of Devon we have had to take the most painful steps to evict men out of farms which they had taken on principles of supply and demand, they being selected because they were thought to be the best men for the work, and we have had to evict them from part of their holdings and to give the land to small holders, and thus carry out a process of protection. Therefore I say it is the best policy for the county councils to buy farms that are offered in the market and divide them into suitable small holdings.
    1594
    It is, however, a cause of trouble that the Small Holdings Act of hon. Gentlemen opposite, although it is doing some good, and I hope will do more, has this terrible blemish—that when you buy a farm, divide it into small holdings, place the tenants upon it, such are the conditions of the Bill that they have to pay the sinking fund. If a private landowner were to attach such a condition on the dwellers on the soil of his estate he would be charged with cruel conduct, and we should have the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary going through the country and proclaiming from the hilltops the tyranny of such a landlord. I venture to say that the policy which the Government are responsible for in this particular is really a kind of blackmail. You are causing the tenant to pay into a sinking fund which will pay back the full purchase price of the land, and yet that man who by the sweat of his brow has done that will never be the owner of the land. If you have such a blot as that upon your Small Holdings Bill you will never make it a success, and I hope the time will come when some Government will recognise the justice of trying to secure for the occupiers of the soil a chance of being able to become the owners just as they have become across the Channel in Ireland. This is the only policy which will enable us to place more dwellers upon the land under conditions and circumstances that will afford a reasonable prospect of success, which will be just to themselves and be beneficial in adding to the prosperity of the country and in increasing its food supply.
    Mr. BIGLAND: Several hon. Members who have spoken have asked questions of the hon. Baronet with regard to cattle diseases, and I am rash enough to mention one cattle disease which has not yet been alluded to so far in this Debate, and that is the foot-and-mouth disease. The question I want to ask, first of all, has reference to whether the hon. Baronet is any further than he was when the Debate took place on 16th March, 1908. During that Debate the hon. Member for St. Pancras West made this remark:—
    "The hon. Member for South Somerset had stated that the Board of Agriculture recognised that there was no vital organism which could be identified as the cause of foot-and-mouth disease and isolating it."
    I want to ask whether during the three years which have elapsed since March 16th, 1908, the research work of the laboratories has got any further, and whether we know anything more about the cause of foot-and-mouth disease. There have

    1595
    been two outbreaks in this country during the last year which have attracted a great deal of attention, and we are all anxious to know the origin and if possible to trace the real cause, because the constituency that I represent believes that the importation of live cattle must be one of the causes. In the debate of March, 1908, the Board of Agriculture admitted that they did trace the cause, and this is what the right. hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joseph Pease) said:—
    "The outbreak undoubtedly, in the opinion of the experts of the Board of Agriculture, is attributable to the cargo of hay which was obtained from Holland in November last."
    That was the outbreak in Edinburgh which took place on February 1st, 1907. The position in this country is getting very serious from one point of view, and that is the extraordinary decline in the imports of live cattle, and so serious is this becoming that the quantity is falling exceedingly short. Since 1905 the weight of the live cattle imported has fallen from 183,000 tons to 70,000 tons, and it is becoming a matter of national interest where we, a nation of beef eaters, are going to get our fresh meat. At present there are only two countries from which it is possible to import live cattle—the United States and Canada. There is a prohibition against the import of live cattle from almost all other countries that I know of that are likely to be shippers of live cattle. The suggestion I want to make is this. Is it not possible for the Board of Agriculture to suggest such stringent measures with regard to Argentine cattle that there could be no possibility of the importation of the disease into this country? Would it not be possible for such a course of action as this to be taken? There are only three or four ports in the Argentine where the shipments are likely to be made and our Board of Agriculture might appoint three permanent officials there, yards might be licensed where cattle coming down from the country could be put in quarantine for the period of incubation of this disease, which I am informed never exceeds seventeen days. If the cattle were in quarantine in certified yards for seventeen days and then shipped on a voyage which never takes less than twenty-eight, and is generally thirty-three days, there is another long quarantine. Then they might be inspected again on arrival by our officers on this side, and the areas where the cattle are landed, and
    1596
    always slaughtered immediately in landing, could be so enclosed that no possible case of disease might get out, and the Men coming into these yards would work under such restrictions with regard to their boots and clothes that there would be no possibility of their taking any of the germs of the disease out of the area.
    The reason I press this is that we in this country are practically admitting that meat and the hides from these cattle in the prescribed area are quite free to come into the country without restriction. The quantity of beef imported from the Argentine in 1908, which I take as an average year was 178,000 tons. This opens a very large question as to the wisdom of the present restriction. While you say no cattle may come into this country from the Argentine, yet you admit 170,000 tons of frozen meat from that area without any inspection. You allow, without any kind of inspection at all, the importation of hides and horns and hoofs and other parts of the beast which might easily carry this contagion, which I admit is a terribly serious one when any large outbreak takes place. But surely it would be a wise and a better plan that the whole of this work should be done under our own inspection than that we should run risks as we are running them to-day. It may be considered as to whether the Board of Agriculture are right in allowing this free importation of frozen meat, and the inquiries I have made on that subject rather show that they are, and that while foot-and-mouth disease attacks an animal in its mouth and feet it remains there, and the flesh does not get affected by the disease, as is the case with some other diseases that attack cattle, and therefore it would seem a wise measure to allow the meat to come into the country in a frozen state. But there again on this question of health there is certainly a query to be put to the Board of Agriculture as to whether they are right from the public health point of view to allow frozen meat to come in which the medical faculty all agree almost prevents examination with regard to the disease in that meat. The very fact that it has been frozen prevents them following the usual line of examination, so that it appears to me that in the matter of public health there is no particular reason for the prohibition of Argentine cattle. It rather comes back to the question of the safety of the herds in this country. I take it the hon. Baronet will agree with me there. If we look upon it from that point of view it be-

    1597
    comes more an economic question. I estimate roughly that we have 11,750,000 cattle here, and if we only valued them at an average of £10 per head we should have a sum of over £110,000,000.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is travelling too far into the general question. The importation of cattle is only open on the Board of Agriculture Vote in so far as the Board of Agriculture has power, and exercises the power, to restrict the importation of live cattle. He must connect his remarks more closely with some action of the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. BIGLAND: The request I have to make to the Government is that they might take seriously into their consideration the question whether it is not possible so to safeguard the herds here, and the public safety, that they can lay down restrictions with regard to the importation of live cattle. There is another reason why I would urge them to consider this matter very seriously, and that is the danger with regard to the monopoly of the meat supply to the people of this country. There has been a great deal said on the subject of the Meat Trust, and there are now only three refrigerating plants in the River Plate which are not controlled by American interests, and it is most necessary in the interests of our own farmers and our own people that the Board should take some line of action which would rather prevent the strengthening of that monopoly. This course would do it, that if the hon. Baronet could see his way to raise the embargo we would immediately put into the River Plate two buyers. At present there is only one, the buyer for the refrigerating plant. If there were two buyers, one for the party who wished to import live cattle, and the other who wished to slaughter at the port of shipment, there would be a natural competition which would prevent the American interest obtaining a monopoly, and the greater the monopoly the more fear there is of the domination of our retail trade in this country, and it is undoubtedly becoming quite a serious question as to whether the Board of Agriculture can in any way help the business interests in this country to prevent monopolisation of this trade by one set of capitalists. With regard to the Argentine itself we are particularly interested in doing all we can in a friendly way to help their trade, because they are a long way in advance, in my opinion, of any other country in the world of being
    1598
    the providers of meat for this country in the future. A member of the Chicago cattle trade admitted to me that the Argentine is able to produce cattle in greater numbers, in better condition, and at less cost than the United States, and that, given time, they would be the great beast suppliers of this country.
    8.0 P.M.
    I recognise that the enormous power of capital in the cattle trade of the United States developing itself in the Argentine is likely to control the whole trade to an extent that it is not pleasant for Englishmen to contemplate, but if we give them opportunities in this country to develop their business along business lines we shall have no one to blame but ourselves if in a few years we find the great Argentine Republic is the great beef provider of this country in the future. I have only to refer again to the enormous falling off in the imports of cattle from the United States. We all know that their population is rapidly increasing so that they are not likely to be exporters of live cattle. There are hundreds of people in this country who object to eating frozen meat if they can possibly get fresh meat. I think it is in the power of our Board of Agriculture to see that there shall be reasonable possibility of the people of this country who desire to eat fresh beef getting it, and the only country in the world I can see that they can get it from at the present time is the Argentine Republic. I know I shall be told that because disease exists in the Argentine, or in some remote corner of that vast Republic, therefore we must continue to prohibit the importation of live cattle. But when we consider the enormous area of the Argentine Republic it might as well be said that if in the neighbourhood of Turin there was foot-and-mouth disease no cattle from Dieppe should he imported. It would be as sensible to say that as to say that because in some parts of the Argentine there have been cases of foot-and-mouth disease recently, therefore the importation of cattle from the whole of that vast territory should be prohibited. I claim that by a reasonable inspection, such as I have suggested, by three or four of our own officers living in the River Plate, for whose salaries and expenses the trade would be made liable, we could so safeguard both the consumers and the farmers in this country that it would be possible under these restrictions for this trade to be carried on. I respectfully submit that any conditions laid down by the Board of Agriculture in this country would

    1599
    be willingly responded to by the authorities of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and by the authorities at Birkenhead and other great centres of population, where they are eager and anxious to be allowed to import live animals under such conditions as the Board may consider sound and safe. I appeal to the hon. Baronet in the hope that he will see his way to lay down such regulations as will enable us in the near future to recommence this trade.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: A large number of my Constituents are seriously affected by the refusal of the Board of Agriculture to modify or remove the restrictions on the importation of live cattle from the Argentine. This is not a new subject, but so far it has met with very little sympathy from the representatives of the Board of Agriculture. It may be a gratifying thing that to-day the question is raised from the side of the House whose occupants are supposed to be strongly opposed to the removal of the restrictions. I think it was in 1909 that the Argentine Government made representations to our own Government desiring that these restrictions should be removed, or, at any rate, that the Government should be permitted to export live cattle to this country. A reply was given on the 9th or 10th of October of that year to the effect that the Board of Agriculture was considering the propriety of revising these particular restrictions. Within a short, period of that announcement being made, the representative of the Foreign Office stated that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease took place in the Argentine Republic. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the different attitude taken up by the Board of Agriculture towards that country as compared with the attitude taken up towards North America. A few months afterwards an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease took place in North America. The Board of Agriculture did not close all the American ports for the exportation of cattle to this country. What the Government allowed them to do was to draw a cordon round the affected districts, and cattle were allowed to be sent from all other parts of North America into this country. When later on the hon. Baronet was asked whether a similar course of conduct could not be adopted so far as the Argentine was concerned, his reply was, "Oh, no." Looking to the wonderful extent of that territory, and even assuming that foot-and-mouth disease might have broken out in, if you
    1600
    like, half a dozen districts, or, if you like, a dozen districts, I ask the question, why should a distinction have been made in the treatment of North America? Was it because the trust influence in North America is so strong that they are able to resist our restrictions? Had that anything to do with it? At any rate, although I am a layman in a matter of this kind, it appeals to my common sense.
    If a safeguard of that kind can be set up as regards North America, surely the same thing could be done when you come to deal with cattle from the Argentine. For some reason which has never been made clear to me or the country, the Board of Agriculture did not see its way to deal with the matter in that fashion, and the result is that the trade, both at Deptford, which I represent, and at Birkenhead, which is represented by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bigland), the trade is very seriously affected. It affects to a large extent the workmen connected with these markets. It affects also to a large extent the health of the poorer people in these districts, because before the restrictions were imposed they were able to get a plentiful supply of fresh meat at reasonable prices. They were able to do so because the cattle were being slaughtered in the immediate districts. The effect on the working people of these restrictions has been extremely bad. A few American firms are ready to send cattle to Deptford, and it may be that they are willing to do the same thing as regards Birkenhead. A few of them are allowed to reship the hides, and the result is that our leather traders are deprived of an advantage which should be theirs by right. The hide market is no longer open to them for these hides which are reshipped. The City Corporation spent a large sum of money—I think it was something like £400,000—in erecting a foreign cattle market at Deptford. The only reason, so far as I know, for doing so was in order that if any disease was detected in live cattle entering London, it could be dealt with by the splendid machinery set up in that market. This magnificent machinery set up for that purpose is practically lying idle, and the market itself is practically lying idle. Anyone who goes down to see the market will find grass growing where there should be life and activity.
    I remember speaking to one of the Government officials on this subject. I am not at liberty to mention his name. I asked him as to the means of dealing with disease

    1601
    in that market, and his reply was that it was practically impossible for disease to leave the market after it had been detected. In reply to a question in this House, the hon. Baronet himself admitted that no case of foot-and-mouth disease had been traced to have emanated from Deptford. It seems to me a serious matter indeed that, in spite of the precautions taken by the City Corporation, all this expenditure on the market should be so much wasted money, that through the obstinacy of the Board of Agriculture a good many people should be deprived of their livelihood, and that thousands of people should be deprived of that which they were able previously to enjoy, namely, freshly killed meat instead of frozen meat. It seems to me that whatever influence is brought to bear on the Board of Agriculture, it is of no avail. The Board has shut itself up in a sort of cooling chamber and has become somewhat frozen. They are deaf to the representations made to them. The City Corporation's Markets Committee took up the matter in conjunction with the various borough councils, and a conference was held at the Westminster Palace Hotel. Representative men attended that conference, and resolutions were passed stating the case in a very respectful manner. A memorial was presented to the Board of Agriculture, and nothing more has been heard of it. I would ask, how can this House make the Board of Agriculture amenable to the representations made by influential bodies outside Is it only by hostile votes in this House that the Board of Agriculture can be moved? When you have at Birkenhead and Deptford all this machinery at hand to cope with any disease found in imported cattle, it does seem to me a sin—I almost said a crime—that men and women at those places should be deprived of this cheap and healthful kind of food. I believe it is common knowledge—it came out in evidence before a Committee on which I had the honour of sitting to inquire into the meat trade—that a trust is making its way into the Argentine and trying to get hold of the meat trade of that country.
    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.

    CORPORATION OF LONDON (BRIDGES) BILL. [By ORDER.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. MORRELL: I beg to move as an Amendment to leave out all from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "re-committed to the former Committee in respect of the Clauses which relate to the construction of a new bridge between Blackfriars and Southwark bridges."
    As the House is aware, this Bill divides itself into three parts. It refers to the reconstruction of Southwark Bridge, to some alterations in London Bridge, and the construction of a new bridge between Southwark Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge, at an estimated cost of something like two-and-a-quarter millions of money. It is with regard to the latter portion of the Bill only that I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name. I do so on the grounds that this scheme of the construction of a new bridge has not been sufficiently considered from a public point of view; that it is not supported by a sufficient weight of evidence, especially by those who are best qualified to speak on architectural and town planning questions; and that in a great national concern of this sort the Corporation ought not to spend what is in effect public money without taking the best possible expert advice. I would also like to point out that this Motion is quite a general one, and that those who vote for it will not thereby commit themselves to any particular alternative scheme. All we are asking is that further time should be taken to obtain the best possible advice. I am well aware that after a Private Bill Committee has reported in favour of a Bill to this House, anyone, who desires to see that Bill re-committed starts naturally with a certain prejudice against him, and that he ought to make a strong case in order to induce the House to reconsider a decision which has been reached by a Committee upstairs. It is argued that the Committee have seen the plans, have heard a great many witnesses and spent hours and clays in considering the details of the scheme, and have heard the learned counsel arguing from various interests, and this House is naturally reluctant to go

    1603
    back on a decision which has been reached after so much difficulty and so much discussion.
    The only ground I submit where this House is justified in going back on a decision that is reached in that manner is if it can be shown that there is some broad ground of public principle involved in which the public interest is concerned. If that can be shown, then, this House would be pedantic not to take the decision of a matter of this sort into its own hands. I do not want in anything I may say to make any reflections whatever on the Committee which has sat upon this Bill. I am perfectly certain that they gave the matter the fullest possible consideration. I will go further, and say that I am perfectly certain also that upon the evidence brought before them they could not well have come to any decision different from that at which they arrived. The only matter in which I disagree with their view is I think they did not sufficiently ask themselves whether the evidence was the highest evidence that could possibly be brought, and whether they had before them all those who are best qualified to speak on a great national concern of this sort. To say that is in no way to cast reflections upon methods adopted by the Committee. It is merely to suggest as I do suggest, that in a great concern of this sort this House ought to keep the final decision in its own hands. Where the public interest is so much concerned we after all are the best judges of what is best in public interest. It is in no spirit of criticism that I bring forward this matter. Anyone who has sat, as I have sat, on a Private Bill Committee, knows perfectly well that with the best will in the world it is exceedingly difficult to keep before yourself at all times what I may call the public point of view.
    You hear all the time learned counsel who are briefed by this interest and by that interest to put forward the views of their clients, and they put them forward with remarkable skill. The only point of view that is never put forward is the point of view of the public as a whole. That has been so well put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) that I venture to quote the senior Member for the City of London on this point. Speaking some time ago he said:—
    "It is almost incredible, nevertheless it is a fact, that while before such Committees any individual who thinks himself aggrieved by the public, has the right, to appear and the right to have his case heard and justice done to him, the, public, who are as much interested
    1604
    as any private individual in the beauty of our great cities, are not represented and cannot be represented with regard to matters which interest them most closely."
    He went on to speak on the same occasion of the horrors that have been perpetrated in London like the Charing Cross Railway Bridge as the result of decisions which had been come to by Private Bill Committees. In a case such as this where, after all the public are interested as such, I ask the House to take the decision into their own hands. It is obvious that the public interest in this case is, first of all, to see that nothing is done to impair the architectural beauty of London, the great tradition of beauty which has come down to us from our forefathers, of which we are now the trustees. Whatever steps are taken by the City Corporation—and we are all glad to know that they think of building this bridge—are taken in the interests of improving, and not impairing, the architectural beauty of London.
    Anyone who helps forward the beauty and magnificence of this City is helping to increase the value of what is a great and priceless national possession; anyone who impairs that is, after all, doing the greatest disservice to the public at large. The second great object of public interest to be considered, I quite agree, is, of course, the convenience of traffic. But I suggest that these two are not in any way inconsistent with each other. There is no reason why a scheme should not be formulated which would at the same time increase the architectural beauty of London and improve the convenience of traffic through the City. How are these two objects to be secured? There is only one way, of course, in which this House can secure them. [An HON. MEMBER: "By passing this Bill."] I think I shall be able to show that is just the way that will not secure them. The only way to secure them is by doing what the Corporation has not yet done, by seeing that the matter is dealt with in the best possible way—by calling in the men who are best qualified to judge, the experts and architects. That, after all, was the principle which was accepted by this House with regard to the Town Planning Bill, which was passed not so long ago. There we laid down the principle that when any great scheme of town planning was to be carried out we were to call in the great experts and architects in order that, from their point of view, the matter should be perfectly considered and carried out according to the best architectural advice.

    1605
    This is the greatest scheme of town planning which we are likely to have for some time to come, and I shall be able to show, I hope, that the principle to which I have referred has not been followed. I rather expected that my right hon. Friend, the President of the Local Government Board, would be present. I was curious to see what course he would take in a matter of this sort.
    I have here the advice which he gave to the City in regard to this Bill:—
    "I am bold enough, having the artistic temperament—"
    and we all agree as to that—
    "to suggest that in the new St. Paul's Bridge, the City Corporation, Parliament, the London County Council, and all the authorities would be well advised if, before they finally settle their plans, they would listen not only to the engineer, but to the architect and artist."
    How far has that advice been followed? It is perfectly notorious that the advice has not been followed. We are told, indeed, that the corporation will call in an architect later on to embellish the bridge after the line of the bridge has been settled. They are prepared to call in an architect to patch the thing up; they are prepared to call in an architect to add, I think that is the phrase, "to add artistic embellishments"—in the sort of way, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood) remarks, that they have done in the case of the Tower Bridge. Everyone knows that if the view of the architect is to be useful he must be called in when the scheme is laid down in order to see that it is on the right lines. It may be too late to call in the architect if the scheme is a bad one to start with. So far from having called in an expert on town planning or architecture, I believe I am right in saying that this scheme has been prepared upon the advice of engineers alone, without the assistance of an architect of any kind, good, bad, or indifferent. I had the curiosity to try and find exactly what was the genesis of this scheme, and why it was selected by the corporation and their advisers. Who were the authors and begetters of this particular scheme now before the House?
    I have read very carefully the evidence, and as far as I can judge the credit of it, if credit there be, must rest with Mr. Domoney, the chairman of the Bridge House Estates Committee, and counsel described it as his "pet scheme."
    "Probably everyone has his pet scheme, and it is always gratifying when you can induce others to take the same view as you have taken. This happens to be your pet scheme for the accommodation of the traffic of London."
    "Yes," said Mr. Domoney, who then went on to say that he had secured excel-
    1606
    lent expert advice in the shape of the City engineer and of the surveyor. Here we have a scheme brought before this House for spending two and a quarter millions of money, on whose authority? On the authority of Mr. Domoney, chairman of the Bridge House Estates Committee; Mr. Basil Mott, consulting engineer to the City; and Sir Alexander Stenning, the surveyor. It is quite true that with regard to Sir Alexander Stenning he was originally an architect, I believe he is still a member of the council of the Institute of British Architects. Though it is true that he is an architect, yet his whole life lately has been spent, not as an architect, but as a surveyor, and as a surveyor he was President of the Surveyors' Institution. It was as a surveyor he made his reputation, and obtained the honour of knighthood. He was called in to advise on this scheme solely as a surveyor, and to advise—these are the exact words—" as to the taking of the land and the cost of so doing." That is very necessary work, and very excellent work; but I want to point out to this House that here we have a great scheme, the building of a bridge opposite St. Paul's Cathedral, a scheme which is going to affect the architectural beauty of London for generations, and yet we are asked to accept it on the authority of three gentlemen who may be very eminent in their own way of life, but none of them can possibly claim to be in any way experts on architecture or town planning, or on those questions which are involved in a scheme of this sort. Not only was no architect or expert in town planning called in to advise in the setting out of this scheme, but it is notorious that the promoters have not been able to get a single architect of any authority to give his blessing to the scheme after it has been prepared.
    There were only three other witnesses called before the Committee by the promoters of this scheme, two engineers and a commissioner of police—very eminent engineers, no doubt. One of them was the engineer of the London. County Council, the other was the Vice-President of the Institute of Civil Engineers—both most excellent, I have no doubt—and they said that this scheme from the engineering point of view would be an admirable scheme. The bridge will be extremely well built, no doubt, but what I want to point out is that they have not got an architect or an artist of any kind, who is qualified to speak upon these questions, to say a single word in favour

    1607
    of this great scheme which is before the House. Where are all the others—where are all the architects? Where are all the men who have hitherto advised our public authorities in these matters Where is Sir Aston Webb, Mr. Norman Shaw, and Mr. Ernest George, every one of them entitled to speak and give advice to this House with regard to a scheme of this kind, but who are all found unanimously to condemn the scheme? It is not necessary for me to read at length all the things which have appeared in the Press and elsewhere against this scheme; but I suppose there was never any great scheme brought before this House which had so little expert opinion in its favour or which was so unanimously condemned by all the best expert opinions. Men like Mr. Sargent and Sir Alma Tadema, whose names are known not only in this country but all over the world. Sculptors like Sir George Frampton, the whole Institute of British Architects, they all say that this is a shabby and inadequate scheme, that an immense opportunity has been missed, and that it is a scheme that ought not to pass through this House. It creates a road of bad direction, and a road that will be a permanent eyesore, is the statement of one of them.
    What is it is said by the promoters of this Bill. They tell us in the paper they have issued to this House that you are going to have an imposing thoroughfare dominated by the dome of St. Paul's. I venture to say there was never a more misleading description of any scheme brought before this House. It will be no more dominated, if not, indeed, less so, than Cheapside is dominated by the dome of St. Paul's. What you will really have under this scheme is a bridge going across the river opposite St. Paul's, and then you will have a road gradually diverging away from the dome of St. Paul's the nearer it gets to it. The only view you will get of the dome, if you will be lucky enough to see it at all, will be a view to the left over the intervening houses, and that is what is described as a road which is dominated by the dome of St. Paul's. Then we are told, almost until we are tired, that we must accept it on the ground of traffic, and because it is so good for the traffic. I would like to ask, as the Board of Trade have lately got a department to advise on London traffic, have they issued any report to show that this is a good scheme for London traffic? There was only one ex-
    1608
    pert witness called before the Committee as regards traffic. Some engineers spoke about it, but I believe I am right in saying that only one expert witness came specially on the question of traffic, and he was Sir William Nott Bower, the Chief Commissioner of the City Police. Naturally, he put it from the police point of view. His ideal of making a good road is to have what he calls a direct rectangular crossing with a policeman at each end holding up his hand to stop the traffic alternately throughout the day. In his evidence before the Committee he stated that a rectangular crossing is easier to deal with—
    "We first of all stop the traffic going North and South and allow the East and West traffic to go through for a certain time. Then the East and West traffic is stopped and the North and South traffic is allowed to run."
    "Do you consider (someone asked) the oblique method is a good method of dealing with traffic?"
    To that he replied:—
    "No, I would rather have the rectangular traffic with a steady flow of stop and pass."
    That may be from the police point of view an easy way of dealing with traffic, but anyone who has given even an elementary consideration to the science of town planning will know that a more hopelessly old-fashioned view than that can hardly be imagined. Members know themselves what a steady flow of stop and pass means say where Waterloo Bridge comes into the Strand, especially when you are on your way to Waterloo Station coming from the north and you want to catch a train and are held up. All this steady flow means generally a steady flow of stop. That is held forth and that is the last word on the management of traffic that was put before the Committee with regard to this scheme. One might have imagined that nobody else had ever studied this question in connection with town planning and that no one else had any knowledge of the way to manage traffic save a policeman. On the contrary, everyone knows that where you have got two great streams of traffic the very worst way to get them past each other is to have what is called the direct rectangular crossing which this scheme favoured, and that it is much easier to get them past by means of an elbow and having the two roads not meeting exactly, and that is what would be provided by what is called the alternative scheme. Whereas in the case of the rectangular scheme you would get sixteen points of division, you could avoid that and get the two roads coming up to different points so as to make an elbow,

    1609
    so that you would get rid of the traffic to the east and west before the other stream came.
    By the alternative scheme you would only have six points of division. Anyone who has seen the great improvement at Marble Arch and Hamilton Place will be able to appreciate the difference between having an oblique crossing as against a rectangular crossing, which is what is supposed to be the great advantage of this scheme. Then we get another line of argument. We are told that whether this scheme is a good one or a bad one, and it has, as I have endeavoured to show, no expert advice behind it, that at any rate it is a great deal better than any alternative scheme to be brought before this House. The promoters of the Bill spent a good deal of their time in the Press and elsewhere in making every sort of objection they could conceive to what they call the rival proposals. I do not think that it would be to the advantage of this House that I should try to put before them in any detail what are called the rival proposals, because our opposition always has been that this is a matter on which the architects should be heard by the Committee, and that the details of those proposals cannot be thrashed out on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to deal with some of the objections which have been made to the idea that you ought to have a great road leading up to the dome of St. Paul's which, in its main outline, is the scheme which is advocated by all the artists and all the architects and people of education.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Of education?
    Mr. MORRELL: I mean of artistic education. If you have what is called the alternative proposal or any of the proposals, because there are a great many possible alternative proposals, you must have a skew-bridge across the river, and we are told that makes any alternative scheme impossible. In the first place, as was pointed out by a Member of the Committee, it is not necessary, in order to carry a road straight up to St. Paul's, that you should have a skew bridge over the river at all. Even assuming the bridge does not go quite at right-angles to the river, are we to be asked to believe that that is an insuperable and fatal objection to any alternative scheme Some of the finest bridges have been built diagonally across rivers. So little ground is there for the argument that I am told that Mr. Basil
    1610
    Mott himself, one of the joint authors of this scheme, when recommending the rebuilding of Southwark Bridge, actually proposed to build an oblique bridge over the river. Nobody going over the top of the bridge would be able to see whether it was at right-angles to the river or not. It is only for the lightermen or men in the boats under the bridge that this question would really arise.
    The next objection is that if you carry out any alternative scheme you will not be able to carry out the proposal as regards tramways. If that were a valid objection, I agree that it would be an insuperable obstacle to the scheme. But does the House realise that the place at which the subway for the tramways would really come closest to the foundations of St. Paul's is exactly upon the route of the Corporation scheme as contained in this Bill? It is at the east end of St. Paul's that the proposed subway for tramways, which I hope will be carried out, would come closest to the foundations of St. Paul's. If that can be done with safety to the foundations of St. Paul's, it is perfectly obvious to anyone who considers the matter that it is not beyond the limits of architectural skill to arrange that where the road goes a little way round to the south side of St. Paul's, as suggested in what for the sake of brevity I may call the architectural scheme, it should be possible to carry tramways and preserve the stability of the foundations of St. Paul's. Certainly the matter is at any rate worth while submitting to expert advice, and that is all we are asking. The third objection, which is urged at great length, is that of cost. We are told that any alternative scheme would not follow the lines of property as the present scheme does, and that it would cost something like a million pounds more. A. great deal of play has been made with that statement by the promoters of the Bill, but not a tittle of evidence in support of it has been brought forward, either by the counsel who made it, or by anybody else. I have spoken to many architects and surveyors on the subject, and I am told there is absolutely no reason to suppose that by carrying the road a little way to the west so as to get a direct vista of St. Paul's you would incur that enormous extra expense. On the contrary, I am informed that at most it might mean an extra 10 per cent. or possibly 20 per cent. on the cost of the present scheme.
    On this aspect of the question perhaps the House hardly realises the great opu-

    1611
    lence of the estates now managed by the Corporation for the maintenance and building of City bridges. From the Bridge House estates, left to the City or to the country by pious founders of old, there is now—I am quoting from a statement of Mr. Lloyd, counsel for the promoters—an annual rental of no less than £152,000. There is an outstanding debt charged on the estates amounting to £696,000, which will be discharged by the year 1916. There is, however, at present available some £90,000 a year for the purpose of meeting the charge created under this Bill. Mr. Domoney, chairman of the Bridge House Estates, in his evidence stated that the gross revenue of the Bridge House estates is likely to be increased very largely as existing leases fall in. Here you have an income to-day of £90,000 a year, rising in the course of the next five years to something near £150,000 a year, and likely to be increased as the leases fall in. Upon a revenue of that sort there is no difficulty whatever, as the promoters of the Bill tell us, in raising £2,250,000 for the purposes of this scheme. Are we to be turned back from the architectural scheme, which has behind it the whole weight of public opinion in this country, because we cannot find an additional £100,000 or £200,000, or whatever the sum may be, in order to make a good scheme instead of the shabby proposal now put forward?
    All these objections, if they are valid, will still hold good if the Bill is recommitted and comes again to be considered before the Committee. Why are the promoters so afraid of any inquiry? A few months' delay after all the delay that has taken place will not hurt the scheme if it is a good one. What we are pleading for is deliberation and consultation in order that the best possible scheme may be reached. I ask the House to remember that this is the greatest opportunity that the present generation is likely to have of improving the architectural beauty of London, and of making this city an even more worthy capital of the Empire than it is at present. To pass this Bill as it stands will be to throw away for ever a great chance of making a vista unequalled in Europe, and it will have been thrown away in spite of the protests of every man who has the right to be heard on the question. For the sake of the credit of our own nation and of our own time, and still more for the sake of the generations to come, I ask the House not to decide hastily in favour of a scheme which has already been. So
    1612
    much condemned, but to give those who have the best right to be heard a chance of making a scheme that will really be worthy of London and of this country.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I rise to second the Amendment for the re-committal of this Bill. I do so on the broad ground that in the building of the bridge, which is, after all, one of the most important operations that men can be engaged in, the only people who have been consulted are a surveyor, an engineer, and a policeman. Mr. Gladstone I believe, once said that nothing proved the ineptitude in artistic matters of the British nation more than the fact that when they did set to work to build the House of Commons and the Foreign Office they chose a Renaissance architect to build a Gothic building, and a Gothic architect to build a Renaissance building. The Corporation have avoided all difficulties of this character by choosing no architect at all. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, speaking some time ago at a dinner of those interested in town planning, said that he possessed the artistic temperament. Possibly I may not be so fortunately endowed as the right hon. Gentleman. I merely look upon this question as a man in the street. But I do make a plea on behalf of the ordinary man in the street that in a great matter like this, so vitally affecting the people of London, when it comes to a question of building this bridge, in really what is the heart and centre, one might almost say, the most sacred place in the whole of the British Empire, we ought to build a bridge really worthy of an Imperial people.
    London is perhaps the most artistic and attractive place in the whole of the globe. That is probably owing to its smoke and its mist. Very little credit is due either to the City Fathers or to our municipal corporations. Nothing is more remarkable than the patience and submissiveness of the great people of London at the many outrages which have been inflicted upon them. Much water has flowed under London Bridge since Wordsworth said that from it was one of the finest views in the world. Since then the people of London have seen the finest river in the world defaced by four or five, possibly, of the ugliest railway bridges in the world. They have seen every great opportunity missed, and every scheme either for a great highway or a. great thoroughfare considered, not from its artistic and aesthetic possibilities, but

    1613
    merely, as Arthur Young said: "In the baleful spirit of the counter. "We possess one of the finest, perhaps the finest, Renaissance building in the world, and the people of London have every right to the thorough enjoyment of it. If anybody in the world has the right to any ennobling influence they can derive from this great building, it is the people who live on the south side of London—who live in a wilderness of mean streets, whose only landmark, so far as I can make out, is the Elephant and Castle. The spirit underlying this proposal is the same spirit which has given us this wilderness of mean streets, of stuccoed villas, and back-to-back; slum houses. I do think that a House of Commons which passes a Town Planning Bill will be indeed stultifying itself if it passes a proposal like this. We are told by way of consolation that if we pass this scheme architects will be called in to embellish this bridge—I suppose according to the ideas of the City Corporation.
    9.0 P.M.
    In other words we shall have a bridge which is neither an engineering feat nor an architectural achievement. It will be like a wedding cake stuck over with useless and senseless ornaments. For this reason alone I do think we ought to give the Committee a further right to hear architectural advice on the subject. It is from this point of view, from the point of view of the great opportunity which will be missed of making a thoroughfare really worthy of the people of London, and also from the danger we run of having really a great eyesore inflicted on the people, that I second the re-committal of this Bill.
    Mr. MOONEY: I beg to intervene in this Debate very briefly, and I hope the House will bear with me when I speak as Chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill. With the hope expressed by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment as to enhancing the architectural beauty of London, I am quite in agreement, but I wish to bring the House back from the ornate speeches of the hon. Members to the Bill that is now before the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley who moved the re-committal of this Bill did so for a specific object. As I understand him his object is that a certain body of opinion or evidence should be heard by the Committee. May I inform the House very shortly what are the facts in this case? The Institute of British Architects petitioned against this
    1614
    Bill, and lodged their petition in the usual form. When the Committee sat the Institute did not think it worth while to appear before the Committee. As Chairman of that Committee I expressed astonishment at the fact that the architects were not represented before the Committee, and went out of my way to invite them to appear before us, and give us the benefit of their ideas. The invitation was mentioned in the London papers, but the architects never appeared before us. I think it is treating a Committee of this House somewhat hardly to come here now and say that the Committee came to a decision on insufficient evidence, and that they ought to go back upstairs and hear a certain body of evidence that the gentlemen themselves concerned did not think it worth while to urge before the Committee. I think the House ought to bear that in mind in considering any Motion for the re-committal of this Bill.
    The hon. Gentleman opposite also said that this Bill has not been considered from a public point of view. I am not of the same political opinion as the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I understood that the public point of view was best expressed by the elected authority who represent the people of the district which is affected by the Bill. It was represented to us upstairs that this Bill was an agreed one practically between the County Council and the City of London Corporation. I may not agree with the views of the City of London Corporation, nor of the London County Council, but, after all, they are for the time being the representatives of the public opinion of London. I should rather agree with them as representing the opinions of London than take the views of hon. Members who may have to consider other points. The Noble Lord who seconded the Amendment throw scorn upon the scheme, because it was drawn up by a surveyor, an engineer, and a policeman. I quite agree that any scheme which this House may pass should have artistic merit, but I think that this House would be neglecting its duty if it were to pass a scheme which, however beautiful, was not sound from the point of view of the surveyor, the engineer, or the policeman. I have sat in this House for a considerable number of years compared with certain other hon. Members, and I have sat upon many Committees, and I can say that I have never sat upon a Committee in which my colleagues took such an amount of interest in the matter under discussion as they did in connection with this Bill. They examined

    1615
    this from every point of view. They were anxious to do the best they could for the City of London and for other interests, and those who tell us that we did not consider the interests at stake fully are hardly doing credit to Members who serve on Private bill Committees.
    I would have been far better pleased if the Institute of Architects had come before us, and given us the official view of the scheme. They did put out a different scheme. I have seen letters from members of the Institute suggesting a new scheme. I do not know what the opinion of the architects as a body is, and I suppose all we can do is to take the scheme as published in the public Press. That scheme may be an artistic scheme, but there are other matters also to be considered, and we have to consider not only whether it is artistic, but whether it is practical from the traffic point of view, and I say it would be a great mistake to accept any scheme that did not embrace that point of view. I do suggest to the House of Commons that it would not be doing justice to itself to decide any matters of this kind on the ex parte statements of those concerned. The Committee that sat upstairs had expert evidence upon both sides. They had the opportunity that men endowed with the same amount of intelligence as other Members of the House have to decide upon the evidence which came before them, and in this particular case, although we did not have an alternative scheme we looked at what we considered to be the alternative scheme of the British architects, and the evidence was against them. My hon. Friend above the Gangway will bear me out when I say that we did take the scheme as outlined in "The Times" before us as the scheme of British architects, and having carefully examined it we found it was absolutely impossible. I put it to hon. Members of this House that that scheme meant a reduplication of the traffic at Park Lane and Piccadilly, and that certainly is not an ideal scheme on which to carry on the traffic of London.
    It is also alleged that the Committee over which I had the honour to preside was not fully imbued with the real necessity of dealing with the uniform features of St. Paul's. On the engineering evidence before us it was shown that the scheme of the architects if carried out in the form recommended would be far more dangerous and detrimental to St. Paul's
    1616
    than that which the Committee approved. I may also tell the House—because it was not told by hon. Members opposite—that the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's originally petitioned against this Bill, but having been satisfied by experts that no damage would be done to the fabric of St. Paul's they withdrew their objection. It was proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that, owing to the position in which St. Paul's stands, the alternative suggestion as against that proposed in the Bill would be more detrimental to the structure of St. Paul's. That, perhaps, is not a matter which architects would be much disposed to consider. It is absolutely an engineering matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, it is primarily an engineering matter.
    Mr. MORRELL: Had the architects an opportunity of explaining their point?
    Mr. MOONEY: I said before I personally invited the architects to come before us and they declined to do so; they wrote to "The Times." I notice that one gentleman put forward an argument in the newspaper that had no foundation in fact, namely, that the Committee actually passed this Bill without seeing the plans. That was a ridiculous statement. The contention was that they had not lodged the plans, but the plans are merely plans of levels that have to be deposited for the use of the landowners. That gentleman told us that we did not know where St. Paul's was. What are the facts? On the walls of the Committee Room upstairs we had the Dome of St. Paul's in fourteen different positions. That is the kind of argument we have had.
    I take this position, and I put it before the House. If the private Bill legislation of this House is to be carried out, as it has been in the past, it should require very strong evidence indeed to recommit a Bill in order to enable persons to be heard before the Committee—even if these persons had any right to be heard before it in the first instance—who did not take the trouble to put in an appearance. In this case, under the Standing Orders, the Institute of British Architects had no locus, but when the Bill was put down for Committee, and long before that the Corporation wrote to the Institute of British Architects and said, "We will not take any technical objection against your locus, and we hope you will come before the Committee and give them your views." When the Committee sat the Institute did not appear before them. They

    1617
    wrote to "The Times," and said the reason they did not appear was on the ground of cost. I invited the Institute to send a representative before the Committee. The total cost to the Institute would be four guineas. Yet the House of Commons is asked to-night to send this Bill back to the Committee in order to suit the Institute of British Architects. Where are they to get the money from now any more than before?
    Mr. MORRELL: There is more than that involved. It is the consideration of the scheme which has been passed by competent architects.
    Mr. MOONEY: I say that is not a subject which ought to be debated in this House. I have myself invited the opinion of the architects before the Committee. We have passed that point now, and again the House has got to remember that if this was the last stage in this Bill there might be some reason for this Motion. The Institute of Architects can go on with their objections in the House of Lords. I have yet to learn that the Corporation will take a tentative objection to their locus standi. I do not think this objection to the Bill ought to be allowed to prevent the adoption of a scheme which will undoubtedly be for the benefit of London as a whole. I think it was rather ungenerous of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment to say that the scheme of this Bill was promoted by Mr. Domoney and nobody else. On the Committee which considered this scheme there were gentlemen as competent as any of those who have been named by the hon. Members opposite. After all the scheme in the Bill is the considered scheme of the authority who will have to find the money to pay for it, and I think it is against the practice of this House to recommit a private Bill of this kind to a Committee for the specific object of hearing a certain body of experts when that body has had the opportunity of being heard in the first instance and did not exercise that right. I see the Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Emmott) sitting opposite, and I ask him to state whether it is not against the precedents of this House to recommit a private Bill of this kind for the purpose I have stated. Under these circumstances, if the House decides to send this Bill back to the Committee we shall of course give it every consideration, but on the question of principle I shall vote against the Amendment to re-commit this Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: After the very clear and able speech we have heard from the hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Mooney) there cannot be any doubt in the mind of any hon. Member of this House as to which way he ought to vote. I have been a good many years in this House, and although I have not looked up the precedents, I believe I am correct in saying that never in the last thirty or forty years has this House re-committed a Bill on the ground that a certain body had not been heard, when those people had had the opportunity of appearing and had declined to do so. The hon. Member who brought forward the Amendment made a speech of considerable length, but I do not think he made a single point which ought to influence anybody to re-commit this Bill. They were all vague points. He said that the Chief Commissioner of the City Police did not know very much about town planning. He said there had been a Town Planning Committee, and they knew more about the regulation of traffic than the Chief Commissioner. As one who has had thirty years' experience of life in the City, I say that there is no better regulation of traffic in any city of the world than in the City of London, and the official who is responsible for that excellent regulation which every hon. Member knows is the admiration of every foreigner who comes to London, is the Chief Commissioner of Police. I will leave the excellent speech made by the Chairman of the Committee, which, in my opinion, ought to settle the matter without any further speeches, and I will come to the point before the Committee. The plans for the bridges have not yet been drawn up, and until this Bill is passed it is natural that they will not be drawn up. The Corporation have undertaken to submit those plans to competent architects, and I cannot conceive that even the most artistic Member of this House or the most aesthetic Member can raise any objections, even if he happens to be an educated man and the only man competent to give an opinion on this point.
    The crux of the whole question is whether or not there shall be a slanting street or a straight street. A straight street is far more desirable than a crooked one, and, furthermore, a street which will take the traffic from the south to the north in a straight line, such as will be provided if this Bill is passed, is better than one which ends in a dead end opposite the Dome of St. Paul's. Supposing the alter-

    1619
    native scheme were in existence, what would happen? The traffic from the south would come to a dead stand opposite the Dome of St. Paul's. It would have to turn to the east, then to the north, and then to the east again. Hon. Members know the difficulty one experiences in traffic when you have to come on your near side and turn to the off side across a stream of traffic. The result is that you cause a great block. Under the alternative scheme you have another block further on, and, consequently, you have two blocks instead of one. My Noble Friend referred to the question of the tramways, and said that in the whirligig of time he thought he might see me standing here as the upholder and supporter of tramways. I always objected to tramways, and I object to them now, but if we are to have them, let us have them underground, where they do not interfere with the traffic, and where they may be of some use.
    Under the Corporation scheme you will have a connected line of tramways underground which will be able to go quicker, bring in a larger revenue, and they will be to the advantage of everybody. I wish to say a few words about the cost. I know it is very difficult to estimate what the exact cost will be, but the hon. Member apparently forgets, or possibly he did not know, that the alternative scheme will go through Messrs. Cook and Sons' warehouse. That is a large building, standing on an acre of ground, and the Corporation will have to take the whole of that ground or none. The consequence will be a very large increase in the cost, which the Corporation put at about £1,000,000. Whether that is so or not I do not know, but it must be a very large increase when you have to take such a very exceptional place as this particular warehouse, because you cannot take a piece out of it. The hon. Member who brought forward this Motion said there is going to be opened up a new vista about a quarter of a mile in length as you come from the south to the north. In my opinion the only people who will see this vista will be the railway van drivers and the different drivers of heavy goods traffic who are the only people who Use that particular route. Therefore, from the aesthetic point of view, there is not going to be that number of people who, in their ordinary daily avocations, will be confronted with a thing of beauty which will charm away dull care.
    1620
    There are really two questions, apart from the very strong points made by the Chairman of the Committee, which ought to be considered. After all, those who have business to do in the City of London have some right to be considered, and what interferes with business in the City is congestion of traffic. If this Bill is going to relieve congestion of traffic, then the House ought to pass it, but, if it is going to add to congestion, that is a different thing. I think I have proved this particular Bill will relieve congestion of traffic, while the Bill favoured by the hon. Member will add to it. Further, I think I have proved that, as regards the bridge itself, the Corporation are prepared to take architectural advice, and, as regards the street, I may say I saw to-day a plan of Sir Christopher Wren's in which this identical line was taken. The plan is here in the House if the hon. Member doubts it, and I shall be very pleased when I have sat down to fetch it and show it to him or any other hon. Member. That plan of Wren's carries out the identical idea of this particular Bill, and I do not think, for the sake of a possible improvement in a view which will be seen by a very few people, we should alter this plan and add to the congestion of traffic in the City. It will make no difference to the architectural appearance of the bridge, because the bridge can be the same except that in this case it will be straight and in the other it will be askew. I do not know whether, as an educated man, the hon. Member prefers a crooked bridge to a straight one, but personally, not being esthetic, I prefer a straight bridge. I have no wish to see my Constituents put to the expense next year as they would be by the passing of this Motion of again coming before this House unless they abandon the scheme altogether. If there is any strong body of educated opinion that can show the scheme is wrong, well, as the hon. Member below the Gangway said, let them go to the House of Lords. Thank God, we have got a House of Lords still. The hon. Member may be thankful for it, unless the House of Lords, being possibly uneducated men, take the view held by the hon. Member who was Chairman of the Committee. I hope the House will pass this Bill.
    Sir WILLIAM GELDER:I have listened to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I agree absolutely that traffic consideration is per-

    1621
    haps the greatest of all considerations in the matter, but I disagree entirely when he suggests that the Bill of the Corporation is the only way by which traffic regulations can be obtained and adjusted properly. I have a plan in my hand. It is not an official plan, it is not the plan of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but it is nevertheless the plan of a gentleman very eminent in the architectural profession who certainly knows a considerable deal about town planning. It shows a scheme can be carried out having regard to the amenities of St. Paul's Cathedral and yet meeting all the requirements of the very congested traffic of the City of London. I am very reluctant personally to oppose this scheme. I desire to see a bridge, and I desire to see the improvement made for reasons other than those of traffic, but I am convinced, if this scheme is allowed to pass, it will be a more fatal blunder in London architecture than has ever been perpetrated during the centuries which have gone by. It will be more than a blunder; it will be a positive crime, and cruel to posterity, and we shall be remembered with opprobrium by those who succeed us if we lose an opportunity such as this affords us.
    My one great reason for objecting to this scheme is that we have got a cathedral which is a national monument of which any nation might be proud. One blunder was made in the past when the bridge was put over Ludgate Hill and the view of St. Paul's was taken away from Fleet Street. We do not want to repeat a blunder of that kind, but, as opportunity affords, we want to open up St. Paul's so that its beauties may be better understood What does the engineers scheme provide? It provides for a street from north to south, missing St. Paul's entirely. I am reminded in this relation of what was said by one of the Czars of Russia. He wanted to make a railway from St. Petersburg to Moscow, and he took a ruler and drew a straight line on a plan regardless of all natural features of the country, and said, "I must have a railway made here." That to my mind is considerably like what the engineer of the Corporation has done in this respect. He has ignored absolutely and entirely an opportunity of obtaining for London an advantage which will last as long as the City lasts. He has ignored, or shall I say the Corporation has ignored, the advice of those who are best able to advise on a subject like this—architects, artists, and sculptors. I am not aware they have had any architect of any
    1622
    position who has been able to back up the scheme of the Corporation. What are the names of those opposed to this scheme? Surely they should have some Weight with this House. Sir Alma Tadema, Sir Walter Hamo Thornycroft, Sir, George Frampton, Sir Thomas Brock, Mr. J. S. Sargeant, Sir William Richmond, Mr. Ernest George, and among the architects there are the President of the Institute, past presidents, Sir Aston Webb, Mr. John Belcher, Professor Blomfield, Professor Beresford Pite, and a host of others. Yet we are to be told that the opinion of the City engineer and of a surveyor is of more value in a matter of this kind than the opinion of all the architects. Not only the architects, but the whole of the London Press has expressed a very strong objection to the scheme. "The Times," the "Morning Post," the "Daily Mail"—they are gloriously impartial—the "Globe," the "Daily News," the "Daily Chronicle," the "Morning Leader," and the "Spectator"—I am glad to get cheers from both sides of the House—the articles these papers have published show that ill the Press there is a unaimity of opinion on this subject. That opinion ought not to be lightly set on one side. Hon. Members of this House do not treat the Press lightly when they want favourable comments on their speeches. They value the Press then, and I think that on a matter of this kind, when it is speaking for the people of London and of the whole country, value should equally be attached to its expression of view. We are asked why the architects have not opposed this scheme. They did petition against it, but they went no further. Why, I ask, should architects, as architects, without being properly retained, spend their time any more than any other class similarly interested in the welfare of this city? Why should they be asked to contribute from their store more than the general public are asked? It is a lamentable thing to my mind that there is no public fund out of which counsel can be briefed for the protection of the public interest of this matter. Why should the architects be required to spend £500 or —1,000 in opposing a scheme of this kind, any more than any other class?
    Mr. MOONEY: If the Institute of British. Architects had followed our suggestion they would have incurred no such cost; they could have come before the Committee and given their opinion and stated their alternative scheme.
    Sir W. GELDER: The chairman of the Committee suggests that any architect could have come forward to present an alternative scheme, but it is no more the duty of architects to present alternative schemes than it is the duty of any other class of people. They did all that was required of them as a public body. They did their best to influence the London Corporation by deputation. Added to that they presented a petition against the Bill which showed very clearly that, in their opinion, this scheme was a great mistake. I do not think any Member of this House would suggest that an architect should be asked to do any more in this matter in the public interest than any other public body of men do. Speaking as one who has had some little experience in Town Planning, an experience I may possibly say without egotism, equal to that of any other Member of this House, I say that I think that the Corporation have wedded themselves to one scheme exclusively without considering other schemes, which might have been more advantageous to the public.
    They have given us four or five reasons why their scheme is the only practicable one. They have told us that, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Police, the traffic cannot be regulated if any alternative scheme is carried out. But if I may be permitted to say so, I have a plan here which shows that that end could have been absolutely obtained without in any way interfering with the traffic and still preserving St. Paul's as the centre. There would be a wide "Y"-shaped opening, and the traffic could easily be carried round the eastern end of St. Paul's and brought down to the bridge without any difficulty whatsoever. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, really touched the spot when he said that to bring the new street in a direct line with the centre of St. Paul's would mean that they would have to take a very large warehouse, covering an acre of ground, and that that would be an enormously costly process. But if they did not take that acre there, surely they would have to take an acre somewhere else. They cannot get their improvement unless they take the ground to make the road, and they must put sufficient ground on each side of the road to give frontages so that they may recoup themselves in some measure for the scheme they have laid down. If they do not take this particular acre they must take an acre of ground in some other position. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Oh, yes. You cannot make a street without
    1624
    ground. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can utilise existing streets."] The existing streets are about 16ft. wide, and if you are to utilise them on one side you will get no advantage, because you cannot resell any of the land in order to pay for your improvements. The cheapest method of making any pubilc improvement is to go through where there is no existing street, and then you get two frontages, one on each side, which enables you to pay to some extent for the cost of the improvement. I will grant this, the cost of this particular warehouse would be a little greater than that of any other warehouse. We are told that it would involve an extra million of money to adopt this plan. I have very excellent authority for my statement that the additional cost of putting the thoroughfare in a direct line of access to St. Pain's would only be from about £150,000 to £200,000, and I can go so far as this, and say with a fund like that of the Bridge Estates, even if it did cost an extra million of money, a statement which I entirely traverse, is it not wise when we are dealing with a subject which will last for centuries that we should take a very broad view of the case and not the narrow and contracted view suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The second objection was that unless a straight street was made at the east end of St. Paul's you could not have the trains join up.
    Why not? A tram could be afforded with very slight curves which will answer every purpose quite as well as though it was absolutely straight under the alternative scheme which I suggest here to-day. Then it is suggested that there is danger to the foundations of St. Paul's if any other scheme is taken than this. I traverse that entirely. The nearest point of contact where an underground tramway would have to be made is at the east end of St. Paul's, which is a portion of the scheme which the Committee have already passed, and if a street was made in a direct line from the approach to the centre of St. Paul's with an easy curve at that point where the foundations would be touched under the present scheme—at the nearest point—gradually the danger would be less because the tunnel would recede away from the Cathedral.
    I am afraid it is difficult to make this undertstood and clear. It is one of those things which could be far better shown on a plan. The Committee have not had this suggestion before them, and therefore they will not be able to see it as they would if they had studied a plan. I sym-

    1625
    pathise with them so far because they have only been able to see one side of the scheme and not the other. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because it has not been presented to them. With respect to the zone of danger which the Chief Commissioner of Police spoke about it has been pointed out by an hon. Member that a right-angled street cutting across there is a far greater danger than there is when there is a graceful curve out of one thoroughfare into another thoroughfare. I have not the slightest fear of any danger to the traffic. I believe that under our scheme the traffic can be quite as easily arranged as under the scheme which has been passed by the Committee. It does seem to me a great pity that the purely utilitarian view of the engineers alone is to prevail without any regard being had to the aesthetic character of the work and the amenities of the city. London is the largest city in the country, and we are oppressed by many wretched thoroughfares, and when an opportunity like this arises we do not want to repeat mistakes which have been made before because full and adequate consideration has not been given to the subject. I see no reflection upon the Committee if the chairman will forgive me in having this matter referred back, because if they have only heard one side it is not their fault, and we want all sides to be heard. I am quite sure of this, that if the Bill goes back to the Committee evidence can be produced which will show that the scheme will give all the effect of an approach to St. Paul's and be a reasonable means of locomotion which is so much needed in the central districts of London.
    Mr. ERNEST LAMB: I do not want unnecessarily to labour the question of the architects, and I think it has been unnecessarily laboured already, but I want to point out that the architects have been heard by the Corporation. I speak both as a member of the Corporation and as a member of the Bridge House Estates Committee, and we have had a deputation before us from the Royal Institute of British Architects, including the then president, Sir Aston Webb, Sir George Frampton, and others. Not only that, Sir Leonard Stokes, the president, has been heard before the Common Council and by the Bridge House Estates Committee. It has already been pointed out that there could have been a technical objection taken by the Corporation to the locus standi of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but I want to read the letter
    1626
    written from the Guildhall on this point on 16th February and addressed to the secretary of the Royal Institute of British Architects:—
    "Guildhall, E.C.,
    "16th February, 1911.
    "Dear Sir,
    "Corporation of London (Bridges) Bill,
    St. Paul's Bridge.
    "Referring to the Petition of the Royal Institute of British Architects against the above Bill the Corporation are advised that the institute has no locus standi to oppose the Bill. In the ordinary course the Corporation would, no doubt, if necessary, take the decision of the Court of Referees upon this point, but they feel that, apart from other considerations, such a course would scarcely be consistent with their previous action in giving the President and Council of the Institute every opportunity of expressing their views when the scheme embodied in the Bill was in its initial stages. The Corporation will not, therefore, lodge any objection to the Institute being heard upon its Petition.
    "Yours faithfully,
    "(Signed) ADRIAN POLLOCK,
    "Remember."
    The Corporation could not do more, anti what guarantee have they that if this Bill is recommitted the architects would be heard? We are told that it means expense, and that they would have to be represented by counsel; and I would remind the House that the Royal Institute of British Architects made no representation when our Bill was before the Committee.
    Sir W. GELDER: I would point out that the Royal Institute of British Architects are not a philanthropic body.
    Mr. LAMB: I feel that the hon. Member is only crossing my t's and dotting my i's, and I again ask what guarantee have we that they will appear if the Bill is re-committed. That is the difficulty which arose years before in 1879, when the Institute asked to be heard, and they were heard without expense. On this occasion the Chairman of the Committee invited them to come to the Committee, and yet they did not appear. I ask, under those circumstances, if this House is to-stultify itself on the Third Reading of this Bill by sending the measure back to a Committee when we have still no guarantee that the Institute will be heard before the Committee. May I just reply to those who say that there will be no vista of St. Paul's Cathedral under the Bill. There will be a magnificent vista of St. Paul's under the Corporation scheme. There were five illustrations of it published ill the "Graphic" a few weeks ago, and I am quite sure that anyone who has seen the plans of the Corporation could not make such a statement.
    Sir W. GELDER: May I say—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his opportunity.
    Mr. LAMB: I will leave the hon. Member, as I seem to be causing him some difficulty, and I will reply to one or two points of the hon. Member for Burnley. He asks where is Sir Aston Webb? I should answer that by asking the same question. He has been conspicuous by his absence from the opposition ever since he was asked to be heard by the Bridge House Estates Committee.
    Mr. MORRELL: He was not heard.
    Mr. LAMB: He was invited to be heard by the Committee of the Bridge House Estates. I will not labour this question of the architects. I believe it has been thoroughly and ably answered by the Chairman of the Committee. I was tempted to go into it by the words of the hon. Gentleman (Sir W. A. Gelder). I feel that the best line for me to take is the point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Morrell), because he gave us an undertaking. He said if the tramways could not be carried under this alternative scheme he would consider that an insuperable objection. I want to demonstrate that that is an insuperable objection, and if I can satisfy him that it means the dropping of the tramway scheme I trust he will stand by his words and withdraw his Motion. Speaking as a member of the City of London Corporation, I make the offer to the hon. Member that, if he will withdraw this Motion to re-commit, the Corporation will raise no technical objection to the locus standi of the Institute of British Architects to be heard before the House of Lords, although they could do if they liked. I want to persuade the hon. Member that there is nothing in the alternative scheme that is practicable. We have done all that we could to meet the objection. Anyone would think to hear what has been said that this was a mushroom growth. The Bridge House Committee has been considering this thing for years, and has come forward with a carefully prepared scheme after consultation with architects and after getting the expert advice of a present member of the Institute of British Architects. They come before this House and ask them to support the Committee and give this Bill a Third Reading and let it go to the other place.
    I want to make one statement here referring to the statement issued by the Corporation in support of the Bill. The paragraph at the top of page 2 with re-
    1628
    gard to tramways goes a little further than was intended. It has, as stated, been arranged between the Corporation and the London County Council that; subject to Parliamentary sanction, tramways are to be constructed across the bridge, but their extension by means of a subway under St. Paul's Churchyard is still subject to negotiation between the two bodies, and the connection with the northern system in Goswell Road is a matter for the Council to deal with in the future. It is due to the House to make that slight correction, though I still adhere to the statement that it is by agreement with the London County Council that trams shall come across the bridge. The hon. Member (Mr. Morrell) said if it could be shown that this tramway scheme would have to be dropped if the Corporation Bill were dropped he would consider that an insuperable objection. The Cathedral authorities have already successfully objected to tube railways and a main drain going past the south front of the Cathedral. If he wants chapter and verse I will give it him. In the Hammersmith and City Tube Railway Bill and in the Central London New Lines Bill these two tubes were both planned to go under Carter Lane. St. Paul's Cathedral has a few streets running between it and the Thames and Carter Lane is a little nearer to the river than the passage on the south side of the Cathedral. These two tubes were to go under Carter Lane, which was distinctly further from the frontage of St. Paul's than this scheme would be if the alternative scheme of the architects were carried, which would necessitate the trams going under the subway closer to the Cathedral, and yet the Cathedral authorities succeeded in carrying their objection and in compelling these two tube railways to alter their schemes and the promoters deposited their scheme carrying the tubes under Upper Thames Street, which is still nearer the river.
    10.0 P.M
    There is another point. Reiterated statements have been made that under the Corporation scheme the tramway subway would go nearer to the foundations of St. Paul's on the eastern side than they would do on the southern approach under the alternative scheme. I agree. I want to be absolutely fair to my opponents and to convert them. But the difference is this, that the ground of St. Paul's Cathedral slopes towards the river and if a subway is constructed to carry the trams on the southern side of the Cathedral the moisture will be drained down towards the river

    1629
    from the foundations of the Cathedral, and it was in consequence of that that the Cathedral authorities succeeded in their objection. Everyone will admit in view of that slope of the land there that the danger is much greater in sinking any subway for tramway purposes. The possible subsidence of the Cathedral foundations is a very serious one. Then there is also the question of the London County Council. Under their General Powers Bill they wanted to construct a sewer underneath the southern approach to the Cathedral. That was dropped and the main sewer was carried considerably nearer the river. I think that will satisfy the House that if the alternative scheme were adopted it would mean absolutely, ipso facto, the dropping of the tramway scheme. I was in a minority years ago in the City Corporation in pleading for trams across the bridges, and I still feel very strongly that if we are going to endanger the new artery of tramways north and south we should be stultifying the House and endangering the future traffic, facilities of the City of London.
    Mr. MORRELL: The hon. Member has not shown that we should in any way be stultifying the tramway scheme.
    Mr. LAMB: I should have thought I had demonstrated it. What possible advantage can be gained? This Bill has already been before the Select Committee. Every opportunity has been given for alternative schemes to be laid before the Committee and advantage was not taken of it, and the hon. Member still has the opportunity before the House of Lords. I have told him the Corporation will raise no technical objection to their locus standi. Then on the question that he raised about the skew, I want to point out that, under the requirements of the Port of London authority, if this bridge were carried according to the alternative proposal it would be absolutely necessary to carry these piers on the skew, because they compel us to have the piers of that bridge in a line with the piers of Southwark and Blackfriars, between which the new bridge is to run, and, speaking as the Member for Rochester, who is somewhat interested and connected with barges, I can speak with experience of the difficulty that barge men have in getting under the bridges, and it would be more difficult than the hon. Member can possibly realise to get through them. But if it is necessary in order to carry the alternative
    1630
    scheme that the bridge should be run on the skew, would not that offend the aesthetic and architectural considerations to which he referred? Reference has been made to the traffic problem of London. I desire very emphatically to repudiate and resent the aspersions made upon the ability of the Commissioner of the City of London Police. As a member of the Police Committee I very much resent the words which have fallen from the hon. Member. I only repeat what has been said by another hon. Member—that there is no city in t he world where the traffic is better managed than in London. It is the envy of foreign cities. The evidence of the Chief Commissioner of Police, who has recently been honoured by the King, was most valuable. We ought to be very glad that we had the, advantage of his evidence. He pointed out that the mingling of North and South traffic and East and West traffic at that point would be an insuperable objection to the easy running of the traffic. The hon. Member must know that when the near side traffic has to cross over to the off-side traffic that traffic has to be held up, and the Chief Commissioner, with all his experience, tells us that in the City of London it is easier to have a clear crossing at right angles than that for a short distance East and West and North and South traffic should be allowed to meet. But the hon. Member asked a question. He said where were the Board of Trade on this question of traffic. I have such confidence in the Board of Trade, presided over as it is by such an able Member of the House, that I believe that the Board of Trade were absent because they were satisfied with the Corporation scheme.
    I should like to deal also with the question of finance. The expenditure originally contemplated by the Corporation upon the work included in the Bill was £2,000,000 only, but upon further development of the matter it was found that £2,250,000 would be required, the additional sum being mainly for the purpose of widening St. Paul's Churchyard. This latter sum is the limit of the expenditure which the Corporation, advised by the financial officers, consider they can prudently incur, having regard to existing debt, liabilities, and other outgoings of the Bridge House Fund. The figure of £152,000 per annum has been used by hon. Members to-night, as though that were a clear sum available for the purpose of the Bill, whereas the fact is that half of that sum is already hypothecated, for the ordinary outgoings and maintenance of the city bridges, the expense of

    1631
    estate management, and sinking fund. The trust fund of the Bridge House Estates is already committed up to the hilt for the corporation bridges. The original estimate has already been exceeded by £250,000. To tackle what would be the more expensive scheme would be a policy which could not be supported by any facts which have been adduced to the House. Hon. Members have spoken of the sum of £1,000,000. I cannot conceive what is their authority for that sum. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I presume that the hon. Member suggests that it will not be £1,000,000. He led us to suppose that it would not amount to that sum. I wish to point out that if the alternative scheme were carried it would mean not the taking of the largest wing of the largest textile house in the world, but the taking of the very body itself. It would be just the difference between taking a man's arm and the whole of his body. Under the Corporation scheme we have to take one-twenty-fifth of the ground space of the large warehouse of Messrs. Cook, Son and Company.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) mentioned that the ground space of that warehouse is an acre. I am sure he will allow me to correct him and to state that it is over an acre and a-half which will be affected by the alternative scheme. The floor space of the warehouse is five acres, and the fastening up of the premises securely at night involves a walk of over ten miles. There is no other site in the locality where you could get five acres of floor space to replace this warehouse. The premises are spread over and under eight streets, all connected by eighteen bridges and subways. The firm have their own post office, telephone exchange, and underground communications. They employ 3,000 hands, and the dependents of these people may be estimated at 9,000, making 12,000. The supporters of the alternative scheme therefore are proposing to remove a town of 12,000 inhabitants. It is ludicrous to talk of this being done at quarter past eight in the House of Commons after the Bill has been considered by a Committee upstairs. I wish to point out that under the alternative scheme it would he necessary to take practically the whole of this great business. I say it is not a practical suggestion at all. I hope the hon. Member (Mr. Morrell) will see his way to withdraw the Amendment. I can
    1632
    assure him that no technical objection will be raised before the House of Lords to the locus standi of the Institute of British Architects.
    Lord BALCARRES: The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Lamb) stated he thought that by accepting the Amendment the House of Commons would be stultifying itself. The hon. Member who was Chairman of the Committee expressed the opinion that it would not be respectful towards the Private Bill Committee upstairs for the House of Commons to accept the Amendment. I confess that I differ from that view.
    Mr. MOONEY: I never suggested that for a moment. I said it was against all precedent that I knew of to refer a Bill back to a Committee for the purpose of hearing people who could have been heard before if they had availed themselves of the opportunity.
    Lord BALCARRES: The ground of the attack made by the hon. Member on the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite was one of etiquette. Member after Member has got up and said that we will be stultifying ourselves if we do not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for Newry said it was opposed to all precedent to send the Bill back to the Committee. That may be so, but it is really a question far too great and far too unique in its importance to be settled by any question as to whether we are treating the Committee with propriety or whether we are in danger of stultifying ourselves. What will be the position twenty years hence when this bridge is made—a bridge which so far as my opinion goes is on an incorrect line—if we are told at the end of that period that the House of Commons refused to take the alternative scheme because it was against precedent to refer back to a Committee a Bill which had been considered before. I frankly regret the attitude of the Institute of British Architects. I am not in their confidence. I have so far as I know never spoken to a single architect on the subject, but from the knowledge I have of architects I think the hon. Member opposite was very wide of the mark when he suggested that they did not place their case before the Committee simply because it would have placed a small expense on their personal pockets. I do not believe that.
    I hope that in considering this question the House may take a view of the matter dissociated from a smaller, and in certain

    1633
    cases, personal questions which have arisen, and pay attention to the central and governing feature of this controversy, which is whether this great new bridge shall go direct towards the greatest architectural feature in the metropolis or whether it shall be deviated for certain reasons which may or may not be adequate. At any rate, I hope the House will not allow itself to be distracted by purely subordinate questions. The hon. Member behind me said the Bridge is going to be designed by a competent architect whom the Corporation of the City of London have undertaken to employ. I am delighted to hear it, but that is not the main point at issue. It is not the structure or design of the bridge, but the question of the street leading from that bridge which is really the point at issue. My hon. Friend says, "Oh, but, after all, you get best and most easily to the north of London under the scheme in the Bill"—that may or may not be so"—but if you take a through line from the bridge to the Dome you get a vista. What is the good of a vista?" I hope my hon. Friend will not scoff too much at a vista.
    There are many towns in Europe whose fortunes and reputations have been made by a great vista of this character, and it ill behoved this House of Commons to pass the Town Planning Bill a year or two ago with such a great flourish of trumpets if we confess, as by passing the Bill as it now stands we shall confess, that the Town Planning Bill is a dead letter, while the President of the Local Government Board, who passed that Bill with great hopes and great aspirations, is absent from our Debate to-night and is unable to say a word in favour of a scheme with which a Town Planning Bill should be connected so intimately. It will stultify us, perhaps not in our own eyes, but certainly in the eyes of those who follow after us, if we allow this scheme to go through without the fullest and most complete consideration of what it ultimately means to the beauty of London. Hon. Members have said that this bridge, as proposed by the architects, would be a skew bridge. But is a skew bridge in itself wrong? It may be when it is near the joining together of two thoroughfares; but the whole of architectural precedent and town planning nowadays justifies a skew bridge, say, going across a river, when that bridge is a skew bridge in order to lead up to a monument of architectural pre-eminence. That is the case of, I suppose, the most historical bridge in the world, the Sant' Angelo
    1634
    Bridge at Rome, which leads up to the Castle of Sant' Angelo; while among the bridges of modern design I may mention the great bridge which leads diagonally across the river at Munich. Here, if we had a skew bridge, it would be more than justified by the fact that it would lead up to the great Dome of St. Paul's, thus making a vista which some persons may perhaps look upon as a negligible quantity, but which would very soon become a source of genuine appreciation and value to thousands and scores of thousands of people who would cross that bridge every year. I do not pretend to be able to offer an opinion on the question of tramway traffic, and so on, but I may make this observation, that when it is said that tramways cannot follow anything except a direct route there is some little exaggeration.
    Mr. LAMB: That is not the statement I made.
    Lord BALCARRES: When it, is said that a straight road is preferable to one that has an angle in it, I admit the truth of that observation, but anybody familiar with the London tramway system, in whatever part of London it may be, will agree with me in saying that kinks and frequent series of recurrent kinks in the lines of London tramways are by no means uncommon, and this fact hitherto has never prevented the authorities from constructing them in narrow tortuous thoroughfares without, so far as I can see, causing any great detriment to the tramway system.
    Mr. LAMB: It is not a question of the narrow streets, but it is a question of not being able to sink so much on the south side of the Cathedral, because of the foundations of the Cathedral.
    Lord BALCARRES: I confess the hon. Member has the advantage of me there, and I do not pretend to be able to answer him on that question. I am convinced that the hon. Member for Newry, when he said that we must not sacrifice to artistic purity what is practical in traffic and what is safe in engineering was perfectly correct, but in that statement there underlay the instinctive feeling that what is artistic must conflict with that which is utilitarian. That is not so. I undertake to say that any of those architects who have made their great reputations in Germany and Austria in huge schemes of town planning far in excess of anything we have ever tried to encompass in this country,

    1635
    would be able to combine the most utilitarian views of the necessities of public traffic and police control with the opening up of what I conceive to be a most magnificent vista. Twenty years hence, if we make a mistake now, it will be seen that we have committed an irretrievable error. It will then be said that the House of Commons refused to allow this very magnificent scheme, against which all the reasons have been detailed this evening—because it might be considered hurtful to the feelings of the Committee upstairs, because it would be inconvenient to the barges, because it would interfere with the private telephone system, and, for all I know, many other reasons, to which weight has been given. I ask the House seriously to consider whether it is not advisable now, at this stage, and before this Bill goes to another place, that the Committee of competent experts, members of our own House, who are already seised of nine out of ten of the problems which have to be raised, should not again be recommended —in the most friendly manner, so far as I am concerned, in regard to the four Gentlemen who sat on that Committee—to reconsider the matter from this point of view, because the opportunity is immense, the opportunity is unique, and I think the country at large would blame us justly if we lost a single opportunity of coming to a right decision upon the subject.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): In listening to this Debate I have considered what would be the ultimate result with regard to the tramway system of London. The London County Council have been in careful communication with the Corporation of London and with the authorities of St. Paul's Cathedral. I quite grant that in the ordinary course of debate it may be argued, and rightly argued, that it is possible front an engineering point of view to construct tramways in various manners and with various curves. Yes; but in the majority of cases we are not faced with the difficulty which we experience at the present time. If the scheme be ultimately adopted of carrying this bridge approach to the southern frontage of St. Paul's Cathedral, then I say, from the information I have received from the engineers, that it will be impossible to join up the north with the south in regard to tramways. Surely we are desirous of inter-communication between north and south of the
    1636
    river. I do not for one moment say that we should despise considerations of beauty in all circumstances. I cannot help thinking that the first duty we have to consider is the duty of the traffic getting from one point to the other. That, I venture to say, is the practical part of the whole matter. Why is it that there has always been such a tremendously congested state of affairs with regard to the traffic? It is because of the block to the northern section, and if the new bridge were to be constructed to the southern front, you would, practically speaking, have the same kind of block. The authorities have been spoken of to-night by Members of this House in a way which I should hardly have expected. A policeman, the surveyor, and the engineer were spoken of in a manner in which I think they should not have been referred to. With all deference, though I am not here to sound the praises of the Chief Engineer of the London County Council, nevertheless, I certainly think the opinions he has expressed should receive a certain amount of consideration from Members of this House. He said plainly that he has been in communication with Mr. Mott, and he stated:—
    "I consider the best line has been chosen for a bridge. I have discussed the question several times with Mr. Mott, engineer to the Corporation, and I am perfectly satisfied of the point that the scheme as brought forward for a direct line between north and south is the one that should be agreed to."
    We have heard it put very plainly to-night with regard to the strata, and I think I can easily say that the opinion that has been given to-night is the absolute opinion that has been given to us by the experienced officers after carefully considering this matter. As the members of the Institute of Architects did not think it worth their while, when they were invited, to appear before the Committee, I certainly think it would be greatly to the disadvantage of the public in general if it were decided that this Bill should be left over, at all events, for another two or three years. We have heard of town planning to-night, but with regard to that surely the one important question that has not been taken into consideration is as to whether you are taking care to arrange for the traffic to pass from one point to another. It may be overlooked that this is the actual route suggested by the engineers to the Select Committee, in order that their might be a direct line between north and south. I hope that under these circumstances, and in view

    1637
    of the fact that it would be impossible to take a tramway along the south side the House will agree to support the Committee.
    Mr. ESSEX: The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Lamb) said that if this matter were hung up we should have no guarantee that the Society of Architects would give us their evidence. But if the Committee receives instructions from this House to reconsider the matter, it can in all probability give powers for the carrying out of a large amount of work in regard to which there is no dispute whatever, such as the reconstruction of Southwark Bridge. That would give four years' breathing space, during which two things would happen: first, public opinion would be focussed on the scheme, and we should be less likely to make a mistake; and, secondly, the higher limit of the income of the Bridge House Estates—£150,000—would be more nearly approached. If the House feels that a tremendous responsibility would be placed upon it, if it should blunder at this time, and takes this chance of hanging the matter up for a short period, a large proportion of the proposed work can still go on, and no time will really be lost. With regard to the danger of taking the tramways along the south side of St. Paul's, I think it is largely over-estimated. It is true the Dean and Chapter have stated that they are now satisfied with the proposal; but my hon. Friend spoke as though the proposal were to bring the tramway on an upward slope, and then right along the south side of St. Paul's, instead of which, what is proposed is that the tramway should come almost to the level of the churchyard, suddenly duck down towards the foundations of St. Paul's, and then swing round in a width of road greater by one half as much again as the whole width of the proposed bridge, to a point in the new thoroughfare near St. Martin's-le-Grand. Instead of the proposed tramway being parallel with the south side of St. Paul's, it cuts diagonally across the east corner. There is not a man in England who would not make every effort to keep secure the foundations of St. Paul's.
    On the Committee we had practically only submitted to us, in the words adopted by the Bill, proposals to execute works. The City should not be abused if it has approached this matter in too wholly utilitarian a point of view. They had brooded over it for years. They had been making larger conveniences for traffic year after year. I hold here some ancient
    1638
    documents which show that similar proposals have been offered upon a like root idea. They have come together, and if, perchance, as some of us think, they have considered this project from an entirely utilitarian point of view, we ought to look upon them as jealous for the convenience of London traffic and not lightly charge them with carelessness. Perhaps some of us are as much to blame for not having brought before them fully enough the artistic considerations which are now contended for.
    I challenge this scheme very respectfully as inadequate. Here again, I believe, the inadequacy is due to excessive care of financial interests by the City Corporation. They have cut their coat according to their cloth. But what I want to say at this juncture is that they might have dealt more generously with us in view of the rapid growth of their funds. We have been told that they stand at £152,000. They are growing rapidly. Wherever you put it this bridge ought to be the widest in London. It is not going to be that at the start. What has been done by the Corporation during a short space of years? They have not been idle. They have put an immense amount of energy into the settlement of this problem of London traffic. They have widened London and Blackfriars bridges and given us the Tower Bridge. You have had going on during these years the Blackwall Tunnel and other methods of transit to relieve the congestion. All these things have been proved to be inadequate for the purpose of relieving the congestion almost before completion. To build a bridge which is narrower than the two existing bridges is a great mistake. Another mistake has, in my judgment, been made in the incompleteness of the connection between the north and south. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London told us that the intention was to carry the traffic rapidly through the City of London. This we shall not altogether secure, because this great thoroughfare, of which the bridge only forms a part, is blocked up at the northern end by narrow walls and ancient thoroughfares like Goswell Road, etc. Down at the south it becomes a cul de sac. The Home Office sent a request urging that a connection should be made with Dover Street; to make this a great central highway. We have not gained that. We have only the pious hope that these connections may ultimately be made. If, therefore, in respect to

    1639
    this particular bridge, this Bill is recommitted, you will give time to the London County Council and the City Council to bring the desirable things I have mentioned about. This bridge will be eighty feet wide over all. The great north and south connection of the tramways traffic will absorb the middle of the road. Further, remember, in view of the uprising of the warehouses, that the effective width of the bridge ordinarily considered will not be realised as thought.
    Another thing we have had thrown at us was Wren's plan—that it was never carried out. And we have got to remember that the buildings in those days, with their ample and great yards and gardens, led practically to an uninterrupted view. What are we afforded to-day. An hon. Member opposite grew eloquent on the subject of what was to be seen in front, but what about the other side, with its great warehouses and walls and cranes? That as a picture has something to tempt the lover of the beautiful and the picturesque. It has been said this must be a skew bridge. Every bridge will look like a skew bridge owing to the twisting and turnings of the river. I speak as the only Member of the Committee against this scheme. I am bound to say my colleagues, and I hope myself, gave the fullest consideration to all that was put before us. I think the City Council ought to have brought before us a bolder and more daring scheme; they do not want courage, and they believe in their great city and the interests committed to them. I am bound to vote against my Chairman in this matter. I offered to pair with him, but as he did not accept that, I take leave to express to the House a contrary opinion to his.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott): I hope the House will be ready in a few minutes to give a decision whether this Bill is to be re-committed or not. Perhaps the House will allow me before coming to a decision to say a few words about the matter. We have had a very interesting debate, to which I have listened with the closest attention, and in regard to the Division there is a delightful and unusual element of uncertainty. No pressure is being put by the Whips upon Members in regard to this particular Bill. We shall all vote exactly as we think best, and we shall all vote as we think right upon this occasion. We have had a great variety of opinions expressed, and cer
    1640
    tainly London is not all at one on this question. London appears to have left it for the hon. Member for Burnley and the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham to lead the opposition to the Bill. I claim to have a very open mind about the merits of this question. I have listened very carefully to all that has been said, and I think I shall carry the House with me at any rate when I say that as regards engineering difficulties, traffic facilities, and cost, the advantage lies with the scheme of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There seems to be some doubt upon that point, but that is the impression I have formed, and I thought it was the general impression.
    On the other hand there is a difference of opinion as to the architectural merits and the adequacy of the scheme. I am not able to dogmatise about the architectural merits of the scheme, but I would like to ask would the vista of the alternative scheme be so wonderful as some hon. Members make out? After all it would only have the wall of the south transept. It was no part of the original plan to have a wide thoroughfare leading up to the wall of the south transept, and I am not convinced that this matter is of such importance as the opponents of the Bill have made out. I understand that this and other alternatives were most carefully considered by the corporation and the Bridges Committee before the scheme of this Bill was adopted. I now turn from the question of merits to the question whether the House ought to support the Committee. The hon. Member for Burnley carefully dissociated himself from any attack upon the Committee, and I am glad he did so. He tried to make out that the motion he brought before the House was not one which cast any reflection upon the Committee. I do not quite agree with him, and I will deal with that matter in a few minutes. I think a very unfair slur has been cast upon the Committee in some portions of the Press of this country, and I think as Chairman of Ways and Means I ought to resent it.
    The Committee was an excellent one in every way. The hon. Member for Newry, who was the Chairman of the Committee, is one of the most experienced Chairmen of Private Bill Committees in this House. I have constantly heard from various hon. Members what an excellent Chairman of Committees he is, and I think anybody who knows anything of his conduct on Private Bill Committees will endorse that. Another member of the Committee was

    1641
    the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, who has had great experience of county government and a considerable amount of experience in this House. The hon. Member for Stafford was the only dissentient member of the Committee, and I think I am correct in saying that even he did not carry his opposition to the Bill to the extent of taking a division. The Committee was an excellent one. The only reason given for the recommittal of this Bill is that it is held that there was insufficient evidence before the Committee on the architectural qualities of the scheme. I must say, however, that I do not think you can carry this Motion to re-commit the Bill without casting some slur upon the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Is it fair to the Committee? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Let the House decide."] The House has a right to do what it likes, and I am not asking hon. Members to vote against their better judgment, but I do not see how you can carry this Motion for a re-committal of this Bill without casting a slur upon the Committee.
    I ask is it fair that the Committee should suffer because architects have failed in doing their duty? The Institute of British Architects did not appear before the Committee, although every chance was given to them to appear. No objection was made to their locus, and the Chairman sent them a special invitation. I really think the hon. Member for Brigg (Sir William Gelder) was hardly fair to the members of his own profession when he said it was a question of cost. I really do not think so meanly of the architects. If this is a matter of great public interest on which they feel so strongly, surely some of them would come forward and give evidence. If I were to take the view of the hon. Member for Brigg, I think, in reply to his question: "Why is an architect to appear unless he is paid to do so?" I would ask: "Why are we to throw over the opinion of a Committee who have given time, attention, and ability to the consideration of this matter and who have so done a great public service?" The architects had their chance, and they did not take it. They will still have a chance, if they choose to exercise it, in another place. This very Instruction, on account of which we are asked to recommit the Bill does not say anything to set right this question of cost. The hon. Member for Newry asked me about precedents. I certainly know of no precedent for re-committing a Bill in order that
    1642
    men who have had a chance of appearing on the Committee stage should appear before the Committee at some subsequent stage. It certainly would be entirely unusual to do so. I think the architects put themselves out of court by their action in regard to this matter, and I ask the House seriously, in conclusion: How could our Private business in this House be conducted if any class of men who have the right to appear before the Private Bill Committee refuse to do so, and then ask that the Bill should be recommitted in order that they may have an opportunity of appearing? I am sorry I did not carry all the Members of the House with me in the remark that you cannot discard the advice of this Committee without, whether you intend it or not, casting a rather unfair slur upon them. If you re-commit this Bill you will say, in effect, that, to some extent, the Committee was wanting in its duty in not insisting—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no," and "Hear, hear"]—I think I am entitled to put the argument. You will be saying the Committee, to some extent, was wanting in its duty because it did not insist on men coming before the Committee whom I do not think it had any right to drag before it. It gave them their chance. They refused to take it, and I do not think we can re-commit the Bill in order that they may now appear. I ask the House very seriously to stand by the Committee and to pass the Third Reading of this Bill.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I hold a very strong view that this House will not be casting a slur upon the Committee by re-committing the Bill, and, if I may say so, with the greatest possible respect to the Chairman of Ways and Means, the whole speech he has made shows, I think, a fundamental error, having regard to the theory and principle of Private Bill business. He has, if I may say so, fallen into the error of treating this matter—one of immense importance to London as if it were a private matter of litigation between two parties. He has actually said that because the Institute of British Architects failed to respond to the invitation of the Committee, London is for all time to be treated as if that evidence was not forthcoming, and as if no other person could give it but the Institute of British Architects. Nothing could be more fundamentally wrong than that. The interest of the public is the great interest here. What has the public to do with the failure of the Institute of British Architects to come

    1643
    before the Committee? Let me say this with the fullest frankness. I do not blame the Corporation for one moment. I think that they behaved in a very frank and generous manner. They did everything they could to get the evidence, but for some reason it was not given. Still more, the Committee themselves are absolutely free from blame. The Chairman has explained the efforts be made to get the evidence without which the inquiry could not be complete, and put it to the Committee that the speech of the hon. Member for Newry and the steps
    he took to get the evidence showed that he thought that evidence was necessary. The only mistake he made was in not coming to this House and stating that he thought this professional evidence was necessary. If he had done that it would have been in the competence of the House to order the attendance of any person he deemed necessary, and then we should have had a decision based not on imperfect but on full information.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 156.

    Division No. 249.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Elverston, Harold

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

    Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Fell, Arthur

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fisher, W. Hayes

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Barnston, Harry

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Beale, W. P.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Beauchamp, Edward

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bentham, G. J.

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Boland, John Pius

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Stewart, Gershom

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hunt, Rowland

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Butcher, John George

    Johnson, William

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cassel, Felix

    Lansbury, George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Cave, George

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Clough, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Martin, Joseph

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mooney, John J.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Crooks, William

    Mount, William Arthur

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Ernest Lamb and Mr. F. Hall

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Nolan, Joseph

    (Dulwich)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    NOES.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Boyton, James

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    Adamson, William

    Brace, William

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Frewen, Moreton

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Alden, Percy

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Glanville, Harold James

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Byles, William Pollard

    Goldstone, Frank

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Carlile, Edward Mildred

    Grant, J. A.

    Armitage, Robert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Gulland, John William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hancock, John George

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Harwood, George

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hayward, Evan

    Bigland, Alfred

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Falconer, James

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

    Neilson, Francis

    Sutton, John E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pearson, Hon Weetman H. M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Hunter, Sr Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Touche, Geoerge Alexander

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Toulmin, George

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Ure, Right Hon. Alexander

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Quilter, W. E. C.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Webb, H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Roberts Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Logan, John William

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Maclean, Donald

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wiles, Thomas

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rowlands, James

    Wilkie, Alexander

    M'Callum, John M.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Manfield, Harry

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Marks, G. Croydon

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Snowden, Philip

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Morrell and Lord Henry Bentinck.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Proposed words there added.
    Mr. MORTON: I object to going on. It is past Eleven o'clock.
    Mr. LAMB: I object. I have an Amendment to move.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There cannot be two Amendments. This is the first proposal.
    Mr. MORTON: On a point of Order, Sir. Can you go on after eleven o'clock?
    Mr. LAMB: I desire to ask your ruling. Is it competent to a Member of this House to move an Amendment to this Instruction?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have not yet reached the Instruction. This is the main Question.
    Ordered, That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee in respect of the Clauses which relate to the construction of a new bridge between Blackfriars and Southwark Bridges.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Next comes the Instruction of the hon. Member.
    Mr. MORRELL: I beg to move "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill not to agree to any scheme for the construction of the proposed new bridge until they are satisfied, first, that the scheme has been prepared under the advice and supervision of a competent architect or architects chosen from among
    1646
    the leading architects of the day; and, secondly, that the scheme, both in respect of architectural design and convenience of traffic, is the one best adapted to the public needs and to the character of the site."
    Mr. LAMB: I object.
    And it being after eleven o'clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow (Thursday) at a quarter past eight.

  SUPPLY [Twelfth Allotted Day].
  Considered in Committee.
  [IN THE COMMITTEE.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY [Twelfth Allotted Day].

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1911–12 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    Postponed proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a further sum, not exceeding £8,895,000, 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, 1912."
    [For details of Vote, see cols. 1527–1530.]
    Which Question was, "That Item Class II., Vote 11 (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries), be reduced by £100."—[Mr. Edward Strauss.]
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. HUNT: Cannot the discussion on the Question be resumed?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. The Standing Order says that the discussion on a Vote on Account necessarily comes to an end at eleven o'clock, or so soon after that as the other business has been disposed of.
    And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote.
    Question, "That Item Class II., Vote 11 (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries), be reduced by £100."
    Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1912, the sum of £18,013,921 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to make further provision out of moneys provided by Parliament for Old Age Pensions."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. CARLILE: May I ask for some particulars?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is too late.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported to-morrow.

  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Adjourned at Twenty-four minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  COLLECTING SOCIETIES.
  COLLECTING SOCIETIES.
  Naval Review.
  Naval Review.
  Certificated Teachers.
  Certificated Teachers.
  Workmen's Compensation Act (Medical Referees).
  Workmen's Compensation Act (Medical Referees).
  Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill.
  Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill.
  Plague in India.
  Plague in India.
  German Steel Syndicate.
  German Steel Syndicate.
  Post Office Factories.
  Post Office Factories.