Sitting of 24 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company Bill h (by Order),
Ascot Authority Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill,
Trade Boards Act Provisional Orders Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B);
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
North British Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords].
Reported with an Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords].
Ordered that the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—(The Lord Advocate.)
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords].
Reported with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Reported with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Lord Wimborne's Estate Bill [Lords],
Gomm Heirlooms Bill [Lords],
Conyngham Heirlooms Bill [Lords],
Reported without Amendment; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bills to be read the third time.
Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Reported without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Reading Corporation Bill [Lords],
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords],
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords],
Reported with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message from the Lords,
That they have agreed to—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 19) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
Llantrisant Gas Bill [Lords],
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Public Rights of Way." [Public Rights of Way Bill [Lords.]

TRADE UNIONS (MEMBERSHIP AND EXPENDITURE).
Return ordered "showing the membership at the end of 1911, and the Amounts expended during the year on (1) unemployed benefit; (2) dispute benefit; and (3) other benefits and working expenses, by 100 of the principal Trade Unions in the various groups of trades."—[Mr. Hoare.]

MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 230.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 281.]

ESTIMATES.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 231.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order dated 22nd July, 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer of Deposit Contributors) (Scotland) Order, 1913 (No. 2) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1913–14).
Estimate presented of the further Sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1914 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 227.]
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP).
Copy presented of Twenty-second General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 283 of The Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 228.]
EXPLOSIONS (PITSEA, ESSEX).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an Explosion which destroyed a guncotton stove in the Factory of the British Explosives Syndicate, Limited, at Pitsea, Essex, on 28th March, 1913 [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
NORTH SEA FISHERIES INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Fifth Report (Northern Area) on Fishery and Hydrographical Investigations in the North Sea and adjacent Waters, 1908–11 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHAMBER OF LONDON.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Annual Accounts of the Chamber of London for the year ending 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 229.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Portuguese East Africa (Murder of Rev. Arthur Douglas).
  Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foriegn Affairs whether he has now considered the facts connected with the trial and sentence of the Portuguese Corporal Taveira for the murder of the Rev. Arthur Douglas, at Kango, Portuguese East Africa; and whether he has been successful in obtaining an indemnity

  2189
  in addition to the punishment of lone year's imprisonment?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have considered all the existing facts connected with this case. No indemnity has so far been demanded from the Portuguese Government, and I can add nothing to the answers which have already been given on the subject.
  Mr. STANIER: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the family of the late Mr. Douglas regarding indemnity?
  Sir E. GREY: My impression is that we have consulted them, but they do not want anything in the form of money compensation; but I would like to be quite certain about it.
  Mr. HOARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the penalty of one year's imprisonment is sufficient for the offence?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir; I would not commit myself to saying that I am satisfied with the actual penalty, but the case is causing a good deal of difficulty, and after reviewing the whole case, it is very doubtful whether we shall press for anything more. I would not like to say definitely whether we should not press for an indemnity under the circumstances.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there is arty information concerning the position in the Balkans which he could appropriately give to the House?
  Sir E. GREY: There is nothing that I can usefully add to the information that has appeared in the Press, or to the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister the other day, or by Lord Morley in another place yesterday.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can give any further information as to what steps the Red Cross Society are taking as to the Balkan war; and whether he will urge on the Red Cross Society the necessity of sending contingents to the front, both for the wounded and the destitute population?
  Sir E. GREY: On 5th July, His Majesty's Acting Consul-General at Salonika reported that in consequence of the renewal of fighting in the neighbourhood of that place, medical stores and help would be welcome. This intimation was at once conveyed by the Red Cross Society, who, I understand, have dispatched units both to
  2190
  Salonika and Athens. His Majesty's Government have no further applications of the kind from any of their representatives in the Balkans, and they are not, in any case, in a position to put on the Red Cross Society pressure of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend. The representations made by my hon. Friend have, however, already been conveyed to the society, in accordance with the promise which was given to him on Tuesday night.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can give any further information as to the movements of the British military attachés with the forces of any of the belligerent States in the Balkans; and whether, in view of the reports of outrage by troops, he will consider the extreme desirability of the attaches proceeding to the front to verify the published reports?
  Sir E. GREY: It has been extremely difficult to secure that military attaches should be at or near the front throughout the whole of the war in the Balkans, and I have no official information that any of our military attaches are now with the forces of any of the belligerent States. I may add that it is no part of the duties of a military attaché to conduct, uninvited, an inquiry such as that suggested by the hon. Member. A military attach? can only be present with the consent of the belligerent Power.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Can my right hon. Friend give any further information as to the protests made by the European Consuls at Rodosto against outrages committed by the Turkish troops on the Greek population, and also on the Armenian population, and whether their protests have been energetically backed up by His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople?
  Sir E. GREY: That is quite a different question from the one on the Paper, and perhaps my hon. Friend will give notice.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has official information showing that 8,000 wounded Greeks have been brought into Salonika, and that the number of Bulgarian wounded brought in by the Greek forces is not more than twenty; and whether His Majesty's Consuls have reported that the relief of the wounded Bulgarians of the retreating army has been reasonably carried out by the Greek authorities?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information on any of these points.

  Opium.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any acceptable alternative proposals for dealing with the opium stocks accumulated at Hong Kong and Shanghai have yet been put forward by the Chinese Government?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.

  Mexico.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the position of British subjects in Mexico is endangered by the continued revolution in progress there; and if any reassuring reports have been received from His Majesty' Minister there?
  Sir E. GREY: Recent reports from His Majesty's Minister at Mexico show that there is a good deal of disturbance, especially in the Northern Provinces, and in certain places British interests, in common with others, have suffered through the continued disturbances. His Majesty's Minister has not reported that British subjects are in danger, but I am in communication with the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty in case the presence of one of His Majesty's ships may become advisable.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that widow Mary Muldoon has made a fresh claim for an old age pension, that the Delvin sub-committee has again declared her entitled to 5s. a week, and that the same pension officer has again reported against this without any fresh inspection; and, having regard to the consent he was understood to give to a different and competent inspection of the alleged means, whether the Local Government Board will withhold its decision until it has obtained a report of such inspection?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No further appeal has been received by the Local Government Board in this case since the previous claim was disallowed. If a further claim is received on appeal it will be open to the Board to consider whether a local investigation will be necessary before the appeal is determined.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Mr. Timothy Teahan, of Illauncaum, Castlegregory,
  2192
  county Kerry, is to be deprived of his pension because his age cannot be found in the local register or in the Census records; and whether, in such cases, where the applicant is clearly over 70 and can get several neighbours to testify to that fact, he is to be for ever deprived of the pension because he cannot supply documentary evidence of age?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Timothy Teahan's claim for an old age pension was disallowed by the Local Government Board on appeal, on the ground that he was unable to produce satisfactory evidence of age. The only evidence of age which he was able to produce was a document signed by some of his neighbours, containing an expression of opinion on their part that he was over seventy years of age; but, in the absence of any other proof of age, this uncorroborated expression of opinion could not be accepted as sufficient evidence by the Board. The onus lies on the claimant to furnish satisfactory proof of age.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: In such cases where it is absolutely impossible for men to produce documentary evidence of age, does that mean that they must lose the pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I have never found cases of that kind, but there are no doubt cases very near the line, and in the absence of satisfactory evidence, I dare say injustice may be done sometimes.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what means are to be adopted by men of this class to prove that they are of age?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Gentleman must surely recognise that people cannot be put upon the pension list simply because they say they are eligible, and some evidence is required.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on what grounds the Local Government Board for Ireland disallowed the pension granted to Mrs. Mary O'Connor, of Teervrin, Castlegregory subcommittee, county Kerry; what evidence had they before them before they came to their decision; who supplied it; whether the local pension officer recommended that she should have a pension of 3s. per week; and whether it is because her son, on whom she is wholly dependent for her maintenance, is about to be evicted that she is deprived of a pension!
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mary O'Connor's claim for an old age pension was disallowed by the Local Government Board on the grounds that her means exceeded the statutory limit. In determining her case, the Board had before them the particulars as to her circumstances supplied by the claimant and the pension officer, from which it would appear that she resides and is maintained on a well-tilled farm of seventy-five acres, carrying upwards of twenty head of cattle, in addition to other stock. It is a fact that the pension officer recommended a pension of 3s. a week, but, in. the opinion of the Board, the value of the benefits and privilege's enjoyed by her was worth more than £31 10s. a year. It has been represented to the Board that the claimant's son was in financial difficulties, and it is open to the claimant, in the event of any change in her circumstances, to make a fresh claim for pension.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Do I understand that the Local Government Board, in giving their decision on this case, had presented to them the statement that £20 had been given, because that is absolutely untrue?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will look into the matter.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that during the last twenty-five years there has been in the Royal Irish Constabulary Force neither favourable record nor money reward given to any officer whose district was quiet and free from crime; and will he specify any rule of the force intended or calculated to counteract the dangerous temptation which knowledge of that fact constituted among a large force?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member is quite under a misapprehension. Favourable records and sometimes Grants from the Fund are awarded for the meritorious performance of police duty in matters quite distinct from the detection of criminals.
  Mr. GINNELL: Are they extremely few compared with others?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not considered the exact proportions; I have no doubt they are fewer.
  Mr. G1NNELLasked the Chief Secretary (1) in view of the general refusal of the Crown to pay civilian witnesses who have not been examined in
  2194
  Court in cases in which if examined they should be paid, if he will state the number of cases in which the late District Inspector William Davis was given a good record and money out of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund, respectively, though not produced as a witness; the reason why he was not produced as a witness; the total amount so paid him; the rate of his promotion; the rule under which he was so favoured; and whether the services for which he was so paid and promoted were all connected with social agitation and not ordinary crime; and (2) in view of the general refusal of the Crown to pay civilian witnesses who have not been examined in Court in cases in which, if examined, they should be paid, if he will state the number of cases in which ex-District, Inspector William Henry Joyce has been given a good record and money out of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund, respectively, though not produced as a witness; the reason why he was not produced as a witness; the total amount so paid him; the rate of his promotion; the rule under which he was so favoured; and whether the services for which he was so paid and promoted were all connected with social agitation and not ordinary crime?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will answer this question and No. 15 together. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as regards civilian witnesses, who, when summoned by the Crown Solicitor, are paid their expenses whether they are examined or not. Both the officers referred to have long since left the force. I cannot undertake in reply to a question to enter into particulars as to the records of officers who were never under my control and for whose advancement I am in no way responsible.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary (1) if he will say under what district inspector Sergeant Sheridan and Tramp Ryan served in county Clare; whether that officer is still in the service or in receipt of public money for his services; how he has accounted for the escape of Sheridan and Ryan after he had become-aware of their guilt; what was, or is, his answer to their subsequent public assertion that in all they did they had acted on the suggestions of their superior officers; in how many cases was this officer given a good record and money out of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund, respectively, though not produced as a witness; the reason why he was not produced as a witness; the total amount so paid him; the rate of his promotion; the rule under

  2195
  which he was so favoured; and whether the services for which he was so paid and promoted were all connected with social agitation and not ordinary crime; and (2) if he will state the number, pay, and expenses, at intervals of five years since 1878, of the section of the Royal Irish Constabulary called crime special men, to which Sheridan, Cullinan, and Tramp Ryan belonged; what the crime was that led to the exposure of the criminal activity of each of these; where, by whom, upon whom committed, by whom investigated, and with what result in each case; if he will state the rule, and the authority for it, under which the officers who employed, directed, and gave favourable records to those men were themselves all given favourable records, promotion, and grants out of the Constabulary Force Fund, while the officers whose investigation exposed those men were not rewarded in any of those ways; and if he will state the total amount of public money paid to those men and to the officers who treated their services as meritorious, respectively?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will answer these two questions together. As regards Sheridan and Ryan, who was not a policeman, I must again refer the hon. Member to Mr. Wyndham's statement in the House of Commons on the 10th July, 1902. The case occurred in his time and I must decline to reopen it in any way. I do not know who the person referred to as Cullinan was.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries of the police authorities?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, I have, and that is the information; otherwise I should have been even entitled to say that I had never heard of it.
  Mr. GINNELL: Do the police authorities deny that Cullinan was in their service and kept in their house for hired informers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. Those transactions all occurred in 1902, long before my time, and I cannot undertake to say who is responsible.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Congested Districts Board has purchased the Fuller estate, near Cahirciveen, he will
  2196
  state when the work of improvement will be taken in hand?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is not likely to be vested in the Congested Districts Board for some months, but, when it is, improvement works will be commenced.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state if the farm on the Nicholson estate at Hosath, county Meath, for the purchase of which an advance was applied for by David Farrell, a minor, and refused by the Commissioners, has recently been inspected by officers of the Commissioners, and with what object; and whether he can state if an advance to purchase the same farm was recently, or is now being, sought for, and by whom?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have refused to make the advance applied for in the purchase agreement signed by Farrell. The lands were visited in connection with their exclusion from the sale of the estate. The reply to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners' inspector, Mr. E. Gallen, in dividing the untenanted lands of Rhyne, on the Bond estate, county Longford, omitted to provide for William Hughes, Rhyne, whose total acreage is three acres at a small valuation; for John Brady, of Rhyne, whose total acreage is eight acres and whose valuation is £6 10s.; for Nicholas Murtagh, Rhyne, whose total acreage is four acres and whose valuation is £4; and for Thomas Maguire, Rhyne, whose total acreage is three and a half acres and whose valuation is £2 15s., whilst granting to one person, a former herd on the property, an area of thirty acres of these untenanted lands; whether, as this is a matter of importance and urgency, he will immediately call for a report from Mr. Gallen as to his reasons in disqualifying these applicants and not giving a share of these lands to one William Hughes, one of the applicants, who is the son of. a tenant evicted from a large farm some twenty years ago on the same estate; whether it is the policy of the Estates Commissioners to make economic holdings by granting additional acres to such tenants as are set out above; whether their policy was carried out by Mr. Gallen

  2197
  in his recent division of Rhyne; and if he will now insist, before putting the tenants into possession, that the matter be inquired into with a view to providing for these uneconomic landholders?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The allotment of the untenanted land referred to was made by the Estates Commissioners after inquiry and in the exercise of the discretion vested in them. It is the practice of the Commissioners, when dividing up lands to provide, where practicable, an allotment for the herd, and it is impossible to provide allotments for all applicants. The allottees approved of by the Commissioners have signed undertakings to purchase the parcels allotted to them, and have already been put in possession thereof, and the suggestion that the allotment be reconsidered cannot be entertained.
  Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have yet issued an offer for the purchase of the estate of Miss Olivia Crean-Lynch, county Mayo, or when they expect to be able to do so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have issued an offer for the purchase of this property, and they are at present in correspondence with the owner regarding it.
  Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether negotiations are proceeding between the Congested Districts Board and Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenny as to the sale of his estate in county Mayo; and when the Board hope to be in a position to issue an offer for the estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Negotiations are proceeding between the Congested Districts Board and Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenny regarding the sale of his property, but the Board are not at present in a position to give any further information on the subject.
  Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have yet issued an offer for the purchase of the estate of the Marquess of Sligo; and, if not, what has been the cause of the delay, and when the offer will be issued?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have not yet issued an offer for the purchase of this estate, but they hope to do so at an early date. There has been no avoidable delay in the matter.

  Unionist Meeting at Castlecaulfield (Assaults).
  Mr. WILLIAM ARCHER REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to an attack made upon Mr. Bernard Conway, while exercising his ordinary duty as reporter for the "Dungannon Democat," at a Unionist meeting addressed by the hon. and learned Member for South Tyrone, at Castlecaulfield, county Tyrone, on the 12th instant; whether he is aware that Mr. Conway was knocked down and assaulted several times, and that when he eventually reached Dungannon collapsed during surgical treatment; whether he is aware that a Protestant clergyman, who intervened on his behalf, was himself set upon by the mob and received blows upon the head and body; whether any police were present; and, if so, what action did they take to protect Mr. Conway and the reverend gentleman; and whether any of the perpetrators of this outrage have been brought to justice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the wanton attack made upon Mr. Conway on the occasion referred to. I am glad to learn from the police that although Mr. Conway was knocked down and received several kicks he was found on examination by the doctor not to be seriously injured. The Protestant clergyman who intervened on his behalf was not set upon by the mob, but received a number of blows intended for Mr. Conway. He, however, suffered little injury. There were only eight police present when the assault took place as no disturbance was anticipated. They did all in their power to protect these two gentlemen. Some of Mr. Conway's assailants have been identified, and the question of a prosecution is being considered.
  Mr. HORNER: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has been informed that the alleged assault referred to in the question took place after the Castlecaulfield meeting was over and when the hon. Member for South Tyrone was at another meeting some miles distant; that it took place upon the road when Mr. Conway, the reporter, was on his way to the railway station; that it originated in a private quarrel between him and an irresponsible person unconnected with party politics; that gentlemen who had been at the demonstration, including Colonel Brown

  2199
  and Rev. Gordon Scott, saved the reporter from his assailants; and that though the incident has been greatly exaggerated every law-abiding man deplores it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can hardly be expected to be acquainted with all these facts. I understand the hon. Member was not present when the assault took place, and I am sure we all deplore the incident.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Rev. Mr. Simpson was speaking from the platform at the time when this outrage took place, and, if that is so, is he also aware that such an outrage has never taken place at a Nationalist meeting before in any portion of Ireland at any time during any campaign?
  Mr. HORNERrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see all these questions on the Paper.

  Mental Deficiency Bill (Ireland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he proposes to introduce a Mental Deficiency Bill for Ireland; and, if not, why this exception is made of that country, in view of the fact, stated by the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded, that 66 per cent. of the 25,415 mentally defectives in Ireland, outside of asylums, are in need of immediate provision being made for them, whereas in England and Wales the percentage is 44 and in Scotland 35?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It would be impossible to introduce a Mental Deficiency Bill for Ireland during the present Session.

  Peamount Sanatorium.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the resident medical superintendent of the Peamount Sanatorium has any duties to perform which make it necessary that he should be of the same religion as the majority of the patients; and if the Local Government Board propose that in all similar institutions the choice of the chief medical officer should be decided upon religious grounds?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to both parts of this question is in the negative.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that, although the Peamount Sanatorium has been open for nearly a year, the patients during almost the whole of that time have not been under the charge of a resident medical superintendent who possessed the qualifications prescribed by the Local Government Board to undertake the care and treatment of consumptives; if the Board's approval is necessary to enable a sanatorium to be used for insured persons; and if he has at any time directed the Local Government Board to notify to the Women's National Health Association that the Board would suspend their approval unless and until the management of the institution was placed in the hands of a duly qualified resident medical superintendent?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The delay in the appointment of a resident medical superintendent for the Peamount Sanatorium has been due to the desire of the, Women's National Health Association that the selection should be made by a fully constituted management committee, including representatives of the county councils which have taken beds in the sanatorium. But from the first when the patients numbered only twenty the institution was in temporary charge of Dr. Joseph Daniell as visiting physician, with a most competent resident Irish lady doctor, Dr. Gaffigan, who as assistant medical officer of health in Huddersfield and Warrington, and as medical officer under the education authority at Enfield, Middlesex, has had a great and varied experience. Dr. Daniell is a tuberculosis expert and is in charge of an important tuberculosis dispensary in Dublin. In view of these provisional arrangements the Local Government Board sanctioned the admission of patients to the institution as required by the provisions of the National Insurance Act of 1911. The authorities of the Women's National Health Association have been most anxious to obtain the services of a resident medical superintendent possessing the necessary medical qualifications with experience in the management of a sanatorium. A considerable number of eligible candidates have now applied, and an election will be held within the next few days, which it is hoped will result in the selection of a suitable person to fill the vacant post.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the visiting doctor who has been acting up to the 1st of last

  2201
  month resides eleven miles from the sanatorium, and that he visits the sanatorium only two or three times a week; and does he think it is possible to do justice to the patients of that sanatorium with this scant service?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. We are most desirous to proceed at once to the appointment of a resident medical superintendent, and as one acquainted with the lady doctor in question, I feel sure that no patient suffers from being under her care.

  National Teachers (Ireland).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the quarterly payment of salaries entails a financial loss to Irish national teachers through an enforced system of credit which is estimated at £100,000 per annum; and if he can make any statement as to the possibility of an immediate change to a system of monthly payments?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a resolution of the Dublin Central Teachers' Association to the effect mentioned in the first part of the question. As regards the latter part of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to the replies which I have already given on the subject.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the cause of the delay in satisfying the claims of the paper-promoted teachers; and whether, seeing the wrong done to those teachers as well as the injury to education and, farther, seeing the small amount of money required, steps will be taken to have this matter settled immediately?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There has been no avoidable delay in this matter. As I have already informed the hon. Member, further proposals have been laid before the Treasury and are still under consideration.

  Labourers Acts (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the urgency of providing money to carry on the work of the Labourers Acts, he will immediately introduce a Bill sanctioning sufficient advances for these purposes through the Irish Land Commission as heretofore; whether he is aware that a postponement of the advances provided for in the Irish Land Bill until next year will delay building operations in the cases of thousands of cottages either sanctioned by the Local Government Board or passed
  2202
  by district councils; and whether there would be any difficulty in carrying through both Houses of Parliament this year a short amending Labourers Bill as an agreed measure?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member will, I am sure, recognise that at this stage of the Session it would be impossible to effect any legislation on the subject by means of a separate Bill. The hon. Member must not overlook the fact that operations under the Labourers Acts impose certain additional burdens both upon the Irish ratepayers and upon Irish funds.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question, "Whether there would be any difficulty in carrying through both Houses of Parliament this year a short amending Labourers Bill as an agreed measure." Is he not aware that the Bill of 1911 was an agreed Bill and passed through without any contention or debate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir; but the circumstances are very different now, and there is a great deal of difficulty in the way.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the fate of something like 20,000 labourers is involved by hanging up this question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now entering into an argument.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Having regard to the urgency of this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is precluded from doing that.
  Mr. BIRRELL: May I point out that we have already built 41,000 cottages in Ireland, and although I agree that more should be built, really some other people have claims as well.

  Forestry (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state the present position of the proposal to encourage forestry in Ireland?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL(Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Since 1909–10 an annual sum of £6,000 has been voted to the Department for the purchase and

  2203
  upkeep of woodlands and lands adapted for forestry comprised in estates which were being sold under the Land Acts. Nine areas, comprising 5,396 acres, are worked as forestry centres in connection with this Vote, which is now exhausted. An advance of £25,000 from the Development Commissioners has been sanctioned for the purchase by the Department of areas suitable for afforestation, subject to certain prescribed conditions. The money so advanced to the Department is given, not by Grant, but by a loan not repayable, and bearing no interest, for thirty years; the question of requiring interest and provision for repayment to be considered at the end of that period. Negotiations for the purchase out of this sum of 2,692 acres situate in the Ballyhoura Hills area, county Cork, 3,146 acres situate in the Slieve Bloom Mountains, Queen's County, and 2,158 acres situate at Glendalough, county Wicklow, have been concluded. An application for funds for planting and management is at present before the Development Commissioners. The Department are not yet aware of the precise terms on which the Commissioners will make advances for the planting and management of the areas purchased. Negotiations for the purchase of additional lands in the Slieve Bloom area, and also for lands in Aughrim district, county Wicklow, and Woodford district, county Galway, are proceeding. In cases where county councils are willing to acquire small woodlands under the Land Purchase Acts the Development Commissioners have stated that they will be prepared to consider applications for annual advances towards meeting the cost of maintenance and management of such woodlands. The woodlands must not be less than 50 acres in extent. The Department have directed the attention of couny councils to the matter, but they are not yet in a position to say how far the county councils will avail themselves of the Development Commissioners' offer. So far only one county council has taken definite steps to obtain an advance from the Development Commissioners. The operations at Avondale, county Wicklow, comprising a school of forestry are carried out by the Department out of its Endowment Fund.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand from his answer that, both as regards the Treasury Grant
  2204
  of £6,000 and the advance from the Development Commissioners, all the receipts from the working of these schemes go back to the Treasury?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, that is so.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: If that is so, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the advance of the Development Commissioners is regarded as a loan without interest, and whether he could see that this money, which must accrue from the working, is given by the Treasury for the further development of this work?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I pointed out at once that this £25,000 from the Development Commissioners could not be regarded as a Grant, or be taken into account against Ireland as a Grant, but I have also put before the Treasury the expediency of giving receipts for forestry work in Ireland.
  Mr. DELANY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of this land in Queen's County is some of the best arable land in Queen's County, and that a claim has been put forward on the part of several small tenants and evicted tenants to some of it, and cannot that be done?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, we always do what we can in these matters. We have made no application for land at any time but that we have been at once met with a demand for a portion of it for the tenants.

  National Schools (England).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether the trust deed of the Oakham national school is being violated in respect of the religious education now being given; whether the bishop of the diocese has been consulted; and whether he is prepared to advise all managers of schools with the National Society's trust deed that they may safely violate their trust deeds in a similar manner; and (2) whether the trust deed of the national school at Oakham, Rutland, provides that the religious instruction shall be according to the principles and in furtherance of the ends and designs of the National Society for Promoting the Principles of the Established Church, including instruction in the liturgy and catechism of that Church; that the religious instruction to be given in the said school shall be vested in the vicar of the parish, and that the teachers are to be members of the Church

  2205
  of England; whether Nonconformist teachers have been appointed and are giving Nonconformist teaching and that Nonconformist ministers have been invited to take the place of the vicar in controlling, assisting, and directing such teaching; whether the trust deed further provides that, in case any difference shall arise on any matter respecting the religious instruction, an appeal may be made to the bishop of the diocese, whose decision in writing shall be final and conclusive and binding upon all parties; and whether, as Sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Education Act makes it one of the conditions to be fulfilled by a school in order to obtain a Parliamentary Grant that the religious instruction shall, as regards its character, be in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed, he will obtain the prescribed decision of the bishop in writing before paying the Parliamentary Grant to this school?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): My right hon. Friend is not aware that the trust deed is being violated and he does not know whether the bishop of the diocese has been consulted. The trust deed declares that the school shall be conducted in accordance with the doctrines, principles, and discipline of the Church of England, and according to the principles and in furtherance of the ends and designs of the National Society, and that the vicar shall have the superintendence of the religious and moral instruction of the scholars. It does not specifically define the character of the religious instruction to be given in the school, nor does it require all teachers in the school to be members of the Church of England. On the facts at present before him he sees no reason to intervene in the matter.
  Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman put this matter, which is a very large one, before the Law Officers of the Crown with the object of getting their report upon it?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not think that there is any necessity for that in view of the nature of the trust.
  Mr. HOARE: Does the hon. Gentleman not regard it as a commendable fact that managers of non-provided schools should give facilities to Nonconformist parents and others who desire them?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: As far as I know, the arrangements in these cases are working perfectly well.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Will the hon. Gentleman make the further inquiries asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, in order to ascertain by whose authority and to what extent these things are done, and whether they be desirable or not?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not think that there is any need to make inquiries. If my hon. Friends have any information which they think I have not got, I should be very glad to consider it.
  Mr. KING: Will this practice—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We really must get on with the questions.

  Education Statistics.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education when the annual volume of Education Statistics will be published; and whether he will defer the Second Reading of the Bill to amend the law with respect to Educational Grants until hon. Members have been able to study the latest information available?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The volume of statistics to which the hon. Member refers. cannot be published before 31st July, but it does not appear to be necessary to the consideration of the Education (No. 2) Bill.

  Post Office (Girl Probationers).
  Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General whether two appointments have been made recently at Colchester of young women as probationer telegraph learners, and that one case was that of a near relative of a Post Office official at Colchester; whether these cases relieve the young women in question of the usual competitive examination required for entrance to the telegraph service; and whether he will give instructions that in future only those entering through the usual competitive methods will be admitted to the Colchester office as telegraph learners?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I presume that the hon.. Member's question refers to two girl probationers who have been employed at Colchester since November, 1911. These girls are not engaged in learning telegraphy, but perform indoor messenger duties. They are both related to members of the staff at Colchester. Girl probationers cannot become telegraph

  2207
  learners without passing a competitive examination. They may, however, become telephonists on passing the usual qualifying tests for admission to that class.

  Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the locality for the new wireless station south of Aberdeen?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The precise locality has not yet been settled.
  Captain MURRAY: If I repeat the question before the Recess, will my right hon. Friend be able to give me the information?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not quite sure if I shall be able to do so, but, if not, I will write to the hon. Member.
  Captain FABERasked the Postmaster-General (1) specifically what parts of the British Empire will be barred from the benefits of unrestricted competition in wireless telegraphy by the possibility of their conflicting with the interests of the Imperial stations; (2) whether the monopoly which he proposes to create in connection with wireless telegraphy is to be temporary or permanent; and, if the former, what is the period of time which his advisers consider must elapse before the State service can be expected to support the effect of competition; and (3) whether the creation of a monopoly for the State in wireless telegraphy needs the sanction of Parliament; and whether it will in any way be embodied in the contract now being concluded with the Marconi Company, or whether it is a matter solely for the Postmaster-General of the day, and is capable of termination or revision at his own edict on the counsel of his advisers?
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Postmaster-General (1) on whose advice he is acting in refusing to issue licences for stations which will, in the hands of private companies, enable competition to be made with the State-owned service; and whether the arguments on which this advice is based are financial or strategical; (2) why there should be a monopoly in respect to wireless telegraphy when there is none in respect to the cables; and whether the fact of the failure of the Pacific Cable Company, which is a Government-owned concern, successfully
  2208
  to compete with private enterprise has been a factor in inducing him to arrive at this decision; and (3) how he defines competition with State-owned wireless enterprise; and whether, as the stations under Government control are on the route to the Mid and Far East, all rival wireless systems will be barred from operating east of Suez?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government are of opinion that the stations of the Imperial chain now prcposed to be established should be State-owned, and not in the hands of private companies, and this conclusion is in harmony with the recommendations of the Imperial Conference of 1911, and of the Select Committee of this House on the Marconi Contract, as stated in their Special Report of January, 1913. The erection of such stations would not necessarily preclude the grant of licences to private companies to carry on a competing business along the same routes, and there is certainly nothing in the proposed compact with the Marconi Company which imposes any restriction on the grant of such licences or has, indeed, any bearing of any kind on this question. The matter is one of policy which will be open for review at any time. But the very fact that the stations of the Imperial chain will be owned by the Governments concerned and will be conducted by State servants in the public interest and for the public profit would necessarily have an important bearing on the course taken in this regard. The risk of mutual interference, if several stations using high power are erected in proximity to each other has also to be borne in mind. The Government have not received any applications for licences for long range stations along the route of the Imperial chain, except from the Marconi Company, in 1910, and that application was refused. It is, of course, very doubtful whether any private company would wish, at all events, in the near future, to invest capital in order to establish a service in competition with the Imperial stations. The question whether the grant of a licence in any specified territory, if it were made, would or would not involve competition with those stations is one that can only be decided with regard to the circumstances of the particular case. I have already stated that suitable applications for licences to conduct a Transatlantic traffic would not be refused.
  Captain FABER: Are we to understand that the monopoly is to be permanent?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, the hon. Member is not to understand anything of the kind. There will be no monopoly. The State will own its own stations, and the State will be able at any time in the future, if it wishes, to licence private companies to compete with itself. That is a matter which the Postmaster-General of the day 'will decide on the applications which come before him.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the case that these stations will not only be owned, but also controlled and managed in every respect by the State and the State alone.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, absolutely.

  Longford Central Telephone Exchange.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office authorities have entered into arrangements with a local butcher to engage his premises for the purpose of a central telephone exchange in Longford at the remuneration of £100 per annum for seven years; whether for many reasons such an arrangement would be objectionable to telephone users in Longford; whether there is accommodation in the new post office in Longford for the installation required in connection with this exchange; and, seeing that if he proceeds to carry out this arrangement the local guarantors for the telephone will withdraw their guarantees forthwith, will he consider the advisability of making other arrangements?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL:I am making inquiry on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Workhouse Regulations (Newington).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the case of Miss Edith Plumb, who was tried before the Lambeth magistrate on Saturday last for refusing to work at scrubbing, which she was ordered to do by Miss Berry, the assistant matron of the workhouse; if he is aware that the person in question refused to do the scrubbing on account of ill-health, and was punished by the matron by being put on bread-and-water diet for two days; if he is aware that the
  2210
  magistrate discharged the woman and said that it was a monstrous case; if he intends taking any action in the matter; and if he has any power to punish the guardians for ordering the matron to put the woman on bread-and-water diet?
  Mr. ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board whether this woman was in a weak state of health and had a child aged three and a half months; and, seeing that the magistrate discharged the defendant and described the case as a monstrous one, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Captain CAMPBELLfurther asked whether this woman fainted twice in Court through weakness?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have made inquiry into the case, which has also been the subject of investigation by a committee of the guardians. I understand that the woman was received into the workhouse, on account of the illness of her child, on the 10th May. The child, being ill, was at once taken to the infirmary and is making progress there. The mother did not nurse the child, and was passed by the medical officer as an able-bodied woman. She was employed on light work in the master's quarters for over two months, and during that time no complaint was made against her. She told the committee of the guardians that she had been at all times kindly treated by the master and matron, and was supplied with good food. On Thursday last she appears to have been offended at an order which was given to her, and refused to do any work. On the two following days she refused again, and on the third occasion she was charged at the Police Court. The committee have expressed their deep regret that she was sent to the Police Court in a weakly condition, the fact that she was in that condition not having been realised. I share their regret, and I consider that it is also to be regretted that the master of the workhouse was not present at the Court to explain the circumstances more fully. I am myself satisfied that the master's administration of this large institution is generally efficient and humane, and that his treatment of the poor girl in question had been kindly. The case is an unfortunate one, but I do not think that it calls for further action on my part. Arrangements are, I understand, in progress for the removal of the girl and her baby from the workhouse.

  Railway Rates (Milk).
  Mr. BARNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the practice of railway companies, in dealing with the milk traffic, of charging the full penny on each consignment when the rate comes to a fraction of a penny; and if he will consider the desirability of taking action in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Railway Rates and Charges Order Conkmation Acts expressly provide that for a fraction of a penny in the gross amount of a rate for any consignment a railway company may charge a penny.

  Boats and Davits (Departmental Committee's Report).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked when it is intended to apply the recommendations of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Boats and Davits?
  Mr. BUXTON: The recommendations contained in the Interim Report of the Boats and Davits Committee have been substantially included in the Life Saving Appliances Rules which are now in force. As regards the recommendations in the Second Report, their adoption would not require any material alteration in the rules. Some of the recommendations have already been adopted; others are under consideration in view of the International Conference, which I hope will take place in the autumn. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my warm sense of obligation to the Committee and its Chairman, Sir J. H. Biles, for the time and attention which they gave to the subjects referred to them, and for the valuable Reports which they issued.

  Darlington Labour Exchange (Strike of Clerks).
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the strike now in progress of the clerks of the Darlington Labour Exchange; whether he is aware that the cause of the dispute is that one of the clerks, who in May last was suspended for alleged insolence to his superior and Was reinstated unconditionally after inquiry, has been ordered to leave Darlington and take up duty in Perth; whether he is aware that this has.given the impression that the clerk in
  2212
  question is now being punished for an offence for which he had previously been acquitted; whether anything is being done by the Department to come to an understanding in the matter; and whether the instruction for the clerk to remove to Perth will be suspended pending a proper inquiry into the matter with a view to ending the strike?
  Mr. BUXTON: There is now no strike in progress at the Darlington Labour Exchange. I regret to say that seven clerks employed at this Exchange absented themselves from work without leave during the latter part of last week. I understand that this action was intended as a protest against the proposed transfer to Perth of one of the clerks whose conduct had been the subject of previous inquiry. The clerks who left duty were warned that their places would be considered vacant unless they returned to duty on Monday, and I am glad to say that they all returned on the day named. The clerk has been informed that the Board are giving further consideration to the action to be taken in his case, and, meanwhile, his transfer has been suspended. I take this opportunity of stating that ample means exist for the representation and consideration of officers' grievances through the proper channels; and that there can be no excuse, therefore, for the resort to methods of seeking redress which are incompatible with the interests of the public service.

  Edinburgh Tramways (Strike).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the strike of tramway men in Edinburgh; whether, in view of the fact that there are very special circumstances, in so far as the tramway system in Edinburgh is an underground cable system and it takes at least three weeks to train a driver, he will make a special effort to induce the parties to the strike to enter into negotiations for a settlement; and whether meanwhile he will take every precaution to prevent the cars being driven by men not fully conversant with the system involved?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Chief Industrial Commissioner will keep in touch with the dispute referred to. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the services of the Department are at the disposal of the parties should they desire to avail themselves of them. As regards the last part of the question, the responsibility for the safe

  2213
  running of the cars rests with the working company.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Considering the extraordinary excitement that exists in this district relating to this and other labour disputes, will the right hon. Gentleman take definite action with a view, to bringing the parties together, rather than wait until they approach him?
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman is aware that under the statute the Board of Trade has no power of interfering in these matters unless practically they are desired by both sides to intervene. I shall be only too glad to take the first opportunity of assisting in a settlement of this matter. I may, perhaps, have to ask for some legislation in regard to these questions, and I hope to secure the assistance therein of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. PRICE: Has the Board of Trade any power of control which will enable them to prevent the employment, as drivers, of men without proper experience?
  Mr. BUXTON: In this case the responsibility rests with the car company, and if the hon. Gentleman has any special matter to put forward I will bring it to the attention of the company at once.

  Boy Labour (Night Employment).
  Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take towards carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on male young persons in factories and workshops in restricting the number and divisions of trades in which boys may be employed in night work?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Orders have already been issued by the Home Office giving effect to those recommendations of the Committee which can be carried out without legislation. By these Orders the exemption allowing night work of young persons has been repealed for the following industries: sugar refining factories, mineral dressing floors, works connected with lead and zinc mines, cordite and gun cotton factories, wire drawing works, and artificial silk works; and the exemption has been restricted and made subject to certain conditions in the case of galvanising of sheet metal and wire and works in which regenerative or reverbatory furnaces are used. I hope hereafter to carry out those recommenda-
  2214
  tions which require legislation, but I am unable to make any statement at the present time.

  Mrs. Pankhnrst Rearrested.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary under what authority the police entered the Pavilion Music Hall on Monday last and arrested Mrs. Pankhurst; whether the police may in future enter private, houses for the purpose of such arrests; and whether there are any and, if so, what precedents for this purpose?
  Mr. McKENNA: I answered this question in the Debate last night. Mrs. Pankhurst was arrested in pursuance of the express power of arrest given by the Temporary Discharge, Act. There is nothing in the Act to prevent the exercise of that power on private premises. There are many cases in which there is a power of arrest on private premises.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    COMPLAINT AGAINST LANCASHIRE DOCTORS.
    Major WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed unanimously last week by the Manchester Medical Committee, repudiating his reference to a Manchester committee of an equal number of medical men and representatives of the approved societies as his authority for the charges against the medical profession of Lancashire with regard to the issuing by medical men, owing to a feeling of hostility to the National Insurance Act, of unwarranted certificates and calling upon him to substantiate these charges; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. GLAZEBROOKalso asked a question to the same effect; and whether he will comply with the demand for substantiation or withdrawal of the charge?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend asks to say that he has nothing to add to the answer which was given yesterday to the hon. Member for Glasgow University.
    Mr. WHYTE: May I ask if we are to understand definitely there is no charge, although one was at first implied, against the medical profession in Lancashire, to the effect that they improperly granted certificates?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I think the hon. Member must refer to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in debate last week. And perhaps also he will await the Report of the Departmental Committee which is investigating the figures that I gave yesterday.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS APPRO1 ED SOCIETY.
    Mr. FELLasked if the funds contributed by and on behalf of domestic servants insured under the National Insurance Act are accumulating rapidly; and, if so, if a scheme of additional benefits has been sanctioned and if it will provide for portions on marriage, or pensions on reaching the age of sixty, or other benefits?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The Act contemplates that valuations of approved societies shall be made after three years, unless other times are appointed by the Commissioners. No valuations have, therefore, as yet been made, and I am unable to say whether societies admitting domestic servants to membership are accumulating a surplus. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, any such surplus disclosed at a valuation can be devoted as the society may choose either to reducing contributions or to providing any of the fourteen additional benefits specified in Part II. of the Fourth Schedule, which include pensions or superannuation allowances.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask whether the case of domestic servants is not a special one, and that they ought not to have to wait the whole three years before the valuation is made, seeing that their funds are accumulating so rapidly?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not know whether the hon. Member has any evidence in support of that statement, but it would not be wise, unless special circumstances arise, to offer to value one society until the time arrives to value all the societies.

    INSURANCE STAMPS SALE).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the amount of money received from the sale of insurance stamps in the complete year to 14th July, 1913, in Scotland?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The amount received from the sale of health insurance stamps in Scotland up to the 14th instant is £2,040,000.

    CONVICTIONS FOR NON-STAMPING (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the result of the appeal against convictions for non-stamping by farmers in Scotland; and what steps the Commissioners propose to take to enforce the law against those who are shirking their obligations while others are obeying the law?
    Mr GLAZEBROOKasked whether the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, on 17th July, quashed two convictions of farmers for failure to pay contributions in respect of farm servants on the grounds that the National Insurance Act conferred no right to prosecute for penalties upon the Scottish Commissioners; and, if so, whether this was due to a flaw in the Act or to an intentional differentiation between the Scottish and English contributors?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I am advised that the Scottish Commissioners will be able to meet the present difficulty arising out of the decision in the cases referred to by submitting cases in which proceedings appear to them to be desirable to the Crown Agent, with a view to proceedings being taken by the Procurator-Fiscal.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT (INCREASED COST).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the friendly societies and trade unions who have been approved societies under the National Insurance Act have experienced a large increase in the cost of sickness benefit since the payment of the benefits commenced in January, 1913, as compared with the corresponding period of 1912; and, if so, to what cause this increase is to be attributed?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: If, as I presume, the Noble Lord refers to payments from the private funds of the societies in respect of both periods, I have no general information showing such an increase as he suggests in the first part of the question. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that during the months January to June, 1913, there has been a growth in the number of sick claims amounting among engineers to 3,857, and among boilermakers to 4,572; and, if so, whether he will now consider the appointment of medical referees?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: As sickness benefit under the Act only commenced last January, I presume the Noble Lord is referring in the first part at his question to claims upon the private funds of societies and not upon funds provided under the National Insurance Act. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer him to the answers my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury on the 12th and 16th June, and to the statements he made in Debate on the 15th July.

    Local Government Board (Scottish Veterinary Inspector).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will give the exact veterinary degree which the holder of the appointment of veterinary inspector to the Local Government Board possesses; if he considers that no veterinary surgeon in Scotland is qualified for the post; and, if not, why did he not give the appointment to a veterinary surgeon?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As I informed the Noble Lord on Tuesday, I dealt fully with the question of the qualifications of the holder of the appointment in an answer on 21th June. The appointment was given to him because he was considered to be the candidate who would fill it best.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer definitely whether the gentleman whom he has appointed to be veterinary inspector to the Local Government Board holds a veterinary certificate? If he does not, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the veterinary societies of Scotland consider that they have been insulted in not having a veterinary surgeon appointed?
    Mr. McKIN NON WOOD: I gave a full account of the qualifications and of the experience, which is quite as important as a certificate, in the answer to which I have referred the Noble Lord.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: But.does this gentleman hold a veterinary certificate or not?
    Mr. McKIN NON WOOD: I gave a full account of his certificates and qualifications. He may not hold a veterinary certificate, but he has veterinary qualifications.

    Regent Street Quadrant.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the Office of Woods to appoint an architect to prepare a design for completing the rebuilding of the Regent Street Quadrant, together with the buildings in Piccadilly Circus and the County Fire Office, to which all parties must conform, or if the lessees' architects are to be invited to send in drawings based on the findings of the Committee recently appointed by the Department?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Office of Woods has no present intention of appointing an architect to prepare designs, but any sent in by architects acting for lessees will receive careful consideration based on the Report of the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Unfit Horses (Export from British Ports).
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the number of horses valued at £10 and under, and at £5 and under, exported from British ports to Belgium and Holland respectively, during the year 1912?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of horses declared as British or Irish, valued at £10 or under, exported to Belgium and Holland during the year 1912, was as follows: to Belgium 26,187, to Holland 18,724. The number valued at £5 or under was: to Belgium 3,495, to Holland 15,009.
    Captain MURRAYasked whether the majority of horses valued at £5 and under exported to Belgium and Holland are unfit for work; and, if so, whether they are obviously intended to be slaughtered for human consumption at the port of debarkation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Although I have no precise information, I think that the answer to both parts of the question should, probably, be in the affirmative.
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether during 1912, 20,274 horses arrived at Antwerp from British ports, of which forty-six died during the voyage, 380 were carried by float to the abattoir unable to walk, and twenty-one were killed on the quay suffering from broken legs, etc.; and whether, in view of the sufferings during the voyage indicated by these casualties,

    2219
    he will take steps to ensure that horses obviously intended to be slaughtered for human consumption on arrival at the foreign port shall be slaughtered before embarkation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The figures quoted in the first part of the question do not exactly agree with the Board's statistics, but there is no substantial difference. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, prohibits the shipment of a horse unless it has first been examined by a veterinary surgeon and has been certified to be capable of being conveyed to a Continental port and disembarked without cruelty. The Board have no power to require horses intended for human food to be slaughtered before embarkation.
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, out of 18,451 horses, valued at £10 and under, exported from British ports to Holland during the year 1911, 14,846 were valued at £5 and under; whether all these 14,846 horses were immediately slaughtered on arrival for human consumption; and, if so, whether, in view of the sufferings which many of them must have undergone during the voyage, there is any reason why they should not have been slaughtered before export?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The figures quoted in the first part of the question are correct. With regard to the latter part, I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I have just given to his previous question.
    Captain MURRAY: Is there any reason why they should not have been slaughtered before export?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There may be no reason against it, but I have no power to compel the slaughter.

    Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908,
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there is dissatisfaction in North Wales in regard to the arbitrators nominated by the Board under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908; whether he has received objections to these nominations upon the ground that the arbitrators appointed were unacquainted with the Welsh language and had no knowledge of the special agricultural conditions of Wales; and whether, in re-
    2220
    gard to future appointments, he will be prepared to obtain the opinion of some authority outside the Board in relation to the names to be included on the arbitrators' panel?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has only been one case recently in which objection has been taken to the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that he does not speak Welsh. The arbitrator in the case is otherwise well qualified and fully understands the agricultural conditions of Wales. At the hearing of the arbitration he will have the assistance of an interpreter, if necessary. I may add that in the case in question objection was made by one or other of the parties to no less than fifteen local gentlemen whose names were suggested. With regard to the last part of the question, I am at all times glad to consider the names of duly qualified persons suggested to me for inclusion in the list from which arbitrators are appointed by the Board.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. BIGLANDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the number of Irish cattle slaughtered at Birkenhead from the date of the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland to the date when store cattle from Ireland were allowed to be shipped to English ports?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Fifty thousand seven hundred and thirty-nine Irish cattle were slaughtered at Birkenhead during the period in question, 8th July to 5th October, 1912.

    Grants-in-Aid (Scotland).
    Major HOPEasked if there is any agreement with the Treasury that, in respect of Grants in aid of local expenditure, Scotland should be entitled to £11 for every £80 which England and Wales receive?
    Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: Owing to the differing circumstances there is, and can be, no universal rule relating to Grants for local expenditure.
    Major HOPE:If there is no complication involved with other previous Grants, is the proportion of eleven to eighty-eight the correct proportion Scotland should receive?
    Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: It is an approximate figure, which is sometimes used as a criterion.
    Major HOPEasked, if the Grant in aid of education of defective children in England and Wales is to be increased by £155,000, what proportionate Grant Scotland should receive in aid of the same object?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As regards defective children, the Treasury have agreed that the same Grants shall be given in Scotland as in England so far as the conditions are the same.
    Major HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that £21,300 is the correct proportion of £155,000?
    Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: It is not a question of proportion, but of giving Grants per ca pita.
    Sir WALTER MENZIES: Is it not the case that £21,000 is the fair proportion of the Grant 'Scotland should get if England gets a Grant of £155,000?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think I can assent to the basis of that calculation, but as a calculation it is approximately correct.

    Glycerinated Calf Lymph.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether in his Report for the year 1911–12, Dr. F. R. Blaxall, bacteriologist for glycerinated calf lymph at the Government lymph establishment, announced that experiments have been made with carbolic acid, chloroform, and oil of cloves in the preparation of lymph; whether Dr. Blaxall states there is still much work to be done on the subject and further experiments are in progress; whether this denotes that the glycerinated calf lymph now in use is imperfect; and whether he will consider the advisability of suspending the issuing of lymph from the Government establishment, until a satisfactory virus has been obtained?
    Mr. BURNS: The answers to the first two parts of the question are in the affirmative. The experiments were not undertaken because the lymph which is now issued from the Government lymph establishment is imperfect, but for the purpose of ascertaining whether some more rapid method of preparing the lymph than that which is now adopted might be available.

  ROYAL NAVY

    PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any Report from the Fair-Wage Advisory Committee as to the observance of the new agreement between the local construction contractors and the trade unions by Messrs. Morrison and Mason, the contractors for the new dock works at Portsmouth; or whether he has any other information to offer upon the subject?
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): At the end of last week the Admiralty received information from the Chief Industrial Commissioner, who is also Chairman of the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee, to the effect that satisfactory terms had been arranged between the workmen and Messrs. Morrison and Mason, the contractors for the new dock works at Portsmouth. It is understood that the firm have advanced their wages to the extent involved in the agreement referred to by my hon. Friend in his question of the 30th ultimo.
    Mr. WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the contractors have agreed to the code of rules signed by the local builders?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I said so. I stated in my answer that it is understeod that the firm have advanced the wages to the extent involved in the agreement referred to by my hon. Friend in his question.
    Mr. WARD: I am obliged to ask whether the communication from the contractors limited any part of the agreement?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I should like to have that question put on the Paper.

    STEAMSHIP "CERAMIC" (ARMING).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the estimated cost of arming the White Star liner "Ceramic"; whether any sum of money and, if so, what sum is to be paid to the owners of that ship for permitting her to be armed; if, in view of the fact that the White Star line is controlled by a foreign corporation, any terms have been introduced into the agreement between the White Star line and the Admiralty which are not contained in the agreements made in respect of ships which are British owned and controlled; and, if so, will he state what those terms are?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I have no information as to the cost to the owners of arming the "Ceramic." No sum of money will be paid to them, and no special agreement, additional to that of 1903, has been entered into.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: How does the hon. Gentleman intend to enforce any agreement the Admiralty have made with a company that is controlled by a foreign Power, which may possibly be a belligerent Power?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I think the hon. Gentleman had better examine the special agreement, and I think that he will get the reply to his question.

    HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
    Mr. MULDOONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a number of men have recently been discharged from Haul-bowline; whether a number of others are under notice; and whether he can give particulars and state why this step has been taken, in face of the fact that there is a congestion of work in the Government dockyards in England?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Twenty-two men entered for temporary work have been discharged since 1st June, on the completion of work for which they were entered, and eight more men are under notice for the same reason. Five men have been discharged, and five are under notice for other reasons.
    Captain DONELAN: In view of the fact that the work at Haulbowline always gives satisfaction, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure a steady supply of work, with a view to avoiding these discharges, which inflict very great hardship on the men, even if they are only for a short time?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The Admiralty have no wish at all to discharge the men, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it would not be good economy to keep men on if there is no work for them to do.
    Mr. MULDOON: Is there a congestion of work in the Government dockyards in England?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The yards are full, but I will not say there is congestion.
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is much dissatisfaction at Haulbowline with the recent so-called improvement in the
    2224
    labourers' wages made by the Department; whether he can state exactly what the changes were and their effect; and when will the question come up for reconsideration?
    Mr. LAMBERT: The Admiralty are not aware that the facts are as stated in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As my right hon. Friend announced in the House of Commons on the 8th May, the rate of pay for labourers at Haulbowline has been advanced from 21s. to 22s. a week, and the minimum rate of 22s. for skilled labourers is now to be regarded as a probationary rate on which no skilled labourer is to be retained for more than twelve months continuously, whilst it is competent for the yard officers to advance any men beyond the probationary rate so soon as they are considered proficient. I may say, for my hon. Friend's information, that since these concessions came into operation 256 labourers have been advanced from 21s. to 22s. a week, and forty-eight skilled labourers have also received advances.
    Captain DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the wages of labourers at Haulbowline will be raised to the same standard as the wages paid to labourers in the English dockyards?
    Mr. LAMBERT: That is a question which had been often considered, and this is the considered decision of the Admiralty on the point.

    COASTGUARD (PENSIONS).
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if the average pensions of chief officers of Coastguard have decreased more than 25 per cent. in the last twenty-five years; and, if so, whether he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the causes of this reduction and consider the claims of these officers?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the 16th instant. The Admiralty cannot adopt the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question.

  AIRCRAFT.

    MOBILISATION.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War how many squadrons of the Royal Aero Corps are now fit for mobilisation in every detail, including personnel, transport, and

    2225
    spare parts; how many squadrons does the establishment provide for; and what is the present strength in personnel and aeroplanes actually fit for service, including machines suffering from temporary disablement?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for WAR (Mr. Tennant): It is not considered expedient to publish any details concerning mobilisation arrangements.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Without going into the question of mobilisation, how many squadrons are actually up to full complement and really efficient?
    Mr. TENNANT: All I can say is that is not the question on the Paper.

    Tuberculosis.
    Mr. MOUNTasked what is the number of bovine animals dealt with, up to the present, under the Tuberculosis Order; what number have been slaughtered; and what is the amount of compensation paid and payable by the Treasury in respect of these animals?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to the information supplied to the Board by the local authorities, up to this date 1,559 bovine animals have been slaughtered under the Tuberculosis Order, but I am unable to say what number of animals have been otherwise dealt with under the Order. Up to the 24th June last 1,747 animals had been notified to the local authorities under the Order, of which 965 had been slaughtered. Claims for contribution to the cost of compensation have been received from only a few authorities up to the present, and it is impossible. to estimate with any precision how much is due.
    Mr. STANIER: How many of these animals which have been slaughtered were found afterWards not to have tuberculosis?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No cases whatever have been brought to my notice of any of these animals having been found not to have suffered from tuberculosis.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: How much has been paid out, of the Treasury to local authorities in respect of compensation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not say without notice, but certainly a very small sum, if anything.
    Mr. MOUNT: How many of these animals were suffering from advanced tuberculosis and how many were not?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give the classification without notice. I shall be glad to give the information if it is asked for.

    Inland Revenue Department (Scotland).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has recently received a Petition from the Corporation of Glasgow and the county councils of Lanark, Renfrew, and Dumbarton and the town councils of Paisley and Dumbarton, and from the Chamber of Commerce, Merchants' House, Trades' House, Institute of Accountants and Actuaries, and Faculty of Procurators, all of the city of Glasgow, praying that a fully equipped section of the Inland Revenue Department should be established in the West of Scotland to facilitate the business done in that populous part of Scotland with his Department; and, if so, will he say whether he will be able to accede to that Petition in view of the facts that more than half of the business with his Department and more than half of the population of Scotland are in the West, and that inconvenience is felt by the community in having to travel long distances to conduct their business with his Department?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am unable to add anything to the answer I gave on the same subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh on the 22nd instant.

    Fair-Wages Clause.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the London Small Arms Company, Limited, Old Ford, who are Government contractors, are asking a number of their employés to sign a three years' agreement in consideration of the company agreeing to pay wages at the rate of 20s. per week of 54 hours until they are able to earn more on piecework at the current price paid in the factory for such work; and whether, seeing that the wages offered are very much below the standard rates in the district, and in view of the Fair-Wage Clause of the House of Cornmons, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): Inquiry is being made.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the committee appointed by the War Office for the consideration of the various systems of wireless telegraphy has yet reported or expressed any opinion upon the merits of the various systems; and, if so, whether he will lay such Report upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. TENNANT: The reply to both questions is in the negative.

    MARINDIN RANGE-FINDERS.
    Major HOPEasked whether the eighteen Marindin range-finders supplied since 1st January were all new instruments or whether some of them were instruments which had been in use by the Army for upwards of two years and had been returned to the makers for some minor repairs?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of the eighteen Marindin range-finders supplied seventeen were new and one was a repaired instrument, but the length of time it had been in use cannot be traced without further inquiry.
    Major HOPE: Were these seventeen actually issued new instruments this year?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.
    Major HOPE: Issued for the first time this year to the Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that cases are occurring in which employés are dismissed by employers for attending Territorial camp and for no fault in their conduct or work; and whether he can see his way to introduce legislation to penalise such employers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am aware of only one case of recent occurrence. I shall be glad to investigate any case which the Noble Lord brings to my notice. There do not appear at present to be sufficient grounds for the legislation suggested.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Could the War Office give commanding officers any idea what action they could take in such matters, as it is very hard on a man
    2228
    to be thrown out of employment simply because he has served his country?
    Mr. TENNANT: I entirely agree with the Noble Lord. We should be very glad to investigate any such case and take any action possible.

    GARRISON INSTITUTES.
    Mr. LYTTELTONasked whether the War Office are considering a scheme for utilising the sum of £80,000, derived from the profits of the South African garrison institutes, to establish similar institutions in each command at Home, which shall supply all goods required for the maintenance of regimental institutes, canteens, and officers' and sergeants' messes?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to a question on this subject put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southampton on Monday, the 21st instant.

    Royal Arsenal, Woolwich (Wages).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to make a statement in respect to the wages of the engineers and the labourers at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich?
    Mr. H. BAKER: I am not yet in a position to make a statement. The matter is receiving active consideration.
    Mr. BARNES: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a. statement, and is he aware that this has been on now since December last?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope to make a statement about the engineers very soon, this week or next. The hon. Member will realise that in the case of the labourers a very long inquiry is necessary, and I cannot make a promise about that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what business will be taken after eleven o'clock to-night?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We hope to take the Post Office (London) Railway Bill (Committee), Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Bill (Second Reading), Education (Scotland) Bill (Report), Local Authorities Contribution (Crystal Palace) Bill (Second Reading), Government of the Soudan Loan Bill (Third Reading), Ancient Monuments [Expenses] (Committee).

  SUPPLY.— [SEVENTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.— (Class II.—VOTE 11.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £159,532, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants in Aid." [Note.—£150,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I desire to call attention to the administration lathe Board in respect to various animal diseases, and I think it is only due to the right hon. Gentleman and his Department that I should say, not merely on behalf of myself, but on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, that. we appreciate the work which he has done, assisted by his permanent staff, during the last two years in the matter of the extermination of foot-and-mouth disease. Foot-and-mouth disease has most seriously attacked every part of the United Kingdom except Wales during the last two years, and this epidemic of the disease has been the worst that this country has experienced for the last nineteen years. It has been the most serious epidemic of the kind since the policy of slaughter was inaugurated in the year 1892. Anyone who knows the history
  2248
  of the 60's and 70's in connection with this disease will realise with a feeling of relief what good grounds we have for satisfaction that there has not been a repetition of the widespread distress which followed upon the ravages of this disease some thirty or forty years ago. We owe our present immunity from this highly infectious disease, with all the consequent loss which it is calculated to produce, to the drastic and prompt action and administration of the right. hon. Gentleman and his Department. I ought, perhaps, to say a word in special praise of Sir Stewart Stockmann, now unfortunately suffering from a serious illness, the chief veterinary officer of the Board, who has been the main adviser of the right hon. Gentleman in this connection and whose services I am sure he would be the first to recognise as having proved of immense value during this period of crisis.
  There are two reflections which have occurred to my mind in connection with the experience of this disease through which we have passed. One of them is the urgent necessity for research into the origin, pathology, and means of transmission of the disease. There is no exact knowledge either in this country or in any of the countries of Europe as to this disease, and until there is more scientific knowledge I think we have reason to apprehend a recurrence of the disease at any time in future. We are compelled, moreover, in the meantime, to resort to the somewhat barbarous process of slaughtering out all the animals affected, and those in contact with those infected, at great expense to the country and serious loss to stock owners throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman has, I know, sent a Committee of Inquiry to make further investigations on the scientific side of the disease in India. He told us in reply to a recent question that that Committee had finished its investigations, and it will be interesting to learn from him this afternoon what has been the result of their inquiry, and whether any more exact knowledge has resulted from their investigations.
  The other comment that I would like to make upon the recent epidemic is as to the unsatisfactory and, to my mind, almost alarming position in which this country is placed, and is likely to be placed, in future, in consequence of the lack of uniform administration and unified control of contagious diseases of this character in every part of the United Kingdom. The

  2249
  trouble which has arisen in Ireland and in this country, and the dissatisfaction which has been expressed so largely from the Irish Benches while the disease was prevalent, are largely due to the fact that in this small area, with a large trade in cattle going on between the two Islands, there has not been uniform administration on the part of one Department and one President of that Department. I venture to hope that in the early future it may be found possible to co-ordinate the administration with respect to serious contagious diseases throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, as has already been done between England, Wales, and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman must realise how very seriously these outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease affect what is now a very valuable trade in pedigree stock between this country and every part of the world. Unfortunately, it has become the custom, which, I believe, was initiated by Argentina, to impose a six months' embargo upon all cattle shipped from this country to other countries from the date of the last outbreak of the disease. It is very difficult to justify this, and I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman is using his influence in every possible way to get that embargo reduced to a more reasonable period, because it is common knowledge that the period of incubation of this disease is only from three to ten days. That being so, it is difficult to justify so long a period of embargo as six months, and the disorganisation during that period of a large and increasingly valuable trade.
  Another question that. I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether he cannot sec his way, with the approval of foreign importing countries and our own Colonies, to agree upon the partition of this country into various zones or sections, so that when an outbreak takes place say, in a remote part of Kent, those in Northumberland, Cumberland, and Durham shall not be restricted in the imports of their cattle to other countries. It appears to some of us that there is a perfectly easy process of drawing a line south of the border—the north of the border is now treated as a separate entity for this purpose—from the Mersey to the Humber, and again from the Severn to the Thames, thus dividing England into three separate strips. If the right hon. Gentleman could get foreign countries to agree that an outbreak in one of them shall not affect the importation of
  2250
  cattle from the others, there would be considerable advantage, because some hundreds of thousands of animals leave this country for other countries, and it is a serious matter when the whole of the import abroad is fettered owing to an outbreak in any part of this country. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department cannot, in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, make some variation, according to circumstances, in the fifteen miles radius, which was never intended to be uniform in every case, and which causes in many districts quite unnecessary vexation and interference with the movement of cattle. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, in the course of the inquiry by the Departmental Committee, it was pointed out by all the most responsible witnesses, that that was a useful maximum, but that it was not necessary in very hilly counties, or where the danger of the spread of the disease was not so great.
  Next year there is going to meet in this country an International Veterinary Conference, and I wish to ask whether something could be done by the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to press upon that conference, representing the profession in various Continental countries, as well as in this, to consider the desirability of joint action in the event of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease common to our country as well as their own, in order, so far as is possible, to control the origin of the disease, which we all must recognise is on the Continent of Europe. There is one other matter I wish to refer to. I am not quite sure to what extent it is within the scope of the right hon. Gentleman's administration. Local authorities have felt very seriously the increased charge which has been placed upon them in connection with this epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in respect of administrative expenses, not of themselves, but of the Board of Agriculture. Whenever the pleuro-pneumonia account falls short of funds, the whole of the balance, as I understand, which is required for the Board's administration in connection with serious outbreaks of contagious diseases, falls upon various local authorities and adds to the burden of the rate-payers. I think something like £60,000 was the charge upon various county councils last year in consequence of the administration of the Board, over which they have no control whatever. Many counties, including my own, in which there

  2251
  were no outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease at all had an added burden on the ratepayers to meet this demand on the part of the Board of Agriculture.
  4.0 P.M.
  So far as scheduled diseases are concerned, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the great improvement which there has been as regards glanders and farcy. The outbreaks have been materially reduced. In 1904 there were 1,529 and last year 173. Last month I understand there were eleven outbreaks only. I shall be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there is some prospect in the early future of exterminating the disease altogether. It is a disease which is very dangerous, and is often fatal both to animals and to men. As regards sheep scab, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the time has not come when he can confidently assure the House that it is on the eve of being eradicated in every part of the United Kingdom? I understand that the chief difficulty in connection with this disease has been lack of knowledge of the life history of the particular parasite which causes it, and the life history of that parasite, if I am informed correctly, is now known to the Board. If that is so, surely the time has come when we may look forward with confidence to the complete extermination of the disease and the relaxation of some of the vexatious restrictions and regulations in the matter of dipping and otherwise which it necessitates. I understand that whereas in 1896 there were 3,500 outbreaks of this disease, last year there were only 302, and last month the number came down to one only. That is a very hopeful outlook so far as sheep scab is concerned. In reference to parasitic mange, as we do not usually have figures about it published in the papers, I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the present position. Anthrax has also been reduced very much in the last few years. Two years ago there were 1,496 outbreaks, and last year there were only 748. Considering that there are 40,000,000 animals in the country susceptible to this disease, I suppose that we must regard this as a not unsatisfactory record.
  This disease is not merely fatal to farm animals affected, but it is also fatal to men, and it does a great deal to interfere seriously with trade, particularly the leather industry, in this country. I would
  2252
  also ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can do anything to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease, whose reference was specifically extended to anthrax, by the compulsory disinfection and sterilisation of hides, fleeces, and other similar articles sent to this country, and deemed to be the conveyers of disease, to reduce its virulence in various parts of the country? The Motion to reduce the Vote which I am moving is in respect of the administration of the Board in the matter of swine fever. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to defend his policy in reference to swine fever. Since the Swine Fever Order and the accompanying regulation of movements of swine Order in 1908, not only have the outbreaks of swine fever steadily increased, but the amount paid in compensation and for the purpose of administration has also increased to a large extent. In 1909, the year following the promulgation of these Orders, there were 650 outbreaks in this country, and 14,316 animals were slaughtered as the result. In 1912 the outbreaks had risen to 2,920, with a consequent slaughter of 39,653 animals, while the cost of compensation which comes out of public funds, the net cost after deduction of salvages, in the case of swine fever amounted to £15,723 in 1907–8 before the issue of these Orders, and it had risen to £46,975 in 1912–13, That is, that during the last five years, that these Orders have been in existence, the amount paid in compensation has increased threefold. The cost of administration, which was £53,834 in 1907–8, had risen to £66,333 in 1912–13. That is an increase of £12,500. The matter does not rest there. During the whole of this period the pig producers and feeders throughout the country have been subject to the most vexatious and harassing restrictions, which can only be defended on the ground that the disease is being gradually exterminated throughout the country. By the wholesale destruction, particularly of breeding sows and their litters, if they have been found on infected premises or deemed to he in any sense in contact with infected animals, I do not hesitate to say that, so far as the small pig keepers are concerned, whether they are small holders or cottagers, the policy of the Board is rapidly destroying the swine industry in England and Wales.
  How can the right hon. Gentleman defend the present system? His policy, to

  2253
  my mind, is founded neither upon any definite principle nor upon any scientific knowledge. The period of isolation, for the purpose of moving swine, is invariably twenty-eight days, in the case of a disease the incubative period of which is from three to five days only. It is suggested, but this is pure conjecture, that the latency of the disease may last three months. If it last for three months it is perfectly clear that the twenty-eight days is not sufficient. On the other hand, if the danger only exists during the period of incubation, then this period of twenty-eight days is grossly excessive; but the period of twenty-eight days is not all, because as the animals pass into a scheduled area they have not only to be isolated in the outside area for the twenty-eight days, but when they pass into the scheduled area they have got to be again isolated for twenty-eight days, during which they cannot be moved from the premises. That is a total of two months during which those particular pigs, not even suspected of swine fever, have to be confined to the premises in which they are housed, and they are unable to be taken into the market or otherwise dealt with except for immediate slaughter. I know that there has been for the last few years some further inquiry, besides the preliminary inquiry on the part of the Departmental Committee, which was set up by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and I would like to know when that inquiry is coining to an end, and whether any specific knowledge has been obtained as the result of that inquiry to justify the right hon. Gentleman in continuing these Orders, or to show the unreasonable character of these Orders; and, if so, whether it is not time that these Orders should be torn up, and a more reasonable and less vexatious policy resorted to In this connection my hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, drew attention the other day to the fact that in Holland there is a method, which is conducted by the Government, of dealing with this disease and of which apparently the Department of the right hon. Gentleman is wholly ignorant.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): No.
  Mr. BATHURST: I am prepared to modify that to this extent, that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he had heard of the serum treatment, but he had no specific knowledge as to the value of the treatment or its general effect in cases
  2254
  of swine fever. My first question to the right hon. Gentleman is: What is his Intelligence Department doing? It is almost impossible to justify the existence of the Intelligence Department of the Board, unless it is making inquiries in foreign countries upon such matters as this. This method of treatment has been going on in Holland for at least three years, so it is high time that the Board possessed some knowledge on the subject. It appears, if I am rightly informed, that in Holland, at any rate by the inoculation, with a certain serum provided by the Government, of pigs, not only those affected by the disease, but those in contact with affected animals, it is possible not only to effect the recovery of the diseased pigs, but to prevent the passage of the disease from infected animals to sound animals on the same premises. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some explanation of the reasons which he and his advisers put forward for maintaining the present vexatious and harassing Orders relating to swine fever. I come now to the subject of tuberculosis. The right hon. Gentleman is setting up a testing station in order to facilitate the export of pedigree and other valuable animals from this country to importing countries and to give those animals the benefit of a Government guarantee of freedom from tubercular disease before they start on the voyage. As a breeder of this class of animal, I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the interest which he is taking in the matter, and to hope that he will persuade foreign importing countries, as well as colonial importing countries, to accept the Government teat as an adequate test, and not render it possible in future for owners of cattle, after they have had the trouble and expense of sending their animals to foreign countries, to find them at the port of debarkation put into quarantine with the possibility of their being sent back to this country, because they are found to react to the tuberculin test administered by the representative of the purchaser at oversea ports.
  I would like to refer to the Tuberculosis Order of 19]3, which came into operation on the 1st May. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has persuaded the Treasury that this is to some extent—and I would say entirely—a national question which ought to be dealt with, with the help of national funds. I am glad to find that the

  2255
  Treasury are prepared on his representation to pay half the cost of compensating those whose animals are slaughtered, but if it is as a matter affecting the public health that this step is being taken, surely the whole cost of compensation ought to be paid out of the Exchequer, and half of the whole amount ought not to be thrown on the unfortunate ratepayers as a burden in addition to the many which they already have to bear in respect of national services. I am bound to say that in my opinion, and probably this is the only opportunity I shall have of saying it, I think the policy of the Board as regards this matter is founded on an entire misapprehension. It is assumed, I think on absolutely insufficient evidence, that tuberculosis in farm animals and in roan is either an identical disease or is easily communicable from one to the other. I hope my hon. Friend from Dublin (Mr. Field) holds the view that I am about to express, and it is that in spite of the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject, there is no precise knowledge, and there is no precise proof before the country to-day to the effect that tuberculosis in man is in any way identical with bovine tuberculosis, or that the two diseases arc intercommunicable. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will found himself on the somewhat vague pronouncements, unsupported either by evidence or experiments, made in the final Report of the Royal Commission. In any case in support of my view, I challenge him that he cannot lay his finger on a single case where phthisis in man has been definitely traced to bovine sources. I would almost challenge him also, because the cases are very rare to find, of a single case of phthisis in a cowman or other farm servant who has been in direct contact with cattle, and we are told that 40 per cent. of the cattle of the country are suffering from tuberculosis in one form or another. There are instances, no doubt, but they are very rare, of cowmen or other farm servants suffering from phthisis, but I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to produce many of these instances. There is, I think, probably no class of men in the country who suffer less from the more serious forms of consumption than those who tend cattle and other stock. But there is a stronger argument than that, and it is this. During the last twenty-five years, records have been kept by various urban authorities as to the extent of mortality
  2256
  from tuberculosis among infants and other young people. Those statistics go to show that in the case of children under five years of age there has been something like a decrease of 25 per cent. during the last twenty years, and in the case of children under twelve months of age, the decrease is even more marked, and during that same period it is universally admitted that so-called consumption or tuberculosis in cattle, has been unfortunately steadily on the increase, and during that same period it is also admitted that there has been greater consumption of cows milk by the infant population than in preceding years. Grouping all those facts together, I am entitled to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is justified in issuing this Tuberculosis Order setting up this great and expensive source of costly administration to the various local authorities, with, I venture to say, very little probable results, at any rate comparative to the outlay incurred. I may perhaps tell the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee what has happened in my own county of Gloucester. Since the 1st of May, under this Order, the number of animals traced as the result of the Order have been twenty-seven only, and seven of those died from tuberculosis very shortly after they were discovered. The actual amount for which the county council has been responsible, by way of compensation, has been £50, but their expenses in connection with those cases which, by the way, are not met in any way out of Government funds, their administration expenses in connection with those animals amounted to £130, and if the tuberculin test had been applied, and the county council refused to authorise it, those expenses would have amounted to something like £50 more. It is going to be a great source of expense to the various local authorities in administration and not so much in the amount paid by way of compensation to the owners of the cattle.
  There are also cases in which, although it is specifically laid down in that Order that the tuberculin test shall not be applied without the written authority of the cattle owner, and they are far more numerous than the right hon. Gentleman realises, the veterinary officer or local authority has been applying the test without leave in order to supplement his own deficient knowledge of the pathology of the disease. I think I am right in saying that there are some of those officials 'who actually have had to refer to the Board in

  2257
  order to find out what the bacillus of tuberculosis looks like under the microscope. Those gentlemen, unless they have some expert knowledge of the disease, and particularly of the pathology of the disease, are wholly incapable of tracing the disease in most of the cases which will come before them. What are those cases? They are cases of emaciation from tuberculosis, the presence of tubercles on the udder, and animals giving tuberculous milk. If they cannot recognise the bacillus under the microscope, it is perfectly impossible to say whether an animal is giving tuber-culous milk, and in the other cases it is equally necessary that they should have expert knowledge. In cases of emaciation I venture to suggest that a number of animals which are deemed to be tuberculous are not suffering from tuberculosis, but from Johne's disease, and so far as the tuberculin test is concerned, it is a curious and interesting fact that animals suffering from Johne's disease do react to that test. Another interesting and impotrant fact is that a number of animals seriously emaciated from tuberculosis do not react to the tuberculin test.
  In any case until you have properly qualified expert officers to carry on the work which is expected of them under this Order, there is going to be great injustice done to stock owners who receive but too small a proportion of the value of the animal, and you are going to add seriously to the administrative expenses of the local authority. It is represented to me that the two bases of valuation are wholly unworkable in practice. A suspected animal is to be valued as a sound animal and also as a diseased animal. How is it possible to make any distinction? As a matter of fact, if a distinction is made injustice will be done to the stock owner, because if it is a diseased animal, he is only going to get, if it is seriously diseased, one-fourth of the value of the animal as diseased, and if it is not so seriously diseased, he will get a fourth of the other value. In either case he suffers sufficiently seriously as regards the value of his animal if it were valued on the footing that it is a sound animal. That is, I suggest the only footing on which any animal can be valued if it appears to be sound, and prior to its slaughter and post-mortem examination. I hope some of my hon. Friends will refer to the extreme costliness of the small holdings administration which is difficult to justify. I want to ask
  2258
  the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing to encourage the most interesting experiments which are being carried on at Rothamsted as to the partial sterilisation of soil, and the potentialities of lime as a fertilising agent. I, for my part, venture to think that from the time of Liebig and De Saussure never has there been any experiments or research work more calculated to prove of future value to the agricultural community than those very interesting experiments which are being conducted there. I hope that those experiments will not be restricted through any lack of Government encouragement, and, if necessary, a Government subsidy. I would like to learn if the Government are generous in this matter, and are providing a sufficient subsidy out of the Development Fund in order to encourage the exhaustive conduct of that research.
  There are three questions I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman. The first is when and how he proposes to reconstitute the Rural Education Conference and whether he proposes to ensure in such reconstitution the presence upon that conference of practical farmers. The second question is, how he proposes to carry out his undertaking as to the maintainence of farm institutes, in view of the fact that no more money will be forthcoming from the Development Fund under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act of 1909, or in other words, that the sole maintenance, in spite of his undertaking, of those institutions will ultimately fall on the rates. Lastly, I would ask to what extent does he and his Department propose to exercise control over the Agricultural Organisation Society, in consequence of the Government Grant which is now given to the society for their work in connection with agricultural co-operation. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Agricultural Organisation Society shall in effect be a mere branch of the Board of Agriculture, or does he mean it to continue in all senses, as, in my opinion, it ought to continue, if it is going to do its best work as a purely voluntary association?.
  Mr. STANIER: There are several points referred to by my hon. Friend, and I should like to re-echo one or two of the remarks he made about the admirable way in which the Board has carried out the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order, but I cannot say the same thing regarding swine fever. I have brought forward that great question often across the floor of the House by means of

  2259
  questions, and I was deeply disappointed at the answers given. They were in a form which gave us no information. After the great sums of money that have been spent year after year, in ever-increasing amounts, the disease is automatically increasing and very nearly doubled this year, and I feel that now the time has come when the Board ought seriously to consider whether it should not throw over past work and take up some new line of its own. We were led to suppose that this serum question had only lately been brought before the public. I understand on very good authority, from a letter I have received from Holland, that they have had it working there for about three years. Previously to that it came from Hungary, where it has been going on, I believe, for more or less five years. I have not obtained my information from any Minister in those countries, but I have got it from a very reliable source. The cost in those countries is in exactly the reverse ratio in those countries as compared with this country. There the number of pigs is increasing; here it is decreasing. I think the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Bathurst) ought to have given the figures. He mentioned that the number of breeding animals was very seriously diminished. I have taken these facts from Returns issued by the Board of Agriculture itself. There is a decrease of no less than 41,000 sows this year as compared with last, and of other pigs the decrease is no less than 112,000. If we go on with the present way of doing things, we shall very soon have no pigs at all. But what do we find in those countries where serum is used? There pigs are increasing. Out of 4,000 injections in Holland I cannot hear of any animals having been killed. The cost is only about 6d. per injection. The pigs are then immune for the rest of their lives, and infectious for only about ten or fourteen days while the inoculation is taking effect. We shall be told that the Board is waiting for the result of the investigations of the two gentlemen who, we understand, are inquiring into this great question in Holland. I contend that those inquiries ought to have been undertaken by the Board long ago. It should not have been left until Members of this House asked questions on the subject. The Intelligence Department of the Board ought to have gone into the question long ago. I hope the President of the Board will seriously take these facts into consideration, and issue to the public a
  2260
  report of what these gentlemen find on the Continent.
  My next question is, How is it that the Board of Agriculture in England has not yet brought forward a live-stock scheme Last year I asked how it was that two years ago at Stafford a scheme was promised. A practical farmers' meeting was then told that the scheme would be produced in the very near future. To-day, although the Board has £8,000 for that purpose under the portion of the Vote marked Q, we cannot hear of any live-stock schemes except the old one relating to horses. I believe that one of the great causes of the disintegration of the Board of Agriculture in this country, one of the reasons why Scotland obtained a separate Board, and why Wales to-day is clamouring for a Board of Agriculture of its own, is that the Board of Agriculture in England is not producing any schemes for bringing up to date the great question of the live stock of this country. It cannot be difficult or expensive. Scotland started from the very beginning and brought out their scheme within nine months. The Board of Agriculture in England, through its own monthly "Journal," stated these facts showing what Scotland had done in nine months, but the English Board has not been able to do it in two or three years. The right hon. Gentleman will find during his own reign that this disintegration will proceed still further unless the Board wakes up.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Scottish live-stock scheme for cattle had been produced in nine months?
  Mr. STANIER: Yes, I took my information from the "Journal" issued by the right hon. Gentleman's own Department.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I point out for the information of the hon. Gentleman—I am sure he would not wish to go on criticising the Board in ignorance of the matter—that the Scottish Board and the English Board have been acting together throughout, and the sanction arrived at the Scottish Office the day after it arrived at the English Office, which was about a week ago? I shall give further information later on.
  Mr. STANIER: I can only say that my information was supplied by the right hon. Gentleman's own "Journal." I have it in the Lobby, and I will refresh my memory later on. I was saying that the question

  2261
  of expense cannot stand in his way, because he has £8,000. What is that £8,000 for? It is for a secretary, Mr. Cheney, and two expert inspectors. If you turn to Scotland you will find that they supply 109 horses, nineteen of which they own, and ninety of which they subsidise, for £1,500. They have 352 bulls. We have not one. They own 245 of those, and the cost is only £1,575. These are figures which I have received across the floor of the House from the Minister responsible.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That does not refer to the development scheme at all. It entirely concerns the old Congested Districts Board's scheme which was taken over by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland and was previously administered by the Congested Districts Board.
  Mr. STANIER: Anyhow, the Board of Agriculture in England has not produced any scheme. It does not matter whether it is in connection with the Development Fund or any other fund. The English Board has not a scheme at all. Yet the country is told it is going to have these schemes and that the beasts are very nearly knocking at the buildings of the farmers. I have an absolute right to contend that unless the Board of Agriculture wakes up England also will very soon be asking to be relieved from the English Board of Agriculture even more strongly than Wales who, according to yesterday's paper, is asking to have a Board of its own. I believe that the great reason why all these Boards are being asked for is that the Board of Agriculture to-day is a one-man show. I am not saying this against the right hon. Gentleman personally. It has been going on for many years. It is called the Board of Agriculture. The Board is really the President himself and, perhaps, the Permanent Secretary. They are both politicians. They have always been politicians. I am not saying this against one Board more than another. They are politicians and will they remain so. Who really are the Board of Agriculture? There is the President of the Board himself. I do not believe the Board has ever sat as a Board.
  Mr. BATHURST: It is sitting now.
  Mr. STANIER: Is it any good having the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as directors of the Board of Agriculture? Really, the whole thing is ridiculous. The Chancellor
  2262
  of the Exchequer is a member. The First Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury is another. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Secretary for Scotland are others. They have a Board of Agriculture over the border now. I am very glad they have, because I think they will do something there in the future. I want to see the Board of Agriculture made the Board. It requires no new Act of Parliament, because the Act says:—
  "And such other persons, if any, as Her Majesty the Queen (now, of course, His Majesty the King) may from time to time think fit to appoint."
  I believe that if we could to-day have a Board of Agriculture, with the President in full command, with Members who could give practical knowledge and practical help both from Caithness and from the mountains of Wales, we should never hear of these strange and queer things going on that we do at the present moment. I am certain that farmers would look up to the Board very much more than they do now if they knew that it consisted of a Board, and was not a one-man show. I believe that we should be very much better off if we were able to control disease in this country from one central place, and that we should not have all this disintegration if we had some practical men to give advice. You cannot find such a system in any other country. I do not think you would find it in any other great Government Department. In agriculture we have to suffer for it. Practice and science do not work together in the way that they ought to do. I am not going to treat on any other subjects, because other of my hon. Friends wish to bring various matters before the Committee; but I should like to ask the President of the Board if he can not do something for us in the way of pushing forward the Reports that are issued through his Department. There was a very valuable Report brought out on 5th May of this year containing a register of stallions for horse breeding. If you go into that, you will see that it was written and passed by the Board on 1st April, 1913. If it could have been brought out at the proper time it would have been a very valuable addition to the literature of the horse breeders of this country, but it was not brought out till 5th May, and the consequence was that many of the breeders had arranged what horses they would use before this valuable register saw daylight and was available for the public. Could we not have that Report brought

  2263
  up to date, and issued earlier and before arrangements are made by the horse breeders of the country? Again, I should like to call the attention of the President to the very late issue of the Report on cattle diseases. Last year we were told that it was the important question of foot-and-mouth disease that had used up all the time of the officials of the Board, and that the President very much regretted that he could not get the Report published before. The time has passed again this year, and though I deeply regret the illness of one of his prominent veterinary surgeons there are others in the Board of Agriculture Offices that I am sure could have brought this Report out before, if the President had thought fit. The information that we have received is only up to the very beginning of 1912. We have no information between then and now, this seventh month. When the information does reach us it is so late and out of date, and time has passed and things have happened, that a great deal of the valuable information contained in these various Reports is of very little use to practical agriculturists. I ask again that these Reports should be issued earlier. Even if they cannot be brought up to the very date that the Board requires, some Interim Report might be published, so that we might know what has been going on in connection with the live stock of the country. I very much hope that the President will take these matters into consideration, and that we shall not have again to complain.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The reason why I interjected my question to the hon. Member who has just sat down as to when the Act was passing creating the Board, the members of which he cited, is that I quite agree wth him that it certainly does appear to be an extraordinary thing that these Secretaries of State, who have not, or may not have, any knowledge of agriculture, should be members of it. But I am given to understand that the Board was brought into existence in 1889. It was created by the hon. Member's own side, and, therefore, I think it is rather unfair under the circumstances to criticise my right hon. Friend, who is in the position of President of such a Board.
  Mr. STANIER: It is quite true what the hon. Member says, but what I contend is that the thing should be altered. The Government that is now in power has been
  2264
  in power a good many years, and they have not done anything to alter the composition of the Board. I brought the matter before the Committee with the express purpose of suggesting that this anomalous state of things should be cleared away.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I quite agree, but I think it would have been only fair on the part of the hon. Member to have stated that the Board was established by his own party. I have, however, risen for another purpose. I cannot go into the very learned and, if I may say so, the very interesting disquisition which we have had from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Bathurst) with regard to the diseases of animals. I have no knowledge about such things; but I do want to call the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture to one very important Order which the Board has issued. I refer to the Tuberculosis Order, 1913, an Order that effects municipalities very seriously. If the figures which have been given by the hon. Member are correct, this Order may in the future be very serious to them. It has thrown a considerable cost upon those municipalities who have large cattle markets within their borders. I understand from the hon. Member for the Wilton Division that 40 per cent. now of cattle are subject to the disease or are diseased. That is a very large percentage
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I make my statement perfectly clear. It has been repeatedly suggested that 40 per cent. of the cattle of the country respond to the tuberculin test. That means that these are more or less subject to, though not necessarily suffering from, the disease.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: That is a qualification. The Order I am given to understand applies in this way: Various municipalities have cattle markets, including the towns which I have the honour to represent, whilst there is also a very large cattle market in the neighbouring town of Darlington. These cattle markets gather in cattle from the surrounding districts for miles. I can quite understand that the county councils should be held responsible for part of the cost in case of the necessity for the destruction of cattle. For this reason: that in the county the cattle are under the inspection of the officers of the county. Practically, so far as the markets in the towns are concerned, a very large proportion of the cattle are brought from

  2265
  outside. Generally speaking, the cattle are marched into the town overnight. No doubt they are inspected by the accredited official, but if any of these cattle are found to be suffering from tuberculosis, and if they have to be destroyed, I understand that the municipalities are responsible for half their cost. The municipalities take very strong exception to paying half the cost of this compensation. This is a matter which I think the Board of Agriculture ought to take into their consideration, for it is unfair that the municipalities which have these cattle markets should be held responsible for cattle brought in from outside of their own area, and for which they are not generally responsible. It is quite impossible in my opinion for any one or two inspectors to detect whether a certain animal is or is not suffering from tuberculosis within a period before it is discovered, but if the cattle are brought 'from within a county area and not from within the area of a town, then the Order ought to fix the responsibility upon the county and not upon the borough.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: If I may refer to something that I have said, may I mention this? As I understand the Order, it provides for the inspection, and, eventually, if necessary, the slaughter of these animals on the premises of the actual owner, and not in the markets.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Yes, but I have a very important letter from a municipality which has a large cattle market, saying that they are responsible for half the cost if in the market area the cattle are found to be suffering from tuberculosis, and if they are slaughtered at the request of the responsible officer. That is really a very unfair charge upon the municipalities. They ask that in cases of this kind—and think it is only fair—that the cost should be charged on Imperial funds. I desire to press this point upon the President of the Board of Agriculture. The municipalities are taking action against it. They consider that it is an unjust charge to have to pay this compensation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make a change in the Order.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The cases that the hon. Member, who has just spoken, has suggested, may arise under the Tuberculosis Order, but in practice they hardly ever will. The Order provides that the premises are to be visited and the slaughter to take place according—
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: But cattle that are brought in from outside areas have no place. The "premises" are the market place within the market area.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Yes, I am quite aware of that. If the hon. Member had allowed me to conclude my sentence he would have seen what I meant. Cattle are not usually brought in in an advanced stage of tuberculosis. Most cases of slaughter will occur on the premises of the owner, and will not occur in connection with the market. I admit that the question would be one to be considered if all the people in the country were to put their tuberculous cattle forward to be killed for compensation: that would be a very artful dodge on their part. I do not think that is likely to occur. My view of the Tuberculosis Order is that it throws a very unfair proportion of the cost upon the agricultural community. A large portion of the agricultural community have very heavy burdens of rates already thrown upon them, and they have the administration involved in sending veterinary surgeons round investigating. The administration involved is very much more pressing than in the towns.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: The counties do not bear the cost.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I really do not think it is necessary to interrupt. Hon. Members are entitled to make their speeches without interruption.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I was simply correcting a misstatement.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members who have already made their speeches should allow other hon. Members to make theirs.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The cost of the administration I was referring to cannot fall upon the towns at all. The towns have their own various costs of administration in other directions; but the cost to which I am alluding seems to some of us to be a heavier burden thrown upon the agricultural community than they should be called upon to bear. May I just make a remark as to the empty condition of the benches opposite. It is a very curious commentary upon the fact that we are assured that agriculture and land is the one subject that is mainly interesting to politicians opposite, and that they desire to improve matters—
  Captain MURRAY: By legislation.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITH: Where were hon. Members yesterday?
  5.0 P. M.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I should have though hon. Members opposite would have taken this useful opportunity of learning some-thing of agriculture by listening, as I hope at any rate later we shall be listening, to the very instructive remarks which we shall have from the right hon. Gentleman the President himself. I also hope that there may be other sources of instruction to follow. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division began by saying how much he appreciated — and I think we all agree— the work which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has done in connection with foot - and - mouth disease. I need not repeat what my hon. Friend said. I think that everybody, except some interested parties on the other side of the channel, did feel that the right hon. Gentleman was doing his best to cope with that emergency. But in connection with swine fever, the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that there is a very widespread grievance, and perhaps this grievance in the constituency which I represent, is more felt than anything else in connection with the agricultural Department. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman's Department fully realise how extremely vexatious the present system is. If there was any good result derived from that system, of course, we should have to put up with it; but when you find, ever since the Order was brought into force, that the number of outbreaks has practically increased, the case is still worse. The hon. Member for Wilton quoted the figures for 1912. I have the figures for the first six months of this year, and although they do not show an actual increase on the figures for 1912, but show a very slight decrease, the fact remains that in the past six years there has been a steady increase, in spite of the regulations which are so troublesome and vexatious. I think, in these circumstances, it is time that the Board should enter upon another policy, and that they should realise that they are doing something that is not coping with the disease, but is causing infinite loss and trouble to a very large section of agriculture. In thise case, you are not dealing with pedigree stock. You are dealing with men who have not a very large amount of money. You are dealing very largely with small men, and you are causing severe loss to men who can very ill afford to bear it. You are destroying
  2268
  the chances of the labourer keeping pigs, and this is a very important fact in agriculture. You are making it almost impossible, in many cases, to breed pigs, and you are gradually destroying an industry which is a very widespread one, and a lucrative one to a class who very badly need it.
  I need hardly mention the obvious-results, namely, the increase in the cost of bacon, and the increase in the cost of living, following on this source of industry being taken away. I had a letter from a man not in my own constituency, but not far off, in which he described how he bought some pigs, and in order to get them into the scheduled area a certain licence had to be obtained. Licences were obtained for some of the pigs, but not for all, and he had to go for them at different times. A neighbour wanted a licence to move his sow for breeding purposes. He applied to the superintendent of police, but the superintendent of police happened to be out at the time. It may be said, "Why should he not call again?" but you cannot do these things so easily in agricultural districts. You have no telephones at hand. That man may have long journeys to make, and may have to spend days in performing these journeys, and all these things inflict great hardship upon the community, and can only be justified if there were good results. In each scheduled area great hardships are inflicted. In my own Constituency there are towns which do a very big pig-breeding industry. It is outside the scheduled area and the whole of the pig trade between the East and the West Riding which come there has been dislocated, and enormous loss has been caused to the people of that district. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to consider whether some of the suggestions made to-day cannot be realised, and whether something in the way of prevention cannot be accomplished, instead of the wholesale slaughter of animals and the constantly holding up of large areas which goes on at the present time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see whether something in the way of remedy by an attempt to cure the animals cannot be effected, instead of the inclination to slaughter large number of animals. My belief is, and I think it is largely proved by the Interim Report of the Departmental Committee which considered this matter, that a great many veterinary surgeons know really very little about the subject.

  2269
  There is a general idea that every pig disease is swine fever, and the onus is thrown upon the pig owner to prove that the animal is not suffering from swine fever, and unless that can be proved the animals are slaughtered. It is like distemper in dogs. It is a sort of generic term, and I think until veterinary surgeons are a little more certain of their facts this wholesale slaughter should cease, and there should be considerable modification of what is going on at the present time. I would ask whether anything has been done by the right hon. Gentleman to carry out some of the recommendations in a certain connection of the Departmental Committee which sat on the foot-and-mouth disease and anthrax? That Committee recommended very strongly that something should be done to disinfect raw hides, and so on, which come over in the holds of ships mixed up with foodstuffs of all kinds, arid practically without any disinfectant at all. The Committee recommended that something should be done, if possible, to approach foreign countries to ensure that seine more complete form of disinfection should be gone through at the other side before the embarkation of these goods coming to this country. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in getting any concession of that kind, and whether he has succeeded in securing the disinfection of these foodstuffs? The recommendation was also made for an increase in the veterinary staff of the Board of Agriculture itself, and for the further spread of the network of such throughout the country, in order to deal with emergencies. I do not know that anything has been done. The right hon. Gentleman some time ago was questioned about it, and he said he was still considering what could be done. I do not altogether blame him, but I should like to know whether it was not possible in some way to carry out these recommendations and to increase, or at any rate to put into better shape, the veterinary organisation we have got?
  There is one other subject I would like to deal with.. Of course, I cannot deal with the housing problem at all in connection with this Vote, but it seems to me that the Board of Agriculture might do something more than they are doing at present, in view of the very great and serious need for cottages. They might do something more in the way of helping those anxious to get cottages. How does the President of the Board of Agriculture deal with this matter? He goes about the
  2270
  country and makes speeches in which he declares without qualification that cot tages can be built for £150, and that he is prepared to favour a scheme which can be worked out on that basis, and that a rent of 3s. per week will cover all the cost and charges. These are figures which cannot be substantiated. What I complain of is, the right hon. Gentleman goes about making these speeches, forwarding no doubt the Land Campaign, but he forgets that he is the responsible Minister to whom agriculturists look for advice, and from whom they expect accuracy in these matters. There is enormous need for the provision of new cottages in many parts, and there are many men who want to know what they can do, and what advice they can get from the right hon. Gentleman. They will not move if he makes these statements, which cannot be proved. An hon. Member put down a question asking the right hon. Gentleman on what basis these statements were made, and an answer was given, not by himself—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a subject of administration. It seems to me to imply legislation.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I quite bow to your ruling, but the point I was trying to make was that the President of the Board of Agriculture might help us very considerably by his advice, and by issuing information which he might have in his possession, and that when we inquired what was the information upon which he was relying, he referred to a Report in the Departmental Committee, but reference to the Report of that Committee will show that the statement the right hon. Gentleman made cannot be substantiated out of that Report. I hope very much that these misleading statements will no longer be made, because the right hon. Gentleman can take it from me there are a very large number of owners of land in this country who are most anxious to do their best to meet this want, and if they are upset by speeches such as he made the other day, in which he said that a scheme of this kind would meet with opposition from landowners, and would be thrown out by the House of Lords, he will not encourage them in this matter. I heard this morning how far this Report of the Departmental Committee had been brought before the notice of the public by his Department, and the only thing done was to issue a circular to county councils and to the councils of'

  2271
  county boroughs, pointing to the fact that the Departmental Committee had made a Report. I venture to think a summary of the Report might have been issued to owners of land and to all those likely to take part in this movement, pointing out the advantages of certain forms of construction suggested, and pointing out the various recommendations made in that Report. One thing that will do harm is the making of these ill-founded statements, and treating the subject as a purely controversial one, which no doubt it very soon will be; but while we are calm and at peace, and endeavouring to meet the growing demand for cottages, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make it more possible for these remedial measures to be carried out, and that he will treat the subject in a different manner in the future from what he has done.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Like the previous speaker, I should like to say I followed the speech of the hon. Member for Wilton with considerable interest. He is always informing on agricultural topics, and, of course, no one would ever question the sincerity with which he advances his information. He developed a very interesting theory—I do not feel competent to pursue it—the hon. Member suggested that tuberculosis in cattle and in human beings was quite distinct, and that the identity of the bacillus in the one could not agree with the other, and that there was grave doubt as to whether the one was affected by the other. I do not feel competent to contest the great mass of scientific information upon that question. I think he and I will have to agree that science goes to prove that there is some connection between the two, but I am not capable of arguing the matter from the pure scientific point of view, but if there is a doubt in the matter which he and I acknowledge, we ought not, in any way, to relinquish the safeguard we are taking to protect our population. I think it is demonstrable that tuberculosis in cattle may have an adverse effect on the health of the community. Certainly, therefore, I am not one who will question the wisdom of the Board in the' extremist action that may be taken with a view to promoting the public health. Nevertheless, like two of the previous speakers, I want to make reference to the Tuberculosis Order that has recently been issued, and, if it be as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated, then, of course, the
  2272
  apprehension that I have in my mind will be very largely removed. I am not going to state that the view which I represent is an authoritative one. I am hoping to succeed in eliciting from the President of the Board of Agriculture an authoritative construction of that Order. The municipality that I have the honour to represent in this House owns a very large cattle market, and they certainly are filled with the apprehension that this Order is going to involve a heavy expenditure out of the local rates. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) did unquestionably demonstrate that the mere administration of such an Order would not be a costly affair, and when, on the top of that, the municipality is compelled to bear the cost of the slaughter and disposal of carcases, and of half the compensation in respect of these animals, I feel that we are here against a question which does demand serious consideration.
  After all, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke on the other side pointed out, if it be that the municipality that owns a market is to be made responsible for these charges, including compensation, then I respectfully submit that it is so obviously unfair that it cannot possibly be defended. I accept wholly and without question the theory of my "hon. Friend the Member for Wilton, that the prevention of tuberculosis, the stamping out of the great white scourge is a national duty, and if, in the interests of public health, the Board of Agriculture finds it necessary to issue these Orders, then I say the expense of carrying them out ought not to fall upon a municipality here and there. After all, it is impossible to confine the effect of this disease to one locality. It is fluid; it flows from one part of the country to another, without regard to any municipal boundaries. But, certainly, having regard to the claim put forward by the municipalities involved, I do respectfully submit that you cannot possibly defend placing this charge upon them simply because they own markets into which cattle are brought and distributed, without any regard to their responsibility in the matter. I shall be glad to learn that it is indeed as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the East Riding has just represented to us. On the other hand, I know that there is considerable doubt existing, because I have received quite a number of communications from municipalities owning markets, and I think, if we succeed in clearing up any doubt in the matter, then those who intro-

  2273
  duce the question will be perfectly justified in having occupied time this afternoon in so doing.
  The question of small holdings has been but briefly alluded to. I think everybody will agree that the small holdings movement has come to stay, and that it will be in future an integral part of our national agriculture; certainly the country is now committed to it. Therefore, irrespective of party, everybody is desirous, I believe, of seeing the movement widely progress. The Report on the subject reveals again a measure of progress made. For my own part, I am pleased to acknowledge that administration has been rendered more effifcient during the past two or three years. I am prepared to go a little further, and say that the Board has good reason to congratulate itself upon the advances which have been made in administering the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908. Still, I am far from satisfied. There is an enormously unsatisfied demand. There are certain county councils who up to the present are not putting the Act into operation in anything like an efficient fashion. Where a county council does enter into the administration of the Act thoroughly and comprehensively, there we find demand for land being constantly stimulated. The County Council of Norfolk and neighbouring counties have always taken a foremost position in the administration of this Act, and their experience goes to prove that whilst they are supplying the largest amount of land in proportion to applications received, nevertheless they are unable to keep pace with the constant demands which are being promoted in those counties.
  Therefore, when we have the fact that the land supplied during the five years of the Act is only about equal to one-fourth of the applications made, I think there is every reason to say that whilst the Board has done a great deal, there is still further room for stimulating the supply of land for these small holdings. I think that anybody who peruses the Report must derive some gratification therefrom. The Report shows very plainly that the small holdings movement has been a general success. Of course there will be a failure here and there, but still, regarding the movement as a whole, I think it has been a great success, and has contributed very substantially towards a much needed rural revival. I do not know whether I can go so far as the Report and believe that it
  2274
  has already arrested the movement of the rural population into our towns or cities, or emigration to foreign parts; nevertheless, I believe it is a movement in the right direction, and that when it has attained Much fuller development., it will contribute towards keeping the people in our rural districts. Although we may hold different views on the subject, everybody acknowledges that it is desirable, not only in the interests of individual members of the population, but in the highest national and Imperial interests also, that we should revivify our rural life and keep the people in the country as far as practicable, and anything we may do to assist in that direction is worthy of the support of this House. I do not intend to indulge in figures relating to this matter, but I can only say that I am prepared to express myself as pleased that so much has been done, and I respectfully submit to the Board that it should be an incentive to them to continue the very good policy they have recently embarked upon, and that they should recognise that it is desirable to satisfy the applications submitted to the county council or, at any rate, the demands of those who are accepted as approved persons by the county council.
  I recognise that under this Vote the possibility of discussing the question of rural housing is very restricted, and one would have very much liked, of course, to have had an opportunity of bringing under survey some of the observations of the President of the Board of Agriculture himself. Perhaps we shall have another opportunity of doing that. I simply want to say in this connection that I feel that he is giving his attention to an acute rural problem. Although everybody will not agree with the methods in which this question is approached on the political platform, yet everybody acknowledges that this is one of the most urgent of our rural problems, and I feel that within the strict confines of this Vote there is something that can be said in regard to rural housing. Under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, county councils and district councils are invested with the power to provide houses and appropriate buildings on those small holdings and allotments, and I must express a considerable amount of regret that so little has been done even with the powers that exist. I think that during the whole of the five years in which this Act has been in operation only about 500 houses have been built. under the powers which that enactment

  2275
  confers. I believe that if the Board of Agriculture can devise methods to encourage the county councils and the district councils to erect houses in conjunction with the small holdings, they will themselves have contributed something towards the removal of this great evil. Certainly a small holding without a cottage is of very little use. How is a man to attend to his stock or his poultry, or whatever it. may be, if he is compelled to reside some miles away from the small holding that has been provided him?
  Therefore, while I express disappointment at the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to achieve an improvement in this direction, yet I accept, with some qualifications, the schemes which have been outlined by him in the country, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, from my contact with them, that agricultural labourers will be keenly interested in knowing how soon those schemes are going to take practical form. Those interested in the small holdings movement have looked forward with the greatest anticipation to the action of the Board of Agriculture in encouraging the establishment of credit banks. Recent action in conjunction with a number of joint stock banks has been an experiment of a very interesting, but, in my opinion, of an extremely disappointing, character. Joint stock banks are _necessarily not philanthropic institutions. I am not presuming to criticise them because of the methods that they pursue; they are business institutions, and certainly I have never contemplated that they will be able to fill the place occupied on the Continent by schemes known as the Raffeisen system. When a joint stock bank advances money, it must. have security on the amount they advance. That is quite proper from the joint stock bank point of view, and if there is anybody here interested in banking, I am sure they will acknowledge that I am not criticising the action or processes of joint stock banks, but I submit that they are wholly unsuitable for the purpose that we have in view. The merit of the Raffeisen system is that it accepts the honesty and character of the borrower for the loan advanced. I am not arguing as to whether that is sufficient. I am simply stating that that is the merit of the scheme, and if we are concerned to place small men on the land, then I am certain we will have to adopt some such system—with necessary modifica-
  2276
  tions to meet the character of our own circumstances—as the system to which I have just made reference. Nevertheless, I agree that it is perfectly true to say that comparatively little has resulted in that direction, and the right hon. Gentleman will have to recognise that the experiments he has attempted in perfectly good faith are doomed to failure, and his Department will have to proceed on the other lines which I have already foreshadowed.
  Like the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst), I am keenly interested in the development which is now taking place between the Board of Agriculture and the Agricultural Organisation Society. I quite agree that it is preferable that a body like this should remain voluntary in character, and I have no desire to see it become a mere appendage of a State Department. It will be interesting to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what is to be, after April of next year, the exact relationship between the Board of Agriculture and the Agricultural Organisation Society. That there are great possibilities in the scheme everybody will admit—in fact, the revival of country life cannot possibly be brought about without a very broad adoption of the co-operative principle. Whoever takes an interest in these matters will very soon find out that their success is almost entirely dependent upon the extent to which the co-operative principle is adopted in any of these schemes. Reference has often been made to those Continental countries where agriculture with small people is an unqualified success, and one always has to admit that without the co-operative principle those schemes could not possibly be the success which they undoubtedly are at the present moment. It does not appear to me that the Board of Agriculture are contemplating very great developments during the ensuing year, because I notice that only about £9,000 is to be placed at the disposal of the Government for this endeavour, and, therefore, I presume that it is almost experimental in character, and we need not have any apprehensions in regard to this matter. I shall, however, listen with keen interest to the explanation the right hon. Gentleman will make, and I hope we shall be given to understand what is the intention of the Board with regard to its operations with this body, and whether it is intended to draw up closer or allow it perfect freedom to make this experi-

  2277
  merit apart from the control of a Government Department. I think everybody will agree with what has been said about the small attendance in the House, and I do not mind hon. Members opposite pointing out that there is always a comparatively small attendance when agricultural matters are under consideration. I feel that there ought to be a. larger attendance, and I share those expressions of regret. But, after all, one might very well retort that when town problems are under the consideration of the House the attendance is also very small. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  I do not approach these matters from a party point of view, and I am ready to admit that I think there is an increasing tendency to come to a common agreement on these matters. I have often stated that I do not care from what quarter the proposals emanate: I am prepared to consider them on their merits; and I do view with considerable satisfaction the increasing attention which is being given to rural problems. After all, I think we are only recognising the fact that the rural question is fundamental to the nation itself. Such questions as small holdings, better housing, improved wages, and the general elevation of rural life, are not only matters of concern to the rural worker himself, but they are also questions of vital interest to the nation as a, whole. Therefore, it is particularly gratifying that on an occasion like this we can review the operations of a Government Department and listen to speeches not simply animated by partisan spirit, or with a desire to score one off the other. I believe there is a very large desire in the House that the Board of Agriculture should be encouraged on the lines upon which it is at the present moment operating, and after these observations I shall be very glad to listen to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, so that we may have some indication of the future possibilities of his Department.
  Mr. FIELD: I do not think this is a subject which ought to be treated from a party standpoint. After all, agriculture is the main industry of the three Kingdoms, and notwithstanding the immense manufacturing industries which exist in England, even in this country agriculture is the largest industry, and there is more labour employed in agriculture than in any other industry in this Kingdom. I quite agree with the hon. Member that this House does not take sufficient interest in matters connected
  2278
  with agriculture generally. If agriculture is the main industry of England, it certainly is more important to Ireland, because in that country live stock is practically the staple product of Ireland. The two countries are very much intertwined in regard to this particular subject, and their interests are almost identical. This is a subject in which I am really very interested. Fortunately at the present moment we are free from foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland and in England, and I take this opportunity of congratulating the Board of Agriculture both in England and Ireland upon that happy result, because, as a member of the Departmental Committee, I became aware of certain facts which were not available to the majority of hon. Members of this House. I know that disease is very prevalent not only on the Continent, but in South America, and many other places. With regard to Ireland, I am strongly of opinion that in many cases which were called foot-and-mouth disease they were not that disease at all, but simply stomatitis or timber-tongue.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the English aspect of agriculture.
  Mr. FIELD: I was only drawing a comparison to show that the treatment of this disease in Ireland has been entirely different to that accorded to it in England. We are supposed to be a United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] I would remind hon. Members who have interrupted me that Home Rule will not prevent us being still a United Kingdom, but it will make us all the more united. I do not wish to introduce politics, and that is only an aside. My view is that we are entitled to exactly the same treatment in Ireland with regard to the administration of this Department as in England, but because we have one or two isolated cases the whole of Ireland was put under a bann—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That will not do.
  Mr. FIELD: As a member of the Departmental Committee on. Foot-and-Mouth Disease, I think that Committee ought to be reappointed, because since the Committee met many things have occurred which would enable us to arrive at a better conclusion. The treatment of this disease in other countries is entirely different. It may not be so efficacious, but my point

  2279
  is that if you kill a man there can be no more disease in him, and in the same way, the killing and slaughtering of animals is bound to put an end to the disease in those particular animals. The question is whether the cure is not more costly and worse than the disease. I have been in communication with various places on this question, and I find that the official view is not always the most practical one. At the same time, I admit that we have to judge by results, and the system adopt ed in this country has, in my opinion, been more favourable than the systems adopted elsewhere. I do not wish to take up a false position in this matter, but I think the administration of the Department might have been a little more sympathetic in certain instances. With regard to Ireland, I contend that with the exception of a few cases of scab, we have the cleanest bill of health of any country in Europe. In this matter, I voice the opinion of the Irish Cattle Trade and Stockowners' Association.
  I would like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture to consider the question of the reduction of the detention period. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that as a member of the Departmental Committee on Sea and Land Transit of Live Stock within the three Kingdoms, I advocated a limited period of detention after a railway or a sea journey, notwithstanding the fact that some of the members of my own trade were opposed to me. At that time, I advocated a limited period of detention, compulsory insurance, and a minimum railway speed, but I hold that ten hours' detention is too much, and I will point out why I have arrived at that conclusion. The period of ten hours' detention, if I am correctly informed, has been the cause of preventing through rates for live stock from Ireland to Great Britain. What does that mean? Perhaps some hon. Members do not quite understand the difficulty, the expense, and the annoyance of this regulation. It means increased cost and more delay. The right hon. Gentleman is a Free Trader and he knows, I am sure, that anything which is put in the way of facilitating transit increases the cost and prevents trade. I am quite aware that the number of live stock imported from Ireland is very much in excess of what it has been in former years. I read a paragraph yesterday in which it was stated that a year ago only
  2280
  113 cattle were exported from Ireland, whereas last week the export reached 10,500. The number of fat cattle exported last week, 6,955, was treble that. of the corresponding week last year. Up to the end of last week the exports of store cattle from Ireland this year were 480,000, two and a half times the number shipped in the same period last year. I want to just briefly explain the situation. The trade is practically stopped, and, under present conditions, you cannot in Great Britain get live cattle in any great numbers from Ireland. It is quite obvious that anything which is a bar, or occasions more or less friction, or increases the cost, or causes delays in transit between Ireland and England, ought to be removed as far as it can be removed with safety, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the period of detention. I think it might be done with safety.
  I would suggest that after a reasonable period for rest and feeding the live stock ought to he released to travel either to the yards or to the pastures. The right hon. Gentleman knows sufficient about live stock to be aware of the fact that in the grass season cattle do not want. to be tied up. They will not suffer to be tied up. If you keep them in the yard, they are more or less inclined to horn one another. Sheep and lambs, too, want to go out into the pastures for rest. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to reduce the period of detention, it would be useful all round. I do not make this suggestion in any dictatorial spirit, because I think that the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to do the best he can according to the advice he receives from his officials, but as one who has been connected with the trade all my life I make this suggestion as being worthy of consideration and of adoption. I want to say a word or two in regard to the manner in which inspection is carried out. I understand that if cattle have hard udders, or if there are knots on their legs, and if the sheep and lambs have wool off, or maggots, or are marked in any way, they will not be admitted on this side. I have been a strong advocate of doing everything to prevent sheep scab. I was one of the first men in Ireland who, in face of a great deal of opposition, advocated that sheep should be dipped twice in order to prevent scab. I, therefore, want the right hon. Gentleman to understand that I am not advocating anything which would facilitate the progress of disease. On the contrary, I quite

  2281
  recognise that live-stock disease of any kind ought to be prevented where possible by every means available, but I would point out that the more you interfere with the live-stock industry of the three Kingdoms the greater incentive you give to foreign supplies coming in. I want both right hon. Gentlemen to understand that these remarks and suggestions of mine are made in the spirit of being of mutual benefit to both England and Ireland. Yesterday I received a communication from the National Federation of Meat Traders, Incorporated, which I will read to the Committee:—
  "The National Federation of Meat Traders, as representing the meat industry of the United Kingdom, desire to point out that the serious position of meat traders dealing in home-produced stock has been aggravated, instead of relieved, by the Tuberculosis Order, 1913."
  This is an English, not an Irish grievance.
  "This is due to the failure on the part of local authorities to properly administer the Order by: (1) Delaying the veterinary examination of animals until after they had been purchased in bona fides by the native meat trade in open market. (2) The omission by the officers of local authorities to make any examination, with the result that whilst the farmer or dealer markets with impunity tuberculous cattle or pigs, and in lieu of obtaining compensation as provided by the said Order secures from the meat trailer the market price ruling for sound stock for these tuberculous animals, the meat trader in whose possession they remain for a few hours is saddled with the entire loss of the purchase money by reason of their confiscation after slaughter. The remedy for this grievance is that the officers of the local authority for the districts in which auction marts and public markers are situated should regularly examine all cattle marketed prior to their sale for the food supply of the people."
  This is a matter upon which hinges almost the future cattle trade of the three Kingdoms, and I hold that we are entitled to the same fair play as any other class in the community.
  "Unless this suggested remedy is speedily put into operation, the native meat traders will be reluctantly compelled to largely discontinue purchasing home-bred cattle and obtain their main supplies from the dead meat markets, thereby relieving themselves from all risk of confiscation. It is obvious, if the meat traders are compelled to adopt this course, that it Call only result in serious financial loss to the home farmer in the three Kingdoms, and in a corresponding gain to the foreign importers."
  The right hon. Gentleman may think that is exaggeration on my part, but, if he would go to-morrow to the Central Meat Market in London he would find that 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the meat sold was foreign imported meat. That is absolutely true. I am not making any exaggerated statement. I know what I am speaking about, and I challenge contradiction. I say that the Board of Agriculture in England ought to safeguard the interests of the British farmers as well as of the Irish farmers; but the result of the
  2282
  present system, so far as I can ascertain, is that preferential rates are given to foreign meat, whilst the native meat is handicapped in every way. If a man goes into the public markets and buys a beast and it is found to be tuberculous after slaughter, it is taken and the retailer loses the price of the beast. It is not only that he loses the price of the beast, but he is also generally prosecuted. He is open to prosecution and to exposure, and, if he takes any steps to protect himself, the result is that he loses his business. Any other class in the community except the native meat trader pays taxation for protection, but we pay taxation, not for protection, but for prosecution and persecution. Hon. Members may laugh, but this is a very serious matter for us. It is absolutely true, and it is all done on the false assumption that cooked meat carries tuberculosis along with it. I assisted at the greatest Tuberculosis Conference that was ever held in London, and I listened to Dr. Koch, the greatest bacteriologist of this or any age, and I heard him declare at that meeting that bovine tuberculosis is not communicable to man. I do not pretend to be a scientist; I am simply a business man, and I say that it is an absurd proposition that tuberculosis can be brought to mankind through the agency of cooked meat, whatever may be said about milk. All this prosecution and all this waste of good material is based on that assumption.
  6.0 P.M.
  Hon. Members may laugh, but it is a very serious matter to our trade, and I want the Board of Agriculture to do what is done in other countries. I have been all over Europe, and have looked into this matter, in Germany particularly, in Belgium, and in other countries, and there meat which is partially tuberculous is sterilised and sold at a lower price for the benefit of the poorer people. We, instead of giving cheap meat of our own production to the poor in the same way as they do in foreign countries, absolutely destroy it. You persecute and fine the unfortunate meat trader, and sun him out of business in the interests of the public, and I say that anything which is confiscated for the public good ought to be paid for by the public. That is a sound doctrine, and I hope that the time will come when the Government will have sufficient sense to adopt it. I want to make just one other observation. In every other case a man who is prosecuted is supposed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty, but

  2283
  in the case of the meat trader it is taken for granted that he is guilty until he has proved himself to be innocent. I should like to know why he should be the only person in the community to be treated in that manner. We pay taxes and why should we not get the same treatment as other people? It is a very extraordinary state of things, and most hon. Members here will hardly credit it, but it is absolutely true. There is another point—I know what I am talking about—on which I wish to say a few words. The principle of compensation is recognised in connection with cowkeepers, because it is taken for granted that the public ought to pay for what is confiscated for the public good. if that doctrine applies to cowkeepers, why should it not apply equally to the retailer of meat? Why make a difference between the man who buys cows in order to sell milk and the man who buys animals to sell as meat? These are things which arc not at all apparent to ordinary business men. I know the President of the Board of Agriculture will say that that does not belong to his Department, but that it comes within the purview of the Local Government Board. I have been in the House twenty-one years. I have just finished my third apprenticeship, and during the whole of that time I have been shuttlecocked between the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture dare say this will go on for all time, but, if we intend to get rid of the white scourge, some definite steps should be taken to ensure the co-operation of everyone concerned, not only in the meat trade, but in all kindred trades. After all, the production of meat is the principal industry that supports the land. We cannot compete with corn-growing countries, owing to the cheapness of transport and other matters connected with so-called Free Trade; but the meat industry is practically the life of agriculture, and everything which is clone to prevent its development is really against the interests of agriculture.
  I wish to say a few words with regard to swine fever. Hon. Members have already dealt with that subject at some length, and I need only add that I entirely agree with almost all that has been said. It appears to me that the wrong way has been adopted to deal with this question of swine fever. We have a great deal less of
  2284
  it in Ireland than in England, and that is because we have been more resourceful in our treatment of it. Hon. Members who take an interest in the food supply of the Kingdom know very well that we depend almost absolutely on foreigners for the supply of bacon and pork. That is a dangerous condition of things. I do not pretend to be an Imperialist, but I do think we should, as far as possible, manufacture our own supplies.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not quite recognise the relevancy of the hon. Member's remarks to the Vote before the Committee.
  Mr. FIELD: I was only about to remark that sometimes the longest way round is the shortest way to the goal. Of course, we know that all roads lead to Rome, but I may point out that foreigners utilise the scrum treatment, and I would like to ask why we should not try it here, seeing that it has enabled them to keep up the supply of pork? I hope what I have said in connection with this subject will receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, because in the remarks I have made I have endeavoured to speak in the interests of the two Kingdoms, and not merely from an English or an Irish point of view. I have wished to adopt a non-party point of view, because I believe it to be in the general interest of the community at large, as the subject is one vital to both Kingdoms. We want co-operation as far as possible, to minimise the friction to which regulations sometimes give rise, and that is what I hope the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to bring about, because we should enable the live-stock industry to be carried on at the least possible expense.
  The Royal gardeners at Kew have asked me to remind the right hon. Gentleman of a petition they recently sent in in the hope of getting an increase in their wages. May I, in conclusion, say that I hope the result of my intervention will be that serious consideration will be given to the points I have brought forward. An hon. Member opposite said, with regard to compensation, that the municipalities Ought not to be asked to contribute it out of municipal funds. I entirely agree with him. I know that a few years ago a Bill passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons, providing that municipalities should pay the compensation for the seizure of animals affected with the tuberculosis, but what about our Imperial duty? The health of the worker is a great

  2285
  national asset, and any expense incurred for the protection of that asset ought to be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer.
  Captain MURRAY: There is one question of which I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he still has certain powers in Scotland, and it is in connection with the seed-testing stations which it is proposed to establish. We
  were very glad to find the right hon. Gentleman showing his interest in Scottish agriculture by attending the Highland Show a short time ago, when, as I understand, a conference was held on the subject of seed-testing stations, and we shall be very grateful if he has any information to give us on that topic. But I rose particularly to draw attention to a subject concerning which I addressed several questions to the right hon. Gentleman to-day. It is in connection with the trade in worn-out horses between this country and Belgium and Holland. I understand that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. George Greenwood) is in communication with the right hon. Gentleman respecting certain issues connected with this subject; but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the questions I asked the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon and to the answers which he furnished. One which I put, in order to substantiate my argument that unnecessary cruelty takes place during the voyage from British to foreign ports, was as follows:—
  "Whether, out of 18,451 horses, valued at £10 and under, exported from British ports to Holland during the year 1911, 14.846 were valued at £5 and under whetaer all these 14.846 horses were immediately slaughtered on arrival for human consumption? "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, this day, col. 2219.]
  The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, gave me to understand that there were 14,000 odd animals immediately slaughtered for human consumption on arrival at the port of debarkation. Then I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether a majority of the horses valued at £5 and under exported to Belgium and Holland are unfit for work, and whether they were obviously intended to be slaughtered for human consumption on arrival at the foreign port? The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was, that although he had no precise information the answer would probably be in the affirmative. What I was endeavouring to show was this: That the vast majority of horses valued at £5 and under exported from this country to Holland and Belgium are immediately slaughtered on arrival at the port of debarkation. If these horses during the
  2286
  voyage underwent no unnecessary suffering I should have nothing further to say, but in order to show that unnecessary suffering is undergone by them, I put the following figures in the form of a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him:
  "Whether he is aware that during 1912 20,274 horses arrived at Antwerp from British ports, of which forty-six died during the voyage, 380 were curried by float to the abattoir unable to walk, and twenty-one were killed on the quay suffering from broken legs, etc.?"[OFFICIAL REPORT, this day, col. 2218.]
  The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, admitted that there was no substantial difference between my figures and the Board's statistics, and he went on to say that the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, prohibits the shipping of horses, unless first examined by a veterinary surgeon, and certified to be capable of being conveyed to a Continental port and disembarked without cruelty. That may be so, but in the face of the casualties which took place during the voyage of these horses, it must be perfectly evident that they were unfit to undergo that voyage, therefore unnecessary suffering and needless cruelty did ensue from the fact that these horses were placed upon these ships. The right hon. Gentleman may say that if the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, which empowers inspection at British ports, is tightened up, that will be sufficient. I hope it may be so. I hope that as a result of the correspondence which I understand is passing between the hon. Member for Peterborough and the right hon. Gentleman, the administration of that Act will be tightened up. But I say that is not sufficient.
  Whatever further restrictions he may impose in regard to the administration of that Act will not be sufficient, for the reason that a vast majority of the horses valued at £5 and under, being obviously unfit for work, as he himself admitted, ought not to be sent from British ports to Holland and Belgium and rendered liable to the suffering which must ensue upon those voyages. It is not sufficient, because all the horses sent to Holland and the vast majority sent to Belgium are slaughtered immediately on arrival at the port of debarkation. I asked the right hon. Gentleman in a supplementary question whether there was any reason why these horses should not be slaughted at the port of embarkation in this country. He replied that there was no reason, but that he had no power to compel it to be done. I do not know whether that was a con-

  2287
  sidered reply, or whether he will have anything to add to it. I was glad to hear him say there was no reason why the horses that leave this country should not be slaughtered before they are put on board. I know that a reason is sometimes given—I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman has ever given it—it is that Belgium will not import dead meat at all, and that in Holland there is a duty of six centimes per kilogramme on dead meat imported. I do not think that is the reason the right hon. Gentleman will give why these horses could not be slaughtered before being put on board. My efforts are directed, as I feel sure his efforts are too, to preventing unnecessary suffering and cruelty to these horses on the voyage across. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to me to-day, when he said he saw no reason why these horses valued at £5 or under could not be slaughtered on this side, intended to convey that he views with sympathy the opinion of those who consider that that is the way out of the difficulty and that the horses should be slaughtered before embarkation. -The right hon. Gentleman says he has no power to carry this out. I do not know whether it would be possible to do it by administrative order or whether he would require legislation. If legislation be necessary, I hope that in the interests of these poor, suffering animals, who undergo unnecessary suffering and are subjected to unnecessary cruelty, the right hon. Gentleman having, as I am sure he has, their interests at heart, will take some steps to carry out the suggestion I have mentioned.
  Mr. BARNSTON: I desire to raise a few points representing, as I do, perhaps one of the greatest dairy constituencies in the country. Although the right hon. Gentleman has possibly heard it many times already to-day, I should like to commence by congratulating him upon the action he took in reference to foot - and - mouth disease. The district in which I live and the part of the country which I represent suffered a great deal from foot-and-mouth disease. The action the right hon. Gentleman took was very plucky and very successful, and we appreciated it very much. I pass from that to the question of swine fever, with which my hon. Friend below me and others have dealt fully. What is the position in which we find ourselves to-clay? Swine fever is increasing, and the number of pigs in the country is decreasing. We have Regulations which, under
  2288
  his administration, are increasing in expense, while the amount of money paid in compensation is also increasing. In addition to that, we have Regulations which are certainly vexatious and which, on the face of them, appear to be ineffective and more or less a failure. When the right hon. Gentleman replies I hope he will tell us whether, in his opinion and that of his advisers in one year, two years, or five years, these Regulations will commence to do some good and really stamp out the disease. Reference has been made to the Holland serum treatment. Through private sources that has been made a subject of study. We hear that the treatment has been going on most successfully for three years and has been a success in every way. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what during these three years his Intelligence Department has been doing, and why now we hear of it, not from the Board of Agriculture, but from private individuals who make a study of the matter for themselves? I should like to mention briefly the important question of milk records and the attempts which are being made to encourage those records. To dairy farmers the subject is a very important one. I believe that in a great many cases the practice of keeping milk records is increasing, but, unfortunately, we all know in many cases the old methods prevail and there are no records kept. As some of us who understand the dairy know, some cows give a great quantity of milk for a short period, and others give a lesser quantity but for a much longer period, and much nearer to calving. The keeping of regular milk records must be of importance to dairy farming and to agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman gave us theother day the Regulations which are to encourage the keeping of milk records. They provide:—
  "(a) that preferential consideration he given to societies already formed on a co-operative basis:
  (b) that the societies receiving grants employ testers to check or take the milk records at proper intervals;
  (c) that no society receive a grant exceeding £50 annually or exceeding one-half the expendture incurred by it in the employment of a tester;
  (d) that the total sum which is to be given is £5,000."
  I very much doubt if there are many testing societies throughout the country formed on a co-operative basis. I only speak from my own knowledge, which is small, but I imagine that there are practically very few. The terms offered are not by any means generous enough to encourage what I think we must admit is a somewhat important work. I suggest that, at any rate, the terms or conditions.

  2289
  stingy as they are, might be sent round in a circular to the local chambers, farmers clubs, and the milk producing and other dairy societies, in order that the subject may be ventilated, so that possibly we may have suggestions from them which would bring up the question in a practical way, and dairy farmers may be encouraged to keep these milk records. I want to say one word about the Tuberculosis Order. The space of time which has elapsed makes it too early to express a definite opinion upon that Order. There is one unsatisfactory feature about it that is that the cost per head per beast in inspection, post-mortem, valuation, and slaughter considerably exceeds the compensation paid per head per beast to the farmer. Another point I have been particularly asked to mention to-day is Article 11 of the Tuberculosis Order, which enables veterinary surgeons to send cows out of the ring if they are suspected of having tuberculosis. It is suggested that sometimes, and especially to small men, that works in a very hard way. I venture to suggest that in the case of an animal so removed from a market or sale-yard under suspicion, which is found to be not suffering from tuberculosis, the owner shall be entitled to compensation from the local authority causing such removal, to the extent of £1. The cost of taking the animal away falls very hardly on a small owner, for, of course, he looses the opportunity of selling the animal at the sale. The last speaker referred to what the Board had been doing as regards the question of seeds. I desire to express my gratification that the Board are testing seeds as a regular part of their work. I hope soon that we shall have a seed-testing station established. I am glad the Board has made a beginning, and I hope that this work, which is so essential to farmers, will be increased and carried on in the future.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I hope I may be allowed to express the sense of obligation, which is felt very widely, to my hon. Friend for the energy with which he has discharged his duty. I am sure it is appreciated, entirely apart from politics,
  in all parts of the country. We have heard from many quarters of the House certain criticisms with regard to this Tuberculosis Order, and I wish to join with other Members in the criticisms upon it. In the first place, I think the arguments which was addressed to the House by the hon.. Member (Mr. Field), adorned with
  2290
  so much humour, was a very serious argument. If you compensate the owner of live stock when it is found to be tuberculous through no fault of the owner, you ought also to compensate the butcher if he buys it perfectly bona fide under circumstances which do not `allow of his knowing that it is tuberculous, whatever it may turn out to be on post-mortem examination. While, of course, all questions of compensation are harassed and hindered by the everlasting financial problem it is most undesirable that any one class of the community whose case is really on all fours with that of another class, should feel themselves placed at a permanent disadvantage. Then with regard to the source from which compensation comes, I wish to associate myself with several hon. Members who have put the case of the boroughs. It is a very great hardship on boroughs, especially those which own their own markets, to have to pay this compensation from the rates, and where the animals are introduced from outside their area the argument, which is strong already for making this an Imperial charge, receives fresh enforcement, and I know that the feeling in boroughs throughout the country is very strong upon this subject.
  With regard to the cost of administration the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) gave an illustration from the county of Gloucestershire. We are alternately amused and irritated in Lancashire by a well-founded story that is going round, how it cost £7 to get half a crown. These things are important, because when you multiply them many times over it means that you are increasing the cost of local administration in a matter which is not shared in the least by the central authorities. When one recollects that these are not isolated cases and that it is a standing grievance of local authorities that public Departments put upon them work which the public Departments refuse to pay for at all, the matter really becomes serious in excess of the actual financial burden. It is really like a person having some sand inside his stocking which may be comparatively small, which might never seriously affect his life, but which puts him in a condition of constant irritation. There is nothing more annoying to those who are trying to administer a locality than to find that the very cost of what they are doing is greatly in excess of the benefit, and the claim that is being made now by all the county councils of England and Wales, so far as I know, is that half the

  2291
  cost of the administration at least should be defrayed by the Treasury. May I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman which I made to the President of the Local Government Board on an analogous case the other day? We look to him not as our tyrant, for he is nothing of the kind, nor as a person who wishes to check local activity. We desire to look upon him as the leader of local government in this Department of Agriculture, and we look to him to press upon the Treasury and upon the Cabinet these claims that we are certain are fair in relation to matters which cause constant irritation and which, in our judgment, must be remedied if you are to have a smooth sympathetic administration of very important Orders which we all wish will have the effect of getting rid of this scourge.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: It has been demonstrated on this side of the Committee that there is a very serious grievance in the country about the restrictions and regulations dealing with swine fever. As we have had no report from the officials of the Board of Agriculture in regard to the effectiveness of the serum treatment from Holland, I will read to the Committee an extract- from a very interesting paper read before the National Pig-breeders' Association, by Mr. J. W. Harris the other day. Mr. Harris went out on behalf of the association to investigate this serum treatment in Holland and he interviewed a great many small farmers and asked them what their opinion of the treatment was. He said:—
  "The farmers take little notice of swine fever. as where they get an outbreak it can very soon be stopped and mired; and when an outbreak does occur all they have to do is to call in the veterinary surgeon appointed by the State for that district, who immediately injects a scram provided by the State both into the pigs already under the influence of the disease and the others on the farm… All the farmers said exactly the same thing with regard to the method adopted when an outbreak occurs being quite satisfactory, and they look upon this disease in the same wiry that they look upon scarlet fever or small-pox, namely, a disease that can be held in check and almost eradicated, given the right procedure and methods, but it will never be entirely stamped out."
  Then he went to the inspector of the Serum Institution at Rotterdam and made a variety of inquiries and asked several very pertinent questions, some of which were replied to as follows. He asked, first of all, if the treatment was effective, and the reply was:—
  Out of 4.000 injections, which were done after the pigs had the fever on them or were in immediate contact, hardly one died."
  2292
  Then he asked how long it was effective, and was told:—
  "If properly carried out the animals will be immune from fever for the rest of their lives."
  Finally, he asked if the pigs were infectious while under treatment, and the reply was" "Not after ten to fourteen days." In further conversation with this gentleman, Mr. Harris asked him if it would not be well to make regulations regarding the movement of swine, compulsory killing, and so on, like we have in England, to which his reply is very significant:—
  "Certainly not, and especially so seeing the utter failure of the restrictions in England."
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will read that paper. I think it tends to prove that during the time this treatment has been going on in Holland it has been very effective, and the farmers are very keen to have it done wherever possible. I can only express the hope that in carrying out his studies of this problem the right hon. Gentleman will show the same energy that he has shown in administering various other Departments. One allusion has been made to small holdings in the report of Mr. Cheney, and an hon. Member expressed great satisfaction at having read the report of Mr. Cheney. I do not think that report is very satisfactory in a great many details, though it is most satisfactory that, in spite of the two very adverse seasons last year and the year before, there have been very few failures among those who have been put on the land by means of these small holdings. I only wish that I could endorse the opinion of Mr. Cheney, that the result of the Small Holdings Act has been that emigration front the rural districts to the large urban centres and to the Colonies has been checked. I fancy the experience of most people who live in the country is that the stream to the Colonies, instead of being checked, has very largely increased during the last few years. Much good has been done by small holdings, but it has been by no means effectual in checking that outward stream. There is one point about the administration of small holdings which I think is very unsatisfactory, and that is the very large sum of money involved in administration.
  We make provision in the Estimates for no fewer than eight Small Holdings -Commissioners, and I believe the total salaries of the Small Holdings Commissioners and their subordinates amount to £12,00 a year. Quite apart from that, as we also learn from the Report, no less than £106,919 has

  2293
  been repaid by the Board out of the Small Holdings Account to county and borough councils in respect of expenses incurred by them in proceedings in relation to the acquisition of land for small holdings and ascertaining the demand for small holdings. To these sums we also have to add the very considerable sum to be spent by county councils every year in retaining their staffs to deal with these small holdings. I think most county councils have appointed a county council agent or supervises or valuer, who has a clerk to assist him and who incurs considerable expense every year in travelling about the district over which he has control. If you add all these sums together, the administration of small holdings by public authorities in the past five years has cost not less than £200,000. For that, large sum of money how many holdings have been provided Just over 10,000, and, according to the report, land has been acquired for another 2.000 applications.
  It has cost £200,000 up to date to settle 10,100 people as small holders. That number includes allotments, which, I think, have not added much to the cost. In addition to that, just under 3,000 applications have been supplied with land by private owners direct. Three thousand applications have cost the ratepayer and taxpayer practically nil, whereas the 10,000 people who have been supplied by public, authorities have cost the country and the ratepayers no less than £200,000. The comparison in favour of treatment by the private landowners, as opposed to public authorities, is very marked indeed. Though I do not say it could be done altogether without the public authority, I say the time has now arrived when a very careful inquiry ought to be made into the general cost of administration under the Act. I really do not know whether it is necessary to have eight Small Holdings Commissioners. I fancy if the House would be content to satisfy itself with the two who were appointed in the first instance, they would have got through their work very well, and I think it is a great waste of money that, as the result of political pressure, these additional public officials have been appointed when I honestly believe their services were not really required. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the point, and will see whether some reduction cannot be brought about in that respect. As regards the unsatisfied demand, I was rather struck with a phrase used by the hon. Member
  2294
  (Mr. G. Roberts), who talked about the demand being stimulated. When the word "stimulated" is applied to the demand it does not seem altogether automatic.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: What I said was that where we had efficient administration of the Act by a county council, there the demand was stimulated.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: That refers to administration, but it is a remarkable fact, which you find in reading the report, that in a certain number of districts in England where the demand has been very much greater than in other parts this is largely due to the fact that the conditions and the general surroundings are more suitable than elsewhere. It is also necessary that this unsatisfied demand should be more carefully inquired into. I think the Commissioner makes a very desirable suggestion in his report, namely, that the various local authorities should inquire into the applications on their lists, and ascertain whether the applicants still desire small holdings, and whether, if they do wish them, they are suitable people to have them. I think if that were done, we would get satisfactory lists of the people whose demand is unsatisfied. There is another point I wish to refer to, namely, the Grants to be made by the Government towards the improvement of live stock. The right hon. Gentleman takes credit for the sums voted for that purpose, and also for the work done by milk-recording societies. I should very much like to know whether both of these Grants have been made. I think the suggestion made by my hon. Friend is a very valuable one, namely, that the Board of Agriculture should take steps to inform the various agricultural bodies in the country, such as chambers of agriculture, as to the conditions which have to be fulfilled in order to obtain Grants. In a great many parts of the country societies do not exist, but I think they would grow up if the farming community as a whole did appreciate under what conditions they would receive Grants in future. The right hon. Gentleman, in the very excellent speeches he made in the country to various agricultural bodies, informed them that the Board of Agriculture meant to take steps to provide a first-class bull in various parts of the country. I do not see any item for that in the Vote, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some information in regard to that. Another item about which I desire information

  2295
  is that in respect of the salaries of live-stock officers amounting to £8,400. I do not quite appreciate what the live-stock officers are going to do, and perhaps he will give us some information about that. As regards Grants for agricultural technical education, I think the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that theme is great dissatisfaction among county councils at present as to the inadequate proportion paid for that purpose. The Grants for other kinds of technical education amount to 50 per cent. of what is spent, but the Grants for agricultural technical education, so far, amount to only 10 per cent. I think it is unfortunate that agriculturists should have this real grievance of receiving a very inadequate proportion of the sum their counties spend for agricultural technical education, when other classes of technical education are more liberally provided with money from the Imperial Exchequer.
  As to the question of light-horse breeding, it is rather difficult for the Board to give us any detailed information as to what the result has been. I think that, on the whole, we may be very well satisfied with the steps taken so far. I notice in the Report one point to which I should like to draw attention, namely, that one of the conditions of a Grant is that the average price of a mare is to exceed £50. The Board have been informed that that amount, is sufficient, but I think it would be very difficult to buy at less than £50. I do hope, therefore, that the Board will take steps to have this limit removed where it is desirable to exceed it in the purchase of first-class mares. I do not say that they should give a larger sum in the purchase of mares, but I think that this limit might well be exceeded with advantage in Government Departments. I see that only twenty mares were selected from Army stables. Surely, quite apart from the Artillery batteries from which they came, it is possible to get more mares suitable for breeding purposes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information on that matter.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to discontinue the withholding of the expenditure incurred by county councils in securing loans for the purpose of erecting cottages for small holders. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts), in his very
  2296
  interesting speech, dwelt strongly on the fact that though we have created a very large number of small holdings—the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said they numbered 10,000—yet the fact remains that on these holdings only 500 dwellings were provided. We have all expressed again and again a desire to see more people living on the land, and it is needless for me to say that people cannot live on the land unless they have houses to live in. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to discontinue the step which he has taken, and to agree to bear the expense of getting loans by county councils for the purpose of erecting cottages and dwellings for small holders. I asked a question the other day, and the Under-Secretary for India, in the absence of the President of the Board of Agriculture, said it was a very difficult thing to get money at present. I do want the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, is anxious to promote better housing for the people, and whose speeches in the provinces we have read with interest, to take a step in that direction. I am bound to say that by his action in that matter he penalises the county councils who are trying to provide dwellings for small holders, arid therefore, his action, I am bound to say, with all respect, is extremely inconsistent with his speeches in the provinces. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a wrong view of his province. The Under-Secretary for India hinted that the Public Loans Commissioners objected to make advances of money for housing, but I think if the right hon. Gentleman will read the conditions upon which loans are obtained from this body, he will find that the word "land" includes dwellings upon the land, and that the term is merely to differentiate between land with houses on it, and houses without any land. Hence the county councils feel that they are dealt. with unfairly in this matter, and that is partly the reason why so few dwellings have been provided. We have heard it stated, and we had all hoped, that the provision of small holdings would do something, not only to keep more people on the land, but more people in our own country, who are now driven to foreign countries. But while that is so. I am satisfied that we should get more people to occupy small holdings if suitable dwellings were provided for them, and if the county councils were not penalised, as I submit they are, by the right hon. Gentleman's action in refusing

  2297
  to contribute towards the expense of incurring loans for this purpose.
  There are a number of matters in relation to cattle disease to which I wish to refer. I want again to appeal to the right Lon. Gentleman to do something to induce counties to adopt the policy of notification and segregation of cases of epizootic abortion. The scheme has been adopted in Devonshire, and is, I think, affording considerable prospect of success, but in adjacent counties the practice has not been adopted, and it is a very considerable inconvenience to farmers in Devon to submit to these regulations, yet they arc prepared to do so provided that other counties are brought into line, but we do not feel inclined to submit to this inconvenience and financial loss when, after we have effected some considerable improvement in the prevalence of this disease, we find that other counties neglect to do their best in co-operation. While this is done in Devonshire, we find that cattle there may be infected by cattle coming from other counties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do what he can to induce other counties to fall into line. I do not hesitate to say that this disease of epizootic abortion causes greater loss to the British farmer than all the other cattle diseases put together. If the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to bring other counties into line with Devon in this matter, I am sure he will be rendering the industry a very great service indeed.
  7.0 P.M.
  I would like, if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us in his reply, if he can give us any account of the report of the Committee or deputation that went to India to try to ascertain a preventive, as well as a cure, for foot-and-mouth disease. I must be allowed as a farmer to add my word of appreciation for the action of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the disease in days gone by. But we want to prevent the disease, if possible, and this Committee was sent abroad for the purpose of obtaining information. I would like to hear if the result of their investigations will be of help to us in preventing the disease, if possible, and in effecting some cure when it comes. There is another point I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to, namely, the question of railway rates. I know that his power with the railway companies is very limited, yet representations on his part of grievances which do arise would, I am sure, have considerable weight with
  the railway companies. Agriculturists
  2298
  feel that the railway companies deal more liberally with foreign produce passing over their lines than with home produce, and, of course, we feel it is unfair. I am aware that they say that if we send our produce in similar volume they will take it for the same charge, but it is impossible for British farmers to accumulate their produce in quantities to entitle them to reduced rates. Agriculture is still the biggest industry in the country and we all wish to see it prosperous, and I think that the railway companies should meet the British producer on more favourable terms than they give at present.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has any control over the railway companies.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman does occasionally represent to the railway companies hardships that occur with reference to charges for agricultural produce. The question is one on which agriculturists feel very strongly, and the claim of the home producer does not receive the consideration at the hands of the railway companies to which it is entitled. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not do something by investigation to deal with the question of red-water fever'? In some parts of the country it is a very serious disease. We really know little about the cause, and we do not know of any effective preventive. If the right hon. Gentleman by research could deal with this matter so as to discover some speedy cure, he will be rendering a great service to the agricultural classes of the country.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I desire to add a few words in support of what was said by the last speaker with reference to houses being provided on the small holdings. Although he put the case very well, he omitted one thing. I was a member of the Committee on the Small Holdings Bill, and when that Bill was passed it was in the thoughts of every member of the Committee that these advances should be used partly for providing houses on the small holdings. I think that it was straining the legal position to refuse to grant advances from the Government for this purpose, which is really a most important part of the small holdings. No small holding can be really effective unless it has got the house in the proper place. A small holding a mile or a half

  2299
  mile from the place where a man lives is depreciated very considerably in its value to him. This is a very important matter. I was sorry to hear that the loans are being stopped, and if this has been done I trust that my right hon. Friend will do his best to have that decison reversed. This is important not only to the small holders, but to the districts in which they live, because as the small holders occupy existing cottages they increase the difficulty of the housing question generally. Coming to another point, I wish to enter a caveat against the suggestion of my hon. Friend and others that there ought to be compensation given to boroughs, and so on. My hon. Friend said he thought that it was a very hard case on boroughs. That may be so, but it is not quite so hard as appears, because the borough not only benefits by the market, but it makes something out of the transaction in any case. It may not make it by the actual tolls for selling the thing, but it makes it by the people coming into the market to sell.
  But outside that it must be remembered that this spending of money on the prevention of tuberculosis is not only for the sake of the farmer, but also for the sake of the consumer, and the consumer ought to subscribe something towards the administration of the laws for making his food more healthy. There is a very strong case for distributing the burden all round, and not compelling one class to pay more than another. There is another point as to which I should like my right hon. Friend to give some information. We were led to believe that we would get benefit from the Development Grant through the Board of Agriculture. The county councils have undertaken technical education, trial farms, dairying instruction, and all these various things, and they have received Grants for them in many cases. We rather expected to see these Grants increased and the county council's powers to do good towards the agriculture of the district subvented in every way by increased facilities and contributions from the Development Grant. But I think that there has been great delay in approving of schemes, and we want to know more about the system that is going on at the present moment and how long the schemes are hung up for. I know some eases of schemes being hung up in reference to very necessary things, such as teaching people how to make butter—I do not say experi
  2300
  mental farms, because that is a large thing that may require two or three counties to join together—yet in all the minor things that have been done I think that the Grants of the Board of Agriculture have been reduced rather than increased; but I would like to know a little more of what my right hon. Friend has done on this subject.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I would like to support the appeal which fell from the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Field). This question of tuberculosis is a very old question, and I was in hopes when the right hon. Gentleman made the announcement at the dinner of the Agricultural Association, perhaps a year ago, that it was the intention of his Department to contribute from public funds to the cost of animals slaughtered in the public interest because of tuberculosis, that the question was nearing a final settlement, if indeed it had not reached it. It appears from the statement of the hon. Member for Dublin —and no one better understands the question than he does—that the matter is still far from a definite and satisfactory solution. For a great many years it has been the practice to compensate the owners of animals that were suffering from foot-and-mouth disease and other contagious diseases, and were slaughtered in the public interest. For a very long time the various Governments—the preceding Government as much as the Government of the right, hon. Gentleman—refused for reasons, not at all easy to understand, to include tuberculosis in the compensatory diseases. The right hon. Gentleman made on his own responsibility an announcement which gave infinite satisfaction to the representative agriculturists who were present to hear him. Now it appears that there is a very serious gap in the practice of the Department. If the beast that is slaughtered on account of tuberculosis belongs to the breeder then the compensation is given, but if the beast has been sold to a trader then the trader apparently according to the practice of the Department has no right to demand, and does not in fact receive, the compensation which is given to the agriculturist. Speaking on behalf of agriculturists, there is inflicted a very serious injury to the interests of agriculture in this practice, and I sincerely hope, as a result of this Debate, now that the importance of the matter has been pointed out, a remedy will be found. The right hon. Gentleman has been giving the grant to our hope but denying it to us in reality.

  2301
  He should include in these payments of compensation, not only the grower, but also the trader to whom the beast has been sold.
  Anoher matter of importance which has been referred to by the hon. Member who spoke last is the breeding of horses. There should be co-ordination and co-operation between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture in this matter. I am afraid that there is not sufficient. I am afraid that the Board of Agriculture does not realise the national importance of the gradual disappearance of the horse. The problem of mechanical transport is being developed more successfully year after year. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that at the time of the Boer War it was believed that there were in London over 20,000 'bus horses and nearly as large a number of cab horses available for drafts, and there was an enormous number of horses in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and other large cities. Where are those horses now or their descendants? They have absolutely disappeared. I do not suppose that even the machinery of the Board of Agriculture can trace many of them. All that source of security to the country in time of need has disappeared, and no corresponding effort has been made, scarcely any real effort has been made, in proportion to the importance of the matter, by the Board of Agriculture to encourage the breeding of horses. Having regard to the risk of disease, the mortality among colts, the low prices and the enormous cost of rearing, farmers do not find that it pays them to give their attention to horse breeding to any serious extent. I sincerely hope, not merely in the interests of agriculture, but in the national interests, that it will be part of the policy of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides to carry the encouragement in regard to horse breeding very much further than they have already carried it.
  There is another subject to which I wish to refer and which is also connected with the fisheries branch of the work of the Department. We have heard from the hon. Member for Dublin some reference to Tariff Reform and Protection, and to the fact that the Department in its dealings is anti-Protectionist and rather discourages the native industry. There is the case of the Fishery Department, which in this instance will fall, not merely within the description of the hon. Member for Dublin, but goes infinitely further,
  2302
  because the actual industry of many hundreds and thousands of men round the shores of the country is stopped by the law administered in connection with the Department, whilst foreigners are permitted to carry on that industry for the benefit of British consumers. You have.1n the months of April, May and June an impossible condition as regards the raising or selling of British oysters. There is not an hon. Member in this House who does not know from his own personal experience that he cannot obtain Whitstable or Colchester natives or any other kind a natives during those months, because it is illegal to raise them or to sell them. Oysters that are obtained from the beds on the other side of the Channel which contribute to the livelihood of growers abroad may be obtained freely during all those close months in practically every large town throughout the country. I want to know on what logical ground that practice, that custom, that legislation is maintained, and why it is that the British oyster is unwholesome and dangeous for the British consumer, whilst the foreign oyster, which is contributing to the livelihood of the foreign grower, may be sold without any let or hindrance on the part of the officers over whom the right hon. Gentleman presides? I invite the right hon. Gentleman, not to become a Tariff Reformer, as I know that would be an impossibility and I know it would be so greatly against his views that I should be without any hope whatever of success, but I do invite him to go this far, namely, to place English growers of oysters and English working men who earn their living in the culture of the beds and the raising of the fish, and to give those men at least as great a chance to have a market for their livelihood during those months as at present exists for the foreign grower. I feel certain that a very short Bill, and very modest legislation indeed, would be accepted generally.
  The CHAIRMAN: That would require legislation and therefore it does not arise on this Vote.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: I do not wish to traverse your ruling and I have said all I desire to say on the point. The right hon. Gentleman is the Member of the Government to whom a suggestion of this kind either on administration or legislation may be made, and therefore I was mentioning the matter to him, but, of course, I will not pursue it.Another subject in con-

  2303
  nection with the Fisheries Department is that of motor power for the propulsion of fishing boats. In every other country, as to which I have made inquiries in my endeavour to understand the subject, there is a system by which the fishermen are helped to obtain the latest and most important, although expensive, improvements of motor engines for the propulsion of their fishing boats. The fishing boat that is dependent on sails, both as regards maintaining its catch and bringing that Latch to market, is at an infinite disadvantage as compared with the boat that is propelled by mechanical motive power. Mechanical motive power has developed so enormously within the last eight or ten years by motors similar to those used in motor cars, or very similar, that the matter has had the attention of the Administration of practically most foreign countries. It is very remarkable if you compare the Administration, and I do not care which side of politics, in this country you will find how infinitely behind they are in comparison with the administration of every other civilised country with regard to assisting the industry of their own people. In France, Germany, Italy, aye, even Japan, there is a system by which the Government advances sums of money to the fishermen or owners of small fishing boats for the purpose of enabling them to purchase mechanical means of propulsion, and thus to increase the facilities which they have.
  I want to know why, when we have the principle admitted, of public money being advanced for cottages and for other en-couragements of agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman does not or has not even before now followed in the footsteps, and even now he would be four, five, or six years behind, of other statesmen in foreign countries who occupy the same relation to the fishing there as he does in this country. I most cordially invite him to take that matter into account. The money is not asked to be given. In the case of foreign countries it is advanced to be paid back, and the enormous increase in the facilities and in the earning power of the fishing vessels when they are so fitted, and my right hon. Friend knows from personal experience, as he himself goes out occasionally fishing, and I dare say with the assistance of mechanical motors, that enormous increase in the yield and the power of fishing quickly enables the owners to pay off their debts, and I am speaking now as regards the foreigners who have been
  2304
  so assisted. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the work of his Department, which up till quite recently was not very familiar to him, and I am referring to agriculture rather than to fishing, he will consider these suggestions which are made most respectfully in no party spirit, or with a political desire to make any capital, but in the real interest of the successful administration of the Department over which he has presided with so much success, and a success which we hope will be increased.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I desire to thank the hon. Baronet for the words with which he closed his speech, and at once to say that as far as the fisheries are concerned, and I must be more familiar with them than I was until recently with the larger and more important industry with which my Department is mainly concerned, that I have not left out of account the necessity for enterprise and for national guidance and assistance, even in the subject which he has raised, namely, that of mechanical propulsion for fishing vessels, for only during the last few months most extensive and cautious inquiries have been made in the counties of Devon and Cornwall, and I recommended to the Development Commissioners that they should make a Grant to each of those counties by way of loan which the County Fishery Committees would distribute to the fishermen in those two counties along the coasts to fit their vessels with motors.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman include Essex?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the South-Eastern Fisheries Committee ask me, I will look into their case just as closely as into the Cornwall case. The result has been in those other cases that the Development Commissioners have decided to make advances to both of those South-Western counties, and they have further undertaken to make a loan to the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee to enable that Committee to make experiments in the use of motors for trawling, which, as the hon. Baronet knows, is rather a different matter from that of fitting line vessels
  with motors. There are difficult problems in connection with that, some of which I am afraid motor mechanicians have not yet solved, so that their experiments will be watched with great care. A Committee is also being constituted,

  2305
  with representatives from England, Ireland, and Scotland, to ascertain how far the work that is done by those trawlers will give us experience by which we can extend the use of motor engines amongst the trawlers on the coasts of Scotland and of Ireland, as well as on the East coast of England. The use of motors in fishing vessels on our coasts is not dependent on national assistance. I can quote two villages in the county of Cornwall which have had scores of motors put into their boats even within the last two years. They have done that without any national or county assistance, and within these two years I am told many of them have entirely repaid the whole of the cost of those motors put into the boats. The real necessity for the fishing community is to realise the enormous advantage caused by fitting mechanical power into the boats. When that is illustrated I have no doubt that, with a little guidance from headquarters and county committees, they will follow the example of the fishermen of Looe and Mevagissy.
  The main part of the discussion has been taken up with problems concerned with the diseases of animals. I should like at once to proceed to discuss the various topics which have been raised in so far as they concern epidemic disease. My Department takes a keen interest in all diseases of animals, but the regulations which we have to issue are concerned entirely with epidemic and endemic diseases. The first in importance is undoubtedly foot-and-mouth disease, and I wish to take this opportunity of thanking hon. Members of all parties, and the agricultural community in every part of Great Britain, for the assistance which was given to my Department during the epidemic of last year. Without that assistance it would have been impossible to keep, even within the very large limits to which it did extend, the spread of this disease. It was a cause of loss, not only to the farmers immediately concerned, but to their neighbours who were subjected to severe restrictions in the movement of their animals, and it was a cause of loss to all breeders of animals who sought a market for their animals. The importance of foot-and-mouth disease has not diminished with the extirpation of the disease during the last six or eight months. Research has been conducted in India, and I regret to say that up to the present I have not received a satisfactory report as to the results obtained there.
  2306
  We have not yet captured the microbe, and until it is isolated the difficulty will remain. The Report of the Committee will be forthcoming soon, and I wish to make it public as soon as I have anything worth making public, in order that the whole agricultural community may realise the difficulties under which we labour, and I might add, the necessity for resorting occasionally to restrictions which they themselves must regard as distasteful. The mere fact that those restricions have made England once more an absolutely clean country is one of which we have every reason to be proud. We are certainly at the present time, without even excepting Ireland, which has had a very creditable reputation in the past, absolutely freer from animal disease of all sorts than any other country in Europe.
  I am afraid that a great many of the reports last year led to both our Continental and American buyers imagining that every farm in England was contaminated by this disease. In fact I found exaggerations in foreign papers so great that I have had a statement drawn up, somewhat in journalistic form, but none the worse for that, in order that I may have it spread throughout the whole of the buying countries. I shall be sending that out in the near future to our representatives abroad, expressing the wish that they will put it into the hands of the agricultural correspondents of all the principal newspapers and circulate it to foreign Governments, so that this description of the means taken in this country to extirpate the disease and the success which has attended those means may lead our foreign buyers to realise that not only was the epidemic far less important than similar epidemics within their own borders, but that it was successfully dealt with and they may now buy our valuable live stock without themselves running any risk. There have been suggestions made this afternoon that in placing a fifteen miles circle around affected spots we were going too, far, and that we were, in any case, trying to apply a too rigid regulation. I freely recognise that there may be some instances where a strict geometrical application of the fifteen miles radius might give rise to certain grievances. Anything which causes inconvenience and irritation hampers the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act. If we can in future cases—I hope we may long be spared the necessity of having to take such measures—adopt some slightly less rigid

  2307
  method, we shall gladly do so. But immediately we depart from a fixed rule we place ourselves in the greatest local difficulties. Neighbouring farmers think that we are favouring one man against another. We are hampered by the fact that some men plead their case because they are just on the outside edge of an irregular line, whereas they might as well have been outside it altogether. I am afraid that if we depart in any way from the rigid regulation which has been found to work with success so far as the extirpation of disease is concerned, it will add enormously to our administrative difficulties. I shall therefore be very cautious in making any change in that way, although I shall not close my mind to the possibility of putting the matter on a more satisfactory footing if the future should render any such measures necessary. One of the complaints made by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Bathurst) was that a good deal of the expense owing to the compensation regulations had fallen on counties which themselves were immune. I am afraid I cannot agree with him that it is altogether an injustice to those counties. A great deal of expense was incurred in the effort to prevent their being contaminated, and in so far as we succeeded in that effort I do not think it is unjust that they should bear their proportion of the national expenditure.
  Mr. BATHURST: These counties have their own administrative expenditure apart from this extra burden.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite realise that. But those counties which were subject to infection not only had their own administrative expenditure, but also the very large expense which was thrown on them and their farmers because they happened to be infected. If we were successful in keeping the infection in one county, it was for the benefit of its neighbour, and that neighbour may justly bear a portion of the national expenditure incurred. The hon. Gentleman also asked for some information with regard to the number of cases of sheep scab. I quite realise that the Dipping Orders in some parts of the country have not been very popular. I understand that the Pennine Range Sheep Dipping Order is even now not popular, although Cumberland has a larger number of sheep scab cases than any other county. There were last year in England, Wales, and Scotland 302 cases
  2308
  of sheep scab; at the present time there is only one. Therefore, as far as dipping has helped us we have made considerable progress. I wish we could say the same with regard to some other diseases. The hon. Member asked for further figures with regard to parasitic mange. The number of cases which came to our notice last year was I think about 2,800. We have made very considerable progress this year. Taking the comparable period of twenty-nine weeks last year and this year, the numbers are for last year 2,198, and for this year 1,760. There again we have made a considerable advance. With regard to the sterilisation of hides, I can only say that I am bound to act with the greatest caution. We are making inquiries now. We have acted in conjunction with the Home Office, the Board of Trade, and our own veterinary branch. We are endeavouring to find out how far the sterilisation of hides can be carried without injury to the leather — the form which they will subsequently take. The risk that is run is not that the hides may be immediately damaged. I am informed by those who represent the tanning industry that after a hide has been turned into leather and the leather has been in existence for eighteen months or two years, damage may be seen, and the leather may cease to retain its proper qualities. To injure the leather industry by any order rashly issued would I am sure not meet with the approval of the hon. Member. But we are making some progress in the matter, and I hope that before long we shall have some reliable data on which to work. For the time being we are working in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, and we are keeping in touch with the leather industry. We are well alive to the facts, and, if anything can be done to prevent the spread of anthrax amongst either animals or men, every effort will be made by the various Departments.
  I now come to a disease about which I regret that I am able to say very little that is satisfactory. I refer to swine fever. The figures throughout the last few years have not been satisfactory. There has been a drop during the last six months, and the position is better now than it was in the corresponding period of 1912. But that gives us very little satisfaction. We are spending enormously more in compensation in connection with swine fever than in connection with any other disease. The only satisfaction we can draw from

  2309
  the restrictions under which many parts of the country now labour is that we have prevented the spread of the disease into counties which have been immune. There are some parts of the country which have not had any case of swine fever for many long years, and I hope they never will have. But for these restrictive Orders, I believe it would have been impossible to have prevented the spread of swine fever into those counties, owing to its prevalence in some counties in the east and middle of England. I would like to say, however, that wherever I have come across eases where the boundaries have pressed severely on the people in certain districts, where in some cases artificial boundaries have been drawn for purely county reasons, and they have led to men on the wrong side having no market for their pigs, I have done my best to eliminate these local injustices. One case in Gloucestershire was brought to my notice. I think two hon. Members opposite were present when I received the deputation. I took the matter into consideration and as quickly as possible made a boundary which was much more reasonable. In that way we get rid of some of the local difficulties. But so long as this disease is rife, so long as in some counties it runs into not scores but hundreds of cases, it is impossible for us to allow absolutely free removal.
  One of the points raised in the course of the Debate, I think perhaps with a little less knowledge of what has been done by our Veterinary Department than those who are in the Department possess, was that we might have paid more attention to the use of serum on the Continent. I replied to a question put to me last week by the hon. Member for Shropshire, in which he asked for results of the serum treatment in Holland, which had only recently come to my notice. I regret to say that one reason why the results have not come to my notice before was that when Sir Stewart Stockman asked the authorities in Holland last year for definite records of their results they declined to give them, saying they could not because they had kept no records. When I said that I heard for the first time of some definite results, I meant that we had now come across the publication.of records Which could not be obtained when we asked for them. For the hon. Member to say that our Intelligence Department had done nothing, while for three years Holland had been going on with the serum treatment without our
  2310
  knowing anything about it, was really to take an unfair advantage of a, very short answer to a very vague question. Let me describe to the House what has been done with regard to this disease on the Continent. This anti-serum treatment is by no means new. It is fifteen years old. Certainly during the last few years it has been used in regard to swine fever in Holland, and there are some scientists in Holland who talk with the greatest enthusiasm about the results they have produced. I have taken a great deal of trouble to find out exactly upon what knowledge Holland have been acting during the last three years. Let me tell the Committee this. So far from this subject having been neglected, our chief veterinary officer has been conducting experiments at our laboratory for two years past. Very large numbers of samples of the disease have been sent in in waterproof bags day by day, and I think I ought to say that the chief veterinary officer's present illness is largely due to his devotion to the scientific work which he has conducted in the laboratory. One of the things we have found out is that, first of all, the production of serum is very costly. You can only raise it on the pig. You cannot produce it by means of test tubes. Our estimate of the cost is that it would cost in this country about 2s. 6d. a dose. Our scientific advisers estimate that the number of doses necessary to secure immunity is three doses. I am speaking now of our actual knowledge and experience here. Perhaps I may be excused if I say that I would rather rely on the scientific knowledge and facts collected by our chief veterinary officer and his assistants than I would on the investigations in Holland. I have visited Holland, and although they have had many cases of foot-and-mouth disease for many- years past, yet they were congratulating themselves that they were free from anything of the kind, while we were suffering from a scourge which did not touch them. Sir Stewart Stockman took the trouble to go into this matter with scientists who have made researches, and this is what he found. He found, first of all, that they had very sanguine hopes of what had been done in the fact that the serum is freely applied for by the farmers and supplied to them for practically nothing. We all know perfectly well what happens when medicine is distributed for nothing, whether for human or animal purposes: there are always a large number of applicants for it. By tests

  2311
  and by continuous treatment we have produced, as I have no doubt some hon. Members will be aware, a very large amount of anti-serum virus, which is, in our judgment, very much the same as the virus on the Continent. What we have discovered by actual experiment is that this virus is also constantly fatal to pigs which have been immunised by the present method. That does not give us very much satisfaction.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: You slaughter them now.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, certainly; but the hon. Member does not suggest that we must get rid of all our restrictions in order that we may bring about the slaughter by serum rather than by infection? The results which have been attained may not be of value. I do not know whether they are or not. It is some time since our chief veterinary surgeon was engaged upon the matter. If they are of value, we shall certainly do our best to make them of use. I have no doubt that the information that has come, that something has been done in Holland, will be followed up and that our scientific representatives will give their best attention to it. We are anxious to get hold of any information that can be supplied to us. If anything can be done to stop swine fever, we shall be only too delighted to do it. What we do know is this: Even if we had got a cure for swine fever it would not follow that we should get rid of our restrictive Orders, for the animals treated with anti-serum might carry the infection for a considerable time. I, therefore, can hold out no immediate prospect of getting rid of the restrictive Orders under which we are at present working —certainly not without the advice of our scientists or the members of the Committee. The hon. Member opposite from time to time has impressed upon us the fact that we ought to make our restrictions less severe rather than otherwise. I think I am not misrepresenting the Committee when I say that were our regulations entirely under their control, they would be more severe. In the face of the scientific advice and lay advice given by hon. Members opposite, I think it would be rashness on my part to suggest that it would be a relief to the country to be free from these arrangements, which to-day, as I say, are nothing like so bad as the wholesale spread of swine fever.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I remind him that the Committee of which he speaks consists largely of his Departmental officials.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, they are represented on it, I quite agree, and it is very useful that they should be. The Committee are very glad to have these two representatives of the Department there, but I would like to say in connection with that. that I do not really think the present position' is satisfactory. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will believe that I am not talking idly when I say that in the absence of Sir Stewart Stockman his colleagues are doing all they can to carry on the excellent work which has been done in the past. The next topic that arose in this discussion concerned the Tuberculosis Order. Here I get on to a subject of much more controversy. May I inform the House that up to 22nd July we were informed that the number of premises on which tuberculosis had been notified as appearing was 1,412. The number of animals suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, tuberculosis with emaciation, or giving tuberculous milk, in respect of which notice of intention to slaughter has been received, was 1,559. That is very much less than we had anticipated at one time, but I think whatever may be our views of the connection between human and bovine tuberculosis, we have all reason to be glad to find that these 1,559 animals, which were patently suffering from tuberculosis, have now been exterminated. I trust the work which has been done under the Order will not be checked, no matter what may be the opinions of the finance committee of the county or borough councils which are concerned. The financial questions raised by one hon. Member behind me, and several other hon. Members in other parts of the House, are, of course, serious to local authorities if the figures were to mount up. But up to the present they have been very small. I think that the Committee should realise that this Order was first promulgated, I think, three or four years ago, and it had to be withdrawn because the Treasury at that time would not give a penny piece towards compensation. It was only when I secured from the Treasury the promise that half the compensation would be paid from the Exchequer that I issued the Order. Half the compensation for slaughtered animals may

  2313
  not be a very large contribution, but it is better than nothing.
  The administrative expenses, I hope, will be very largely reduced as the Order gets into full operation. We are working under the Order very largely by way of experience, and if it can be shown that any section of the Order might be improved, we shall be very glad to hear of it, for we want to take every means for getting rid of tuberculosis. If the council of the County Councils Association, or the Municipal Boroughs Association care to conic into touch with me, and to discuss their experience under the Order—for I would rather not discuss mere theories—I shall be only too delighted to go into the matter with them. I wish to say one word with regard to the recovery of our export trade, since foreign ports were opened after t he six months interval that had passed since the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. As promptly as possible, after we had got well clear of the outbreaks in England and Ireland, I approached all our foreign buyers, that is to say, the Governments, in which our foreign buyers lived. A great many of them were prepared to admit animals before the six months had expired. They at once took the matter into full consideration. I regret, however, to say that the most important buyer of all—I mean from the point of view of the very high prices paid for stock that enters their ports —namely, the Argentine, refused to give way on the six months' period. I pointed out to them again and again that they ran no risks, and that, as a matter of fact, we were absolutely immune from foot-and-mouth disease at the time that I communicated with them, and that their own country pratically never was; that, as a matter of fact, they would not run any risks from those class of animals which went out un England and Scotland to Buenos Ayres and other ports. However, the Argentine Government looked at affairs in their own way, and declined to give way. Already, before the six months were up, Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa, our Continental buyers, and the United States of America were all buying our live stock.
  The great rush came in June, when we beat all previous records. The highest value of stock that had ever gone out in the month of June before in head of cattle was in 1909, when £28,000 worth was shipped. In June, 1913, this year, the figure reached nearly £62,000. In sheep the highest previous figure was £3,600 in
  2314
  1912. This year it had reached over £16,000 for a single month. In pigs, again, all previous records were passed; and although the average value in the pigs which left this country was not above all previous records, the gross sum was better than that previously recorded. The highest actual average value of cattle going out of this country went to the Argentine, where it was no less than £117 apiece. Some of these animals—and I trust some hon. Members of this House were vendors—were priced at nearly £2,000 apiece. The export trade has very fully recovered, and I hope we shall find no interruption of it during the present or future years. I was also asked what was being done in regard to Rothamsted station. The work which has been done in sterilising soil at this station may be of the greatest value to agriculture. We quite recognise the work there, and we are making a good Grant to Rothamsted station from the Development Fund towards their experiments. We are giving them also a capital gift of £3,100 towards the erection of their new laboratory on,condition that they raise the like sum themselves. I hope they will succeed in raising the other £3,100, in order to carry on their experimental and other work. Before I go to the subject of small holdings, I wish to say one word in regard to cottages. One hon. Member opposite, I believe, resented what I said on some recent occasion. He apparently thinks that when I said that a £150 cottage could be let for 3s., that I was talking, as the Americans say, "Through my hat." I can assure the hon. Member that I was doing nothing of the kind. I would point out the question is whether or not the State undertakes the building of the cottages and the conditions. The 3s. per week would provide for the interest that the State would have to pay for the loan, for a sinking fund over a period of sixty-eight and a half years, and for 1 per cent. to accumulate for repairs, etc.—probably caused by bad tenants. It would also probably provide for small odds and ends, which would make it another quarter per cent. If the hon. Member has followed my arithmetic very rapidly, he will at once see that £150 works out on this basis at exactly 3s. per week.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The Departmental Committee's Report, upon which the right hon. Gentleman has founded his observations, is not exactly in that sense. What

  2315
  he stated was that a cottage could be built under general conditions, and in different parts of the country, for £150. That, I think, is not correct. Therefore, his estimate is wrong.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN; No, that is not so. What I said was that the matter could be undertaken by the State and under the conditions I have stated; administration by the State and the building of large
  quantities, which would give this reduction. There are instances given in the Report of four-roomed cottages being put up in pairs, and these cost no more than £300, which divided by two, gives £150 each. The instances given in the Report bear out the figures I have given. May I put another case. Reference has been made to the buildings put up on small holdings, and what I have said about buildings provided for small holdings.
  County schemes and others have buildings put. up which are far too expensive. I cannot see any advantage in giving small holders houses which are in excess of their real requirements, and which inevitably mean that they have to bear a greater annual loan to pay for interest and so on than the conditions of their industry will allow. Our work in connection with small holdings and in other directions, has been hampered everywhere by lack of cottage accommodation. Everybody is conscious of it—farmers, administrators, landlords— and whether the matter is looked at locally or centrally, it is a great economic loss as well as a great social loss, but I am not prepared to say that we ought to abandon all hope of solving this question merely because you have to consider theoretical objections to the State undertaking this great work. That is all I have to say on the subject. I cannot discuss it further, or I should be out of order by trenching upon a subject which comes under the head of new legislation. I must say that in my defence against the charge the hon. Member has made. I was not talking lightly, and I was not. endeavouring to make a party advantage, of which I was totally unconscious, when I spoke of the question of small holdings. I think I ought to remind the Committee of the enormous increase in small holdings within the last two or three years. The number of small holdings has gone on satisfactorily, and I am glad to find that at the present moment—these are the latest figures to be found in the volumes
  2316
  from which hon. Members quoted—at the present moment the land already secured or agreed to be acquired voluntarily and in addition to the areas that. are to be compulsorily acquired amounts to 179,000 acres under the Small Holdings Act. Some 37,000 acres that have been held by private owners have been stimulated by the work of the county council, and that brings the amount of land available for small holdings in the last two years up to well over 200,000, and probably nearer 250,000 acres of land. That is satisfactory so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. There are still some 8,000 applicants for land, and they require 150,000 acres to satisfy the demand, and I believe if that land was forthcoming we could have them all at work, but as the Committee knows, the difficulty in obtaining land is very great. The land suitable for the prospective small holder is sometimes removed from the district in which he resides, and I do not think we can altogether throw the blame upon the county council or the central authority if a man refuses land available at a distance rather than leave the neighbourhood in which he lives. The only way to get over that difficulty is, I believe, more and more to induce the small holders to work on the colony system. That has been tried, and derelict estates have been purchased, as in the case of Winterbourne Zelstone, but that is a bad example, and does not give the colony system a fair chance. I could give another case in the North Country where we purchased land 630 feet above sea level. That does not give the colony system a chance. If we could teach the small holders to go towards the land rather than expecting the land to come to them we would make much more rapid progress. The difficulty has been mentioned in connexion with the cost of raising loans, but it is not so great as suggested; it is. infinitesimal. I do not know whether the hon. Member opposite would wish me to go into a long technical disquisition. but if he puts down an unstarred question I will circulate a statement upon the subject.
  There is one side of the small holdings question which is constantly giving us trouble, and that is the enormous assessment which the small holders have to bear. We realise that we cannot alter the rating law without legislation, and I am not going to make any suggestions about new legislation; but I think it right to describe the difficulty under which small holdings

  2317
  are administered, and that we should make it clear that the rating system is one of the greatest obstacles. I will give a case of one large estate at Skidby, in Yorkshire. It is an estate of 607 acres purchased for £80,100. The council spent £5,350 in the alteration of the buildings and the putting up of new cottages, and this raised the assessment greatly. Now mark what was the change in the rating burden. The rating value of the previous tenants was £583, but when the change was made and it was split up into small holdings and rendered more valuable, the rating burden that had to be paid by the small holders was not £583, but £1,012, nearly double the old rating burden. I know another case in Hessle, in which the same thing occurred. Under our rating system at the present time we really penalise those who wish to make the most of the land. Under the existing law we are placing a great obstacle in the way of the splitting up of the land so that it may be capable of accommodating a larger number of holders in the future. There are one or two cases where the assessments have been changed. A prominent agriculturist was good enough to represent the Small Holdings Committee in a county not far from London, and he represented to the Assessments Committee that far too great a burden was thrown upon the small holders, merely because they were a group of small holders instead of one large farmer. The Assessment Committee did not see eye to eye with him, but being a man of enterprise he told them that if the assessment was not cut down he would challenge the assessment in every large farm. I would sooner see the administration of small holdings under a system which does far more justice to small farmers and small holders. The work of the small holders cannot be successful unless there is combined management of the land and better arrangements for cottages. No one realises that more than I do. There are some hon. Gentlemen who are glad to point out that any suggestions I may make are fundamentally wrong. I am content to hear them suggest something better. The real difficulty of any credit system is to get the individual farmers to combine into a credit society. There is no use arranging for central finance if you do not get the farmers to combine under a system of agricultural banks or the Raffeisen scheme; then there will be no trouble upon the point of central finance. The real
  2318
  difficulty is to persuade the individual farmer to disclose the state of his securities, for each to show what his individual wants are, and to be able to say to his neighbours he stands in need of £30 or £40, and that he can offer his character and everything on his farm as security. They are reluctant to do that, and that is one of the difficulties that the Agricultural Organisation Society has to face in persuading the farmers to combine. They are more shy of combining for credit purposes than for any other. I could give two or three examples of the way in which progress is made bit by bit. I take the case of the Whisconsett Small Holders' Society. They did not want a large sum; the sum was pathetically small; they wanted £50. They could not find it amongst them individually, but they got it out of a Joint Stock Bank, paying 4 per cent. interest on the money. The Joint Stock Bank works under the arrangement I made, and the society got their £50. I take another society—the West Row Society. They wanted £100; they combined together; they got their £100 at 4 per cent., which, at the present price of money, is uncommonly cheap. The local manager of the bank is acting as auditor for the society; he is giving them guidance in keeping accounts, and he does not think of exploiting them. It is cheap money, and they are working it very well. The Coggeshall Society and the Pinvin Society have done likewise. I suggest to hon. Members that they must realise that the most important work to be done amongst the farmers is to persuade them to combine together, and then they will be far stronger financially than by standing alone.
  An hon. Member opposite wanted to know what are our relations to the Agricultural Organisation Society. I am sorry to have to talk through the dinner hour, but I should like to make a full statement upon this topic, and I make no apology for making this reference. The Agricultural Organisation Society has nothing to do with the Board of Agriculture, although we are only too delighted to work with them in the most harmonious and friendly way. Last year the grant given to the Agricultural Organisation Society was the largest given to any organisation society in the United Kingdom, and that Grant will be increased this year. The Development Commission has laid down a condition that the Board of Agriculture must be consulted and that

  2319
  their opinion must be given on purely financial matters with a view to safeguarding the Development Commission from any unfair drain. The Development Commissioners are anxious there should be no new commitments thrown upon them from societies Which would lead to a more heavy expenditure than is now contemplated. I think it was only fair for the Development Commissioners to put in that proviso, but I can assure the society that we are not going to use our powers harshly or to restrict their work by any powers given by the Treasury. I am only too anxious to see the society work in its own way. Anyone who will bring grist to the cooperative societies will be helped by us, but we are anxious that they should do practical work. I was looking through the work of the societies for last year. They made some progress, but not rapid progress. I have examined the way they develop the trade side of their movement. Let it be understood co-operation is more than a principle. It is a principle applied to commercial life, and unless the application of this principle to agriculture is going to lead to the commercial advantage of the co-operators it is going to be thrown away, and I am, therefore, particularly anxious to know how far the Agricultural Organisation Society is endeavouring to spread the powers of cooperative societies in the trade. I have no doubt they are getting through their preliminary difficulties slowly, and where I can help them in that direction I shall be only too glad to exercise my political and personal influence. They have only just been constituted I know, and I hope they will be able to do their work effectively, but, after all, they must be able to show results, and there is no use unless we see the money expended—private as well as national moneys—in producing a large number of co-operative societies conducting their operations with success.
  I now come to an entirely different set of topics—those concerned with agricultural research. I make no apology for dealing with these, because they lie at the root of the policy we are following, not only at the Board of Agriculture, but in every agricultural centre in the United Kingdom. The Development Fund has provided us with funds for spending national money upon research, and research is now being conducted in all the institutions in the areas for which I am responsible on practical subjects as well as
  2320
  on subjects which may lead to practical results. For instance, we give £1,550 to the Imperial College under the heading of "Plant Physiology." That was very largely with the idea of getting rid of certain diseases, and if they help us in that they will be doing a national work. We give 21,470 to Cambridge, under the head of "Plant Breeding." There is no work to which national money can be devoted more useful. At Cambridge, already Professor Biffen has proved he can grow wheat in large quantities of the hardness of Canadian wheat and the fecundity of British wheat, and that cannot but be of great monetary advantage to the farmers of this country. If we turn to another subject, like that of fruit growing, we are conducting inquiries under the advise and guidance of scientists at Bristol; we hope for the elimination of wart disease, and we have given advice to farmers in regard to potato growing which has enabled them to grow potatoes immune from wart disease, and there has been a larger growth than ever before was the case. We have proved by actual experiments again and again at Cambridge that some foodstuffs have been too much neglected in the past. Linseed, for instance, which does not show a very large return to the chemist, has been proved by actual experiment to be a very valuable feeding stuff. At Reading, we have given £2,000 in connection with dairying problems, and any improvements which may be effected in dairying in this country will return the £2,000 a hundredfold in the course of a single year. Cheese makers at Reading have got rid of a disease which shows in Stilton cheese in no other way than yellow blotches, which reduces the market value of the cheese. Manchester, Birmingham, Oxford, the Royal Veterinary College, Leeds, Wye, Bristol, Kew, and the Sir John Innes' Institution have all been mobilised with the object of effecting some solution of the great scientific problems which really lie at the root of agricultural and horticultural work in this country. We do not intend that these results shall lie dormant in the institutions. In our organisation we have provided that at every one of the great colleges, which are agricultural centres, that there shall be in future three advisers, two of them on various subjects relating to crops, and the third one concerned with the livestock problem. I am sorry to say that there has been greater difficulty in obtain-

  2321
  ing men altogether suitable for live-stock work than for crops, but in the case of every one of these institutions advisers will be provided entirely out of our Grants. Their sole object is to transmit to the farmers or organisers in the country the result of research work, and to advise farmers in regard to problems which are far too difficult. of solution locally. There are very simple problems with regard to manure, for example, which are often dropped in various parts of the country through lack of knowledge. In many instances farmers have sent a small sack of soil to an institution for analysis, asking the best way in which to treat the soil. Already many farmers have taken advantage of the facilities afforded. In some places they have been slower than in others, but they are waking up to the advantages open to them, and there is considerable and renewed interest in scientific forms of agriculture.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much money will be spent on scientific research?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give the total sum without notice. We have already distributed for research pure and simple, under various headings, the sum of £20,000: £9,000 a year towards the salaries of the advisers, paid entirely out of national funds; and £3,900 for special investigation. These sums are beyond the ordinary amounts which appear on the Votes that have been parsed. They are not very large in bulk, but they cover a large number of subjects, and I hope they will be extended. May I give two instances of the kind of problem that has already been met with under our organisation? A farmer found that his soil was impoverished from some cause which he did not understand, and he got into communication with the organiser in the county. The organiser referred the matter to the adviser, who in a short time pointed out what was the cause of the impoverishment. The cause was that there was too little lime, and so the soil had become impoverished, limeing having been discontinued far too long. In another instance the roots of crops were attacked by pests. The farmer was unable to ascertain what was wrong, and he consulted the organiser, who suspected that the cause was eel-worm. He consulted the ordinary adviser at the college, as being more learned than himself in these matters, and was immediately confirmed; but then it
  2322
  was found that eel-worm was not primarily responsible, and the question is now being studied in greater detail. I hope before many weeks have passed the adviser will have told the organiser, and the organiser will have told the farmer, what was the primary cause. [An HON. MEMBER: "What will happen to the crops meanwhile?"] The hon. Member asks what will happen to the crops meanwhile. May I point out that it is not a question of what harm may be done this year, but it is a question of enabling the farmer in future years to more than recoup himself for the sixpence spent on the parcels post in sending a bag of soil, and afterwards having an afternoon's discussion with the organiser. The difficulty under which we labour is that the number of advisers is not enough for the work to be done and the Development Commissioners have sanctioned 'during the last two or three years—it was before I came to the Board—national scholarships in all these various subjects. Graduates are found capable of doing the work thoroughly and well, and they may devote their lives afterwards to many of these agricultural problems. Thirty-six scholarships were awarded up to July of this year, and four minor scholarships; and the annual scholarship will enable young graduates to go on with their scientific work. Thirty-six are receiving £150 a year for three years; the minor scholarships are for one year only. Two ladies have been selected for research work in dairying. All these topics lead one on to the subject of education. But for the transmission of this information to the younger generation, I think we might despair of much progress being made. Farm institutes have been set up in some parts of the country, and I hope they will be set up in every part before long, to be the disseminators of much of this knowledge. Those institutions will be able to disseminate throughout their areas, amongst young men, as well as the older men, the knowledge acquired at the colleges or on experimental farms, and on ordinary practical farms, where farmers are now beginning to consent to experiments being made on commercial lines.
  Farm institutes have been established in Hampshire and Cheshire to replace old schools not quite efficient, and for Cumberland and Westmoreland, the farm school at Newton Rigg is being largely extended In, Cornwall, the Truro Technical Schools have led to a practical development there; Hereford and Salop are just

  2323
  waiting for a suitable site; Warwick has already selected a farm, and is now awaiting a sum from the Development Comsioners towards capital for purchasing a farm. The Monmouthshire farm school has at, last made an attempt to revise its trust deed of local funds there, and they hope shortly to open one of the best college institutions in the United Kingdom. In many parts of the country they are proceeding with work which is closely allied to farm institute work, and already the distribution of Grants is proceeding for preliminary peripatetic lectureships for farmers' sons, which we hope may reach the farm labourers of the younger generation who can only go to lectures in their own villages and market towns. We hope to provide for three great classes: Colleges for land owners or land agents; farm institutes for farmers' sons and others who may desire to go in for farming; and peripatetic lectureships in the towns and villages for those who are able to get away for six weeks in the year. With regard to these new developments, I hope hon. Members will not be impatient in pressing for particulars as to the development, of these schemes within the next few months, but we have done all we can to press them forward. Advisory councils have been set. up under my advice throughout England and Wales. The live stock representatives have been nominated by the Board, and the whole of this work has been done in a very short space of time. When it is suggested to me that the farming community moves ahead very slowly, and that those connected with agriculture are intensely conservative in their methods, I say that is not my experience, for I have never come across any class more ready to adopt new methods and new organisations, irrespective of party, than those I have come into contact with.
  Captain WEIGALL: How are these schemes to be financed if no more money is to be looked for from the Development Commissioners?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I know there is not enough money set apart under the Grant given by the Development Commissioners for this work, but at any rate it will carry us on for a number of years. Nearly £400,000 is available, and the hon. and gallant Member will see that that will be enough to carry us on for some years. When that money comes to an end, what ever Government is in power, will be
  2324
  bound to carry on this work. I cannot believe that any Government, when that Grant comes to an end, would refuse either to revive the financial solvency of the Development Fund if it be exhausted, or in the alternative put those Grants on the regular Estimates year by year, and I am inclined to think that the latter course would be the best. I am quite sure that no Government would think of repudiating these farm institutes. I have been anxious to link up some of the most practical sides of farming, and I asked the Advisory Councils to undertake the administration of the live stock Grants as well as the educational Grants. Some of these Grants have already been made. There was the Grant for heavy horse societies of £8,800, and that of £5,000 for milk recording has also been announced. There was a Grant to societies for the provision of boars amounting to £1,000, and Grants have been made for the salaries of live stock officers. All these Grants have been made some time ago.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: How about the bulls?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have made known our views as to the organisation of live stock improvement societies so far as bulls are concerned, and discussions have gone on now for well over twelve months. The hon. Member for Shropshire was quite mistaken in proposing that Scotland was ahead of us in this matter. If hon. Members will refer to the Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland on page 56 and page 29 they will see that it is made perfectly clear that, the bulls and stallions which they have been able to provide were merely those provided under the administration of the Congested Districts Board, and their operations were restricted to the the congested districts. The Scottish Board has been trying to persuade the Development Commissioners to accept
  our scheme. On this matter we have arrived at a compromise, and only within the last few days we have received Treasury sanction for the allocation of £13,800 a year in Grants to societies or individuals for the provision of bulls. The House will be interested to know how this will be worked. First of all, the Grants in aid of the provision of bulls will be made preferably to societies. This is a view which the Development Commissioners strongly adhered to, and they are prepared to give to a society £3 per bull more. They will

  2325
  give to an individual who allows a bull to be used for the use of his neighbours in districts where it is not found possible to form a society a Grant of£12;per annum.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean existing breeding societies or new societies
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think the Commissioners have made it clear whether they mean new societies or whether they mean to utilise the old societies. My interpretation is that any society which exists for breeding purposes on a co-operative basis will be sufficient, that is to say, when they do not work for profit.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Does he mean ordinary breeding societies like the Shorthorn Society?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It would have to be a local society where the services of the bull would be used by the members of the society, and where no profit was drawn for distribution among the members. That would be a society which would receive the requisite assistance. I think it would be better if I published the full regulations under which the Development Commissioners have recommended the Grant and the Treasury have sanctioned it, and the House would then be able to see exactly how the distribution of the Grants would be made. I think we are scarcely in order in discussing this question on this Vote, because there is no money down for it, and in order to start the work we shall have to take a Supplementary Estimate. On that Estimate a discussion could take place, but I will undertake that the conditions laid down by the Treasury shall be circulated.
  Captain MURRAY: How does this affect Scotland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Scotland is receiving this money on exactly the same conditions as those which apply to England. As an illustration as to how our live stock scheme will work I will take the four northern counties, centred in the Armstrong College. Our scheme will provide, if the bulls were worked purely on a society basis, for forty-nine societies being set up. If the scheme was worked with two-thirds for societies and one-third for individuals, it would provide thirty-three clubs and twenty-one individuals in that area. I do not flatter myself that these developments are going to make a great change immediately. They will, how
  2326
  ever, make a gradual change, and I think they will lead to the farmers in many parts of the country devoting more attention to the raising of well-bred animals. I cannot promise that the whole country will be covered with first-class bulls, because there are not enough to go round, but there are a large number of second-class bulls, many of which go to, Ireland, and we will try and keep them. in England in the future. There are large numbers of excellent second-class bulls which now go to the butcher very early in life, and they,might be allowed to live a little longer and perform a great service to the farming community. I hope these proposals will lead to a more extensive preservation of bull calves, and I believe in anticipation of our scheme, farmers in Cumberland arc already preserving them in a greater degree. At all events, we must do what we can to see that the requisite number of better-bred bulls are scattered throughout the country. The Advisory Councils will have the advantage of practical committees. They will have practical men to give advice to them, to control matters, to scrutinise them, and to see that there is no faking. They will also have under their control the formation of milk-recording societies and the distribution of milk-recording Grants. The whole of that work will be done in the localities with as little central control as possible. I am anxious that the localities should realise their responsibilities. The real practical experience of farmers and land agents has been offered freely for this work, although many of them will not obtain any benefit, and it will be taken full advantage of by the poorer classes of the community as well as by those who are regarded as better off.
  The last topic I shall mention is that of the milk-recording societies. One hon. Gentleman opposite suggested that we were making a rather stingy Grant towards these societies. In Scotland, where milk recording has been carried on in Ayrshire and other counties, the Ayrshire Herd Society have done the whole of their work without any Grant whatever, and they have realised what our farmers have not yet taken in, that the value which comes from milk recording is so great that it is worth the whole expense, even if it is borne by the farmers themselves. I trust that the Grants we are giving, £50 for the societies, will be enough to set them afloat. The Grant will go on for a

  2327
  sufficient length of time to give them a fair chance. It will also lead to the society's tester being under the scrutiny.of the Live-stock Committee of each centre. Every effort will be made to have honesty and efficiency combined in the work of these societies, and I venture to prophesy that those of us who are here ten years' hence will be told in this House that one of the best day's work ever done with the money of this Development Fund was when we started milk recording societies. Combined with our live stock scheme, it ought to raise the whole standard of our cattle throughout England, Scotland, and Wales. I would like to thank agriculturists everywhere who have given me assistance during the last twelve months. I said before that I believed they were thoroughly awake, and that. impression has been emphasised by the fact that the distribution of literature and leaflets from our Department is on the increase. Leaflets are sent out on all sorts of technical subjects, some of them very simple, and some of them more abstruse—we have received assistance from outside in their compilation—and they touch something like 273 different topics. I would add, for the benefit of my hon. Friend from Wales, that twenty-five of them have been translated into Welsh and circulated in Welsh for the use of farmers who are unable to read English. No one can persuade me that the farming community has not awakened or reawakened when I know that these leaflets are in demand in every part of the country. The farmer, when he sends a postcard, an unstamped postcard, asking for leaflets, gets what he wants by return of post. We do not distribute them wholesale. They are not thrown about like political leaflets. Leaflets are sent to those who ask for them on subjects on which they have made inquiries, and, such is the desire for knowledge, that no less than 1,250,000 were asked for last year.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what is to be the future of tie Rural. Educational Conference?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope to reconstitute that very soon and to have the benefit of its work. I would like to say, in conclusion, that this desire for knowledge can only be met by men of all parties combining, not only in our ordinary work here in the House of Commons, but through our local authorities and the various societies
  2328
  which are deeply interested in agriculture, to see to it that our educational institutions and all our machinery are given their fullest chance of success. I am convinced that if we all combine with that object we shall see the land producing more, and more,men living on the land.
  Mr. CATOR: I desire to refer to the question of small holdings, in relation to losses under any scheme. Under the Act of 1907, Section 5, Sub-Section (4) it was provided:—
  "If it appears to the Board that the carrying out of a scheme under this Act has resulted or is likely to result in a loss, the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay or undertake to pay out of the Small Holdings Account the whole or any part of that loss."
  I have before me the Debate of 12th August, 1907, when I recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer directed the First Commissioner of Works, who was in charge of the Bill, to state that the Treasury would issue a minute, which would bear out the meaning of this particular Clause. In course of time that minute appeared, and it was stated that the Treasury would be willing to bear a portion of the loss, but Section 2, paragraph 7, made it a condition that the county would have to prove that there was a deficiency on the small holdings undertaking of the county council as a whole, and that there was insufficient money to pay the loss which had been incurred. That, I consider, is going back on the intention of the Act of 1907. When the County Councils Association applied last March to the Board of Agriculture, the Board replied that they could only sanction any help being given should there be a loss under that scheme of small holdings, if Section 7 of the Treasury minute was complied with. The President of the Board of Agriculture has himself described the great keenness which is displayed all over the country for small holdings, and, in order to meet this demand, great pressure is put on the small holdings committees of the county council. They are constantly being urged to take up land for small holdings. They have been very successful on the whole, and in the county which I have the honour to represent there are for its size more small holdings than in any other county in England. There are in Huntingdon something like 3,499 acres devoted to small holdings, 288 tenants who=
  2329
  are farming on land purchased by the county, and 35 tenants who are living on land leased by the county. There are 23 separate schemes under land purchase, and eight separate schemes under land leased. There is undoubtedly an increasing demand for small holdings and the county council are in a very difficult position. They have, very often, to take up land which they themselves feel is not altogether suitable for the purpose. The people who sit upon the small holdings committees of the county councils are men who, it will be generally admitted, are thoroughly conversant with their subject. They are put on these sub-committees because they have a special knowledge of dealing with land, and it is obvious they must have proved that they have used every discretion in trying to acquire the best land possible.
  If I may, I will illustrate my point. The county is a chess-board and the various schemes brought forward represent the various squares on that chess-board. There is, of course, in every county good land and bad land, and with regard to the Fen country, where so much land has been taken by the Fen farmers, it is very good land; they pay an extra high rent. Those who farm the clay lands may be described as the poor relations of the Fen men, and it is obviously unfair, first, to the county, which has been obliged to advance very large sums for the acquisition of the land, and, secondly, to the tenants who have to pay these high rents, which they have only been persuaded to pay on the understanding that, after the various charges necessary for the adaptation of land have been met, any money which may be left over will either be spent on each unit of the scheme or else there will be some reduction made in the very high rent now being charged. I say it is unfair that losses under the scheme should be dealt with as they are. Under the Act of 1897, and under the Treasury Minute of December, 1910, the schemes are described as separate units, whereas the Board of Agriculture, on the other hand, when applied to for help to defray the loss which must inevitably be incurred from time to time on small holdings, reply that they can only give assistance if the county are able to prove that they have suffered loss when treating their schemes as a whole. My object in raising this point is to try and get the Government to take the very reasonable view of treating each scheme as it was intended to be treated under the Act of 1907, as a
  2330
  scheme, and not, because they give help in defraying the losses which the county council may have unavoidably incurred, insist on pooling all the-schemes and making the county show it has a deficiency on the whole before it is willing to devote any money towards meeting the loss which the county may have suggested. This point is very strongly felt by the various small holdings committees of county councils, and I trust that some alleviation may be forthcoming of this great hardship.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: Before I say one or two words on the Tuberculosis Order, which has been referred to at considerable length this afternoon, I wish to observe that, while I do not intend to join in the chorus of congratulation to the Board—merely because I do not think it necessary to add any further words in that respect—I should like to congratulate the British farmer on the line he is taking with regard to modern developments of agriculture. I am glad to see that the English farmer is adopting his mind to modern scientific methods with extremely satisfactory results. Anyone interested in the future of industry or of agriculture in. this country cannot but be moved by the policy of co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman says that co-operation has to justify itself. There is one branch of co-operation connected with agriculture of which I have had considerable means of informing myself, and that is co-operative insurance. With one or two of my friends, I have interested myself in it in connection with a branch of the Agricultural Organisation Society in developing this idea of the insurance of farmers on co-operative lines, and I find that our efforts have been justified by the results. I wish that counties in the South would take it up as much as counties in the North have done. Co-operation is, to a certain extent, a Lancashire product, and Lancashire men thoroughly understand it as applied to industry and other matters But the idea is spreading more in the South, and I am quite certain, if it continues to do so, the farmers who take up co-operative insurance will soon realise the benefit to be derived from so doing.
  I want to say a few words about the Prevention of Tuberculosis Order. I do not think that anyone can peruse that Order without being satisfied that the object it has in view is a good object, namely, the suppression of this very dan-

  2331
  gerous and detrimental disease of tuberculosis. At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that the Order does not deal with all forms of tuberculosis, and when we are told that it is intended to suppress tuberculosis altogether, and when, also, we are asked to make great sacrifices, I think we are bound to remember that, although it is said the object is the complete suppression of tuberculosis, the Order does not profess to deal with all forms of it. I do not think that the methods adopted in the Order are satisfactory, although the objects are good. It must be borne in mind that the Order itself was framed under the Act of 1894, and there was no means of bringing it to the notice of Parliament before it became operative. It is trite that the Board of Agriculture did bring the Order to the notice of certain industries and bodies interested in the matter, but. I think it would have been better if it could- have been brought to the notice of this House, and if there could have been discussion upon it before it was enforced.
  I have to refer to the question of compensation. After all, the main difficulties arise in connection with the provision of money. This proposed Order is undoubtedly an improvement on the Order of three or four years ago—the Order which had to be withdrawn—the Order which proposed to cast the whole burden on the local authorities. The principle which has been accepted now is this: that where an animal is slaughtered, having been found to be either wholly or partially tuberculous, compensation is paid, and it is paid in proportion as the animal is tuberculous. The compensation is paid under the proposed arrangement, half by the local authority and half by the Treasury, while the local authority pays all the expenses of administration in carrying the matter out. I notice that his arrangement is only fixed for a period of five years. I do no know what is the underlying reason for that, whether it is thought that by that time tuberculosis will have been stamped out, or whether it is intended at the end of the five years that some more generous arrangement shall be made, but that, at any rate, is the proposal. From the point of view of the local authorities that rather savours of the old policy of the State being charitable at the expense of the ratepayers. I should have thought that the proper thing to do was that the authority at the place from which
  2332
  the animal comes should be the first authority to be made responsible, or, if that cannot be done, and I quite understand there are difficulties in doing it, that the proper thing is for the State to bear the whole of the burden. We are told that those local authorities who have markets are deriving profits from people coming in from the outside to attend the markets. On the other hand, these authorities think that they are furnishing a privilege and advantage to those who come in from outside. You cannot take any market town by itself and say it exists for itself. If the benefits are spread beyond the area of a market town and it derives profits from those outside its own borders, the proper means of distributing the burden is that the State should shoulder it, and by those means it would be equally distributed. That was the conclusion arrived at by the Departmental Committee which sat in 1904. I do not know whether it has been quoted before in this Debate. If so, I apologise for quoting it again. I shall not read it at length. The Report said:—
  Your Committee have also considered the question of the fund from which the limited assistance they suggest should be drawn. It is manifestly unfair to the ratepayers of the great collecting and distributing centres that they should bear this burden"—
  Those words are very important—
  "If the charge is to he made upon local funds, it would appear to be more just that it should be imposed upon the locality in which the animal contracted or developed tuberculosis. Your Committee, however, think that the difficulty of tracing each animal in respect to which a claim is made to such locality, makes the adoption of this method of distribution of the charge practically impossible."
  I believe there are great difficulties about that. The most important part of the Report is that in which the Committee say:—
  "For these reasons your Committee recommend that such assistance to butchers as they suggest should be provided by the Imperial Exchequer."
  9.0. P.M.
  Some correspondence took place between the Board of Agriculture and the Association of Municipal Corporations on the subject of this provision and the Board of Agriculture wound up by saying that they thought the locality ought to bear the half of the burden for two reasons, first of all, that the market itself was usually a means of attracting considerable trade into the district of the local authority, and, secondly, also frequently a source of, revenue to the local authority. A priori these things sound fairly satisfactory, but I would remind the Committee that there are cases where the profits derived by the market town is infinitesimal and where the revenue derived from the market

  2333
  shows an actual loss. I have in my hand a summary prepared by the Town Clerk of Salford, the area which I have the honour to represent in this House, with regard to some fifty or more average market towns. The Salford market has far the largest turnover. It surprised me to find that the turnover in beasts in the Salford market totals as much as 110,000 to 115,000 per annum. Last year, owing to the restrictions on importation, it dropped to 73,000. That is a far larger turnover, for instance, than Wolverhampton, which has only 29,000, or Liverpool, which has only about 50,000. Our experience in Salford, which is a very poor area, is that we made on the average a loss of £500 a year during the last three years on the market. Last year we only made a loss of £300, but the turnover was much less owing to the restrictions on importation, and the year before last there was a loss of £700. Of the localities given in this list roughly one-half made a loss on this work of providing markets for the vicinity. In these circumstances it is a little hard for the Board of Agriculture to say to us, "You must bear a half of this burden of compensation, and you are not suffering any real grievance because, by means of the market, you are enabled to make a profit." We are making a heavy loss already. We are a poor area. The rateable value is considerable, but the rents are very high. I think they are something like 7s. or 8s. in the £, if not more. That being so, then I must say that to put upon us an additional burden, and to tell us, at the same time, that we are not suffering any real hardships because we are already deriving a profit from our market is a little hard.
  There are precedents of the State bearing the whole of the loss in the case of foot-and-mouth disease and the case of pleuro-pneumonia. Why that cannot be done in this case I cannot understand. The President told us that the number of beasts already slaughtered was not so large as he anticipated. That being so, I should have thought this was a case where the Government might have treated us a little more generously and borne all the loss themselves. In an area such as Salford the market is not an advantage. It occupies a large area. It is not a very pleasant thing to have in the middle of a large and closely populated area, cattle being driven to and from the market.
  2334
  It is not a very pleasant thing, especially in view of the results that follow from having a large number of cattle in the area. It does not add to the amenities of the place, and it adds seriously to our burdens. I do not know whether the President has still an open mind as to making more generous arrangements for us in the future. I do urge upon him that in residential areas like Salford, which are closely populated, where the rates fall with very heavy incidence upon the houses, because they come back in the form of increased rents, and where the market is an advantage to a large area but is working at a loss, he should, as a matter of grace, make some special arrangements. I ask the President whether, with all the scientific appliances and ingenuity he is now bringing to bear, which all sides of the Committee welcome, upon the problem of agriculture, he could not turn a little of that scientific ingenuity to an adjustment of the burden in a case like this? It is a hard case which does claim a little consideration, and I ask whether something cannot be done to ease the burden in this particular case?
  Mr. SANDERSON: This has been a most interesting Debate. I do not believe the House of Commons can be seen under conditions than when it is discussing an Agricultural Vote, because it is obvious -that every hon. Member who has addressed the House has been actuated by one desire only—to promote the interests of agriculture. The President of the Board of Agriculture would in all probability be the first to recognise that. I think he is, to a very large extent, responsible for the spirit which prevails at present. I have heard it said by some people in the North of England that it would be a very good thing if we could have an agricultural party started in this country. I have always said I did not think it was necessary, because when we discuss agricultural questions in the House of Commons we do not discuss them from a party point of view. I should like those who are so anxious to see an agricultural party started to be present and see the spirit of the Debate and I think they would change their minds. The point I wish to ask about is with regard to the Pennine Range Sheep Dipping Order, which affected, and still affects, part of Cumberland and Westmoreland. There was an Order made in May, 1912, containing certain, as we considered, severe regulations in regard to the

  2335
  dipping of sheep at the back-end of the year, providing that they should be dipped twice within twenty-one days.
  That was an Order which was objected to very strongly by the local authority. In the first place, they considered that when the sheep were dipped at that time of the year, twice within a short period, it must prejudice the health of the flocks, more especially when the ewes would be wanted for lambing in the following season. It was also felt that a much larger area had been included in the Order than was necessary, and that in consequence, a great deal of unnecessary inconvenience, loss, and hardship, were entailed on farmers and agriculturists in the district. The right hon. Gentleman gave the matter his personal attention, and an inquiry was held in September last year. The result was that these provisions were to a certain extent modified, but the modifications did not satisfy the farmers, although they accepted them with the best grace they could for the time being. I have not the slightest doubt that those provisions were made with the best intentions in the first instance. They were made on the advice, probably, of some inspector of the Board, but I am quite sure that if inquiry had been made from the people who lived in the locality in the first instance, those provisions would never have been made," because the inquiry was held after the Order had been made. It would be advisable on future occasions like this to have the inquiry before the Order is made. When the matter was brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice by myself and others he at once gave it his personal attention, and we were able to get a certain amount of satisfaction in that respect. Now I understand that the Order has still further been modified by an Order which was made in May of this year, whereby, at all events as regards my Constituency, the area has been very much reduced, but still there is a considerable area affected. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any information whether there is sheep scab in the district at present, because I have a very fair idea that there is practically none, if any, or whether this is looked upon as a precautionary measure, because these areas lie somewhere near other areas where sheep scab may be prevalent. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot go further still and release some
  2336
  of these areas which are still affected by the Order, and thereby reduce the inconvenience and hardship.
  The other thing I wanted to mention is this. I desire to support, as strongly as I possibly can hon. Members who have spoken about the swine fever regulations. I look at it rather from a different point of view from theirs. It has been said today that swine fever is on the increase, and that, therefore, these regulations are really no good, and are very vexatious, and might as well be done away with. I think these regulations are applied to districts where swine fever does not exist, and where it has not existed for a considerable number of years. The regulations are felt in other neighbourhoods to be vexatious and unnecessary and unreasonable, and the feeling is even greater in a place where there is no swine fever. I have had frequent complaints about it. I have had complaints made even to this extent, that if these regulations are persisted in the result will be that the farmers will give up keeping pigs, and that will be a great disadvantage, not only to the farmers, but to the country generally, because the house-keepers' bacon will be more per pound, and it is high enough even now. It will be the greatest possible misfortune to the country side if small farmers are in any way discouraged from breeding pigs, which, though not very interesting animals, are certainly useful. I recognise, in common with all other Members who have taken part in the Debate, the spirit which has been inculcated by the right hon. Gentleman. He is perfectly ready to listen to any suggestion, if it be a reasonable one, or to comply with any reasonable request, no matter from what part of the House it comes.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: I wish to refer very briefly to a subject on which I know we have the hearty sympathy of the President of the Board of Agriculture, namely, the question of credit banks for helping small holders and the need of missionary work. The Report says, perfectly truly, that in order to get these banks certain work has to be done. I am sure that if banks are to be provided for the agricultural community the missionary work must be of a more effective character than hitherto. I submit to the Committee that it will be necessary to have some source of money other than the joint stock banks. My reason for saying so is this: It is perfectly true that the trade banks wilt

  2337
  Advance sums of £5, £20, or even £100, but when that £100 has been obtained it has to be repaid within a very short period. The joint stock banks may not renew the loan, and the borrowers will not go back rejoicing. The very nature of their business precludes them from starting and carrying on small credit banks in the way we would wish them to do. Their loans must be for short periods at the current commercial rate of interest of, say, 4 per cent. on an advance of £50 or £100. As time goes on the demand will be greater, and the joint stock banks must necessarily demand and get the rate of interest they could demand from other borrowers. They have to make profits for their shareholders, and these must come out of the business done by the banks. In order to do this work satisfactorily, we must be able to place before the villagers and the community in which we wish to start credit banks a statement that they will be able to borrow money repayable over a period of time within which they can get money out of the enterprise for which the money was borrowed. If we go to them and say that they will get money from the joint stock banks repayable at certain short periods, they would not join the smaller credit banks, because they know that the periods must be short owing to the kind of business done by the joint stock banks. We have experience of these banks where they have been most successful in France and Germany. There are 17,000 of these credit banks in Germany. There is one thing which is not satisfactory, and that is the proportion of agricultural labourers to tradesmen and small commercial men in rural communities. That proportion is very small indeed, and the object of the Small Holdings Act was to enable agricultural labourers to get land rather than the butcher, baker, or publican in the villages. The operation of the Act has shown that agricultural labourers form a very small proportion as compared with others. That is a matter very much to be regretted, and it is owing to the absence of facilities for getting cheap money. The agricultural labourer has naturally less money to start him in his undertaking than the small tradesman, while in his case it is more necessary than in others that he should have these facilities. We must prove to him that the loan he gets will not be re-called until he gets the profit for which the money was borrowed. There must be over a year in many cases, perhaps over
  2338
  two or three years, before he can get that profit. Would a joint stock bank give him credit during that period? They will give the. money for three months, renewable for six or nine months, but that is totally inadequate for the purposes of the small holders. I would urge the Presidnet of the Board of Agriculture to reconsider his decision on the question. The Board sent Mr. Cahill to report upon the German system three months ago. The Report says:—
  "It is of great importance that account should be taken when working capital is advanced to agriculturists of the special conditions of their industry. Money borrowed by them does not bring in a rapid return corn sown in autumn is reaped in summer, and sold perhaps some months later. Money required for the purchase of manures, seeds payment of labour, keep of horses, etc., is borrowed, the returns that it yields may not come in for quite a year. Money borrowed to purchase a calf is returned perhaps in two or three years. Also accidents of harvest, disease, fluctuation in prices, make the returns from the farming industry more uncertain in time than those in commerce; and manufacturing industry. Short credits of three mouths with renewals up to six or nine-months, which are the practice in commercial life, do not meet their requirements."
  We have to make it very clear to the villagers before we can get them to form co-operative schemes that the arrangements are satisfactory to them. They have not been made yet, and I would press the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter his attention. I am sure it is one which he has as much at heart as anybody. I hope he will reconsider the matter in conjunction with his advisers. There are only forty-eight of these- banks in England today. They are increasing very slowly. In Germany they increased slowly at first, butt, as I have said, there are now 17,000. Unless something can be done to supply cheap money at long terms the system will not go on, and the small holdings scheme which has been a partial success up to date will receive a very severe blow. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman sympathises with this suggestion, and I hope it will take practical form, and that he will come to the conclusion that he will have to supply money through a central bank and not through small banks.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: I wish to refer to the regulation now imposed with respect to the detention of cattle coming into Great Britain from Ireland. As Ireland is now free from foot-and-mouth disease, I think the time has arrived when that regulation might be altered. I think the time of detention should be reduced from ten hours to perhaps half the time. I wish also to refer to what has been done with respect to diseases among cattle, sheep,

  2339
  and pigs. They go direct to the market for which they are intended, and thence to the slaughter-house; they never come on the public highway, and they can bring no distemper with them nor gather it on the way. They are placed in wagons till they get to the market, and those wagons are disinfected, and the market pens are disinfected every day. There are other questions which affect traders in regard to this matter. When the disease broke out twelve months ago, it dislocated all the railway rates from Ireland to Great Britain. The through rates were discontinued by the railway companies, and, except for one company, have never been restored, and the result is that there has been an increase of 40 per cent. in the rates. The traders may have suffered more or less from this great increase, but ultimately it was the Irish farmer who suffered. The trader could not work for nothing. He had to look elsewhere to make good the loss incurred by the increased rates, and though the matter might come more properly before the Board of Trade than before the right hon Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the facts that I state, and has himself taken an active part in trying to compel the railway companies to enter again into the arrangements for through booking. All is well known, the railway companies of England and the steamboat companies coming to Great Britain have to a great extent killed the Irish trade. Animals are killed in South America, which perhaps have been wandering through the country for eight or ten years, and when they are turned into frozen meat they are carried for about £1 a ton to this country, while Irish meat, Irish bacon, or Irish butter, or any other produce of the kind leaving Ireland, even for Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, costs £3 10s. a ton for carriage.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see how the question of the rates for carriage of these animals comes within the cognisance of the Board of Agriculture. The matter is' one which would be more properly raised on the Board of Trade.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: I am sorry for straying from the subject before the Committee. I appeal again to the right hon. Gentleman to give the question of detention his serious consideration. I think that he should have no hesitation in urging the Government to pay even three-fourths of the loss sustained by those who purchase
  2340
  cattle which, when slaughtered, are con- fiscated by the local authorities and destroyed. Coming to the subject of swine fever, I may say that it is almost a thing of the past in Ireland. The number of cases is very small, yet so great are the restrictions placed upon the export from Ireland to Great Britain of store pigs that there is a detention of twenty-eight days at the port of debarkation before the animals can be moved to the place of the man who may purchase them. I think that the time has arrived when the right hon. Gentleman might cut down the period of detention by at least twenty days. Another disease amongst swine in Ireland is what is called erysipelas, though I never heard it mentioned by any veterinary surgeon. It is a fatal disease, but I do not think that it is a contagious disease that would be reported. With regard to swine fever, I may mention that the pig is a very delicate animal, and that this disease arises from many causes. It may arise from overheating, or from a cold.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member referring to swine fever in Ireland or in England?
  Mr. CRUMLEY: To the restrictions imposed in England and in Ireland.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will come to the restrictions on this side of the channel.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Yes, it is the restrictions on this side of the channel to which I wish to refer. There is a period of twenty-eight days' detention at the port of debarkation. The result is that a very large trade which was carried on has been killed, and the housekeeper in England to-day is paying Is. and 1s. 1d. and 1s. 2d a pound for Irish bacon, whereas before these restrictions were imposed upon the export of swine from Ireland to England, the cost was only about 8d. a pound. The housewives in England should be considered as well as the farmer in Ireland. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take all these things into consideration, and I hope that he will do so, and reduce the period of detention by at least one-half.
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERT: I desire to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which the Board of Agriculture is being conducted. The only point to which I desire to call attention concerns the inspection of animals suspected of disease. I do not

  2341
  desire to say one word against the inspectors appointed by the Board. I believe them to be admirable men, who conduct their business in an admirable way. The only grievance that I have is that there are not enough of them. It so happens that sometimes an animal may die in suspicious circumstances, and the inspector appointed by the Board may not be, and often is not able to, come at short notice to inspect it, and the carcase has to be kept unburied, sometimes for two days, and sometimes even longer, and in the hot summer one can readily understand that that is a state of things not to be desired. I have received on three separate occasions complaints from constituents of mine at Wootton Bassett, Chisledon, and other places as to the impossibility of getting the inspector to come and inspect the carcase at quick notice, so that the carcase can be disposed of before putrefaction sets in. I do not, of course, desire in the least that those restrictions against disease should be lessened; but what I would suggest is this: that it might be possible, where the inspector appointed by the Board is unable to be got at at short notice, that it might be possible for the police to send for the veterinary inspector appointed by the county for each police division, and that he should be in a position to give a certificate, so that the carcase might be got rid of. It does seem to me to be an absurd thing, and a very great hardship on farmers that they should have to keep those carcases sometimes for such a length of time as two or three days. In my constituency, the principal town is Swindon, and I think I am right, and, in fact, I know, that there is not in Swindon a single inspector appointed by the Board. We have two or three veterinary inspectors, who are appointed by the county, and who are duly qualified. Surely, there can be no increased risk if those men are allowed in a case of emergency, to give a certificate, so that the carcase may be disposed of in as quick a time as possible. I desire to bring this question to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have no doubt that he will give it his full consideration.
  Mr. BIGLAND: I listened with some amusement to the speech of the hon. Member on this side with regard to the price of Irish bacon. I think he was misinformed on the subject. It was not the fact that Irish pigs were not allowed to come across from Ireland that caused the
  2342
  rise in price, but there was a universal world rise in price of bacon, not due simply to the restriction, of the Board of Agriculture with regard to Ireland. I was also greatly interested in the speech delivered at the opening of this Debate by the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst). He appealed to the President to see that in our international, not agreements, because we have no agreements, but in our international understanding with regard to foot-and-mouth disease that he should use his influence with foreign Governments to endeavour to so arrange that the six months' embargo now placed by all foreign Governments, or most of them, against Great Britain, when once foot-and-mouth disease has been declared, should be reduced; that is to say, that the six months was too long a period after the country had been declared free from disease to wait before our prize cattle could be exported again to those markets. He suggested another matter which appealed to me, and that was that Great Britain should be divided into three zones, Scotland, the Northern and Midland Counties of England, and the Southern Counties, so that if foot-and-mouth disease broke out say in Derbyshire, that there should be no embargo placed on cattle exported from Scotland. That seemed a reasonable proposition. In the speech of the President of the Board, he said that there was one country in the world which was our greatest customer for our pedigree stock, and that was the Argentine Republic. May I appeal to him that with regard to all these matters he will extend to them the same courtesies which he asks them to extend to us. He said that he appealed to them over and over again with the statement that there was now no risk. May I put it to him, provided there is a province in the Argentine Republic, which is declared free of foot-and-mouth disease, will he extend that same international courtesy, which the Member for Wilton asked that he should see was extended to us, and will he issue an Order in Council that cattle shipped from that district, shall be allowed to come in free.
  We have had so much said during the last twelve months with regard to foot-and-mouth disease from Ireland, but I would like to take the question of Ireland and the experience which we have learned from what happened there as to the argument which their President of the Board of Agriculture may use with regard to, shall I

  2343
  say, the commitment of his own mind, to the policy which I believe he would like to approve of. When foot-and-mouth disease broke out in Ireland, the Members for Ireland appealed to the President of the Board of Agriculture that the foreign animals' wharves at Birkenhead, and at Deptford, and at Glasgow might be open to receive cattle from those parts of Ireland fifteen miles from every farm where foot-and-mouth disease was declared. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman to-day as to whether the number of fat cattle landed at Birkenhead from Ireland between the 8th July and the 5th October, 1912, as I believe those were about the dates when foot-and-mouth disease was declared prevalent in Ireland. During that period of thirteen weeks we had 50,739 fat cattle slaughtered in Birkenhead, being an average of 3,800 per week. During the whole of that time the arrangements at Birkenhead Wharf were so perfect that there was no fear in the minds of Members of Parliament representing Irish breeders of stock that they would communicate foot-and-mouth disease to any of the herds in England, because the orders were that the beasts were to be slaughtered at the foreign animals' wharf. They were not to cross the road, but were to go straight from the ship to the abattoir, there to be killed. The argument of that is this—that the British Government were not afraid, although cattle came from Ireland within fifteen miles of an infected farm, provided they were slaughtered at the abattoir at Birkenhead, and there was no fear in the minds of the Government that they would spread the disease in any herds in the United Kingdom, and there was no fear on the part of my hon. Friend representing the agricultural interests of England. They never protested against those 50,000 live stock from areas within fifteen miles of farms where foot-and-mouth disease had been found.
  Therefore, my argument to the President of the Board is that from to-day forward he has no ground on which to refuse to issue an Order in Council that fat cattle may be imported from the Argentine Republic from any portion of that Republic where there has been a declaration by the Government that foot-and-mouth disease does not exist. I would put it to him in this way: Everybody knows that in issuing such an Order in Council he could demand his own conditions, because I am
  2344
  speaking with some authority when I say that the Government of the Argentine Republic are now prepared to accept conditions from him as to the conditions under which he will write this Order in Council removing the embargo. The conditions he may make as drastic as he pleases. He may go so far as to say that he will appoint British inspectors in the Argentine Republic to examine the cattle and to place them in a yard where quarantine of fourteen or twenty days can be observed, where his own inspectors can see the cattle, where the charge can be put against the shipowner, where he and his Department will be at no expense whatever; I believe that whatever restrictions or conditions he imposes as to the importation of cattle to this country the Argentine Government will carry them out. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division stated that it is now proved that this disease must show itself in a period of ten days. The voyage from the Argentine to Birkenhead is on the average about twenty-eight days. Therefore, provided we had fourteen days quarantine in sheds in ports in the Argentine, that the right hon. Gentleman's own inspectors watched these beasts, and we had twenty-eight days quarantine on the steamer, is there any possibility of the spreading of the disease in this country? I say that that argument can never be used again after the experience we have had during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. Therefore I can only put it to the right hon. Gentleman that when he refuses to make this Order in Council, he has some other motive.
  I can quite understand that on the part of the Irish representatives, and of some other Members, there is a very strong motive, namely, that the importation of this live fat cattle from the Argentine might reduce the value of their live stock. An hon. Member speaking just now showed a certain amount of ignorance of what happens in South America. Representatives from Ireland may argue that the whole of the value of their live stock might be reduced by the removal of this embargo. That is, I submit, a matter for argument. But it is surely not a matter for prohibition. The right bon. Gentleman and his Government are Free Traders, while I am a Protectionist. I would be willing to see equal taxation put upon this cattle as upon Irish cattle, but I am not willing to see prohibition. It might result in the cheapening of the food

  2345
  of 44,000,000 people in this country. But that is surely not an argument against the removal of the embargo. I would like to argue the question out with Irish representatives whether or not the removal of this embargo would be to their detriment in respect to increased competition and a reduction in the value of their cattle. An hon. Member, speaking in the Irish interest, just now said it was possible that animals which had been running about the prairies in South America for eight years might be taken to the refrigerating establishments there and slaughtered, and their carcases sent here. The value of live stock in the Argentine is so great that they are killed the moment they arrive at the age of maturity. There is no fear that the number of cattle slaughtered would be increased by the removal of the embargo. If they are not killed in the Argentine they would come over here alive. Every beast that is ready for the market is slaughtered the very day it reaches maturity. There could not possibly be any increase in the number. It is only a question whether the beast shall be slaughtered at a factory in the River Plate or whether it shall be slaughtered at Birkenhead or Deptford.
  I appeal to hon. Members from Ireland to remove if possible the prejudice in their mind by putting the argument in this way: If you are the seller of a beast in the Argentine Republic, you say to yourself, "If I ship that beast alive to Birkenhead I add at least £4 to his cost as against selling him to the company here and his chilled or frozen carcase going in the steamer to Liverpool." If £4 is added to the cost by bringing the animal alive to the market where the competition between Irish cattle and Argentine cattle begins, surely the competition must be less severe if the £4 is put on to the price before the beast is landed in this country than if it is killed in the Argentine and the carcase shipped over. Therefore, I put it as a business proposition that there is no argument from the economic side for urging the President of the Board of Agriculture to maintain the embargo. I will put the matter to the Committee generally, and particularly to Members representing large constituencies of working people, that there is another side to this question as to the state in which we shall import our beasts. I claim that the writer of three articles in the "Times," last month, was evidently a man well
  2346
  posted in what was going forward in the world's commerce in beef. I do not know who wrote those articles, but he pointed out to the people of Great Britain that a very serious danger was ahead. We all know perfectly well that the tendency of the age is for capitalists, through the increased competition amongst themselves, to draw together and make friendly arrangements one with another. That tendency has been going on, not in the form of a Meat Trust, but in the friendly relations of millionaires controlling the meat supply of the world. Those friendly relations have become so close that the influence of four firms in this world distribution of beef is getting greater and greater. The reason why we personally are going to be so much interested in this is that these four men felt that, so far as the United States were concerned in regard to the export of meat to Great Britain, their interests in the distribution of beef was nearly finished. They are turning their attention to the Argentine.
  There is one primary reason why the Argentine will for many years be a great supplier of beef to this country, and that is the one word "alfafo." There is no food in the whole world for fattening and preparing cattle for the market equal to "alfafo." The crop of alfafo is largest in the River Plate, and is so abundant and so cheap that that will be the great market for fat cattle for us as a nation for many years to come. America is finished. We had hoped that Canada was going to be the great meat supplier to the people of this country, but we have been bitterly disappointed, partly through the lack of foresight on the part of our statesmen in not giving them some preference to grow what we wanted. The fact remains that Canada is out of the market as a supplier of meat for the people of this country. We can only turn to the Argentine as the possible supplier of live cattle. You look to Australia and New Zealand for frozen and chilled beef; but there is no other country in the world for the moment except the Argentine for the purpose to which I refer. I appeal to Members of the Committee and of this House that they will have sufficient foresight to see that this gathering together of these enormous capitalist interests, and their friendly relations one with another, amount to practically what is known in the United States as "a restraint on trade." The United States have passed severe laws to

  2347
  foreclose and prevent this continued combination of capitalists' interests in the restraint of trade. We, as a country, and as a Government, whether Liberal or Unionist, will in the future have to use legislative influence to prevent this undue restraint on trade. I put it to the President of the Board of Agriculture that if he will cast his mind a few years into the future he will see that the only means to check this is to say to the farmer in the Argentine, "You shall have two markets; you shall be able to sell your cattle for refrigerating purposes, or you shall be able to Ship it to Deptford or Birkenhead."
  Having said this to the farmers of a friendly nation we shall be able to face the meat trust—I do not like to call it a meat trust—to say to these great firms which are in this friendly combination with regard to fixing the price at which an Englishman shall buy his beef: "We can get beef and we can bring live stock into this country without anyone controlling it." The import of these thousands and hundreds of thousands of live cattle, which will be brought into this country will enable the people to obtain fresh meat instead of frozen meat. I maintain, as an expert in this matter, that it is of importance to the health and well-being of future generations of this country, and a desirable thing to see that the Government shall make it possible for the people to have less frozen meat and more fresh meat. I think all will agree that that is a sound and statesmanlike proposition. It is only through this Order, which I ask for from the President of the Board of Agriculture, that this can be attained. It needs no Act of Parliament. We only ask for an Order in Council to the effect that, provided the conditions that are laid flown are carried out by the Government of the Argentine Republic, the President of the Board will allow the live stock to be imported into this country and slaughtered at the foreign animal wharf.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: May I be allowed one or two observations upon a matter which has always been one of very deep interest to me, that is the operation of the Small Holdings Act of 1908, and following that the Act of 1910. The first Act was passed for the purpose of bringing farm labourers into the occupancy and ownership of land. It provided also for houses and for a sufficient amount of land that those concerned might derive there-from, without any ancillary employment,
  2348
  an adequate subsistence. Hon. Members who have studied the working of that Act must be satisfied that, partly through unsatisfactory administration and partly through inherent defects in the Act, has been absolutely inoperative in obtaining the results at which it was ostensibly aimed. Hon. Members opposite who are more versed in agriculture than those on this side will, I think, when I have given two or three figures be satisfied, apart from their own knowledge with the statement that I make, that this Small Holdings Act has been an absolute failure. The Small Holdings Act has been in operation since towards the end of 1908. It was intended as I said, primarily to enable farm labourers to rent from the county councils, or to acquire by purchase, their small holdings. The purchase Clauses—and this is what I am blaming the right hon. Gentleman for—have been found to be absolutely inoperative since the inception of the Statute up to the present time. The reason is very obvious. Although the Report of Mr. Cheney is a serious and optimistic Report, it rightly states that the one-fifth purchase money is an absolute obstacle to the attainment of the land by way of purchase by contract.
  Indeed, the number of persons who have purchased their small holdings since the Act came into operation is only seventy. The total amount of money which has been advanced for purchase is only £40,000. I am not going to argue the question of ownership as against tenancy. A great deal can be said in favour of both. The fact remains that whether people are willing to be purchasers or not, the Act contains within itself the obstacle which absolutely hinders the acquisition of land. I trust in his reply the right hon. Gentleman will state whether or not the Government intend to remove this obstacle in connection with the purchase money. No farm labourer can find sufficient money to purchase his holding. Another object aimed at was that these holdings should be self-contained—that a man should not have to walk from a distant dwelling in the Tillage to a small holding, but that the small holdings should contain within their ambit a house in which the small holder could live. I find as a matter of fact that the total number of houses during the six years in which the Act has been in operation which have been provided by the county councils—of course, I do not include in my calculations those small holdings

  2349
  which have been provided, and increasingly, by the landowners—I am dealing 'with those provided, though not necessarily compulsorily, by the county councils, under the provision of the Act, have only been 488.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to a great number of places in which there are old houses, I mean old houses situated on small holdings. There are a few cases where the old farm houses are sometimes: used to accommodate three or four small holders, but the great majority of small holders live right away from their small holdings. Now, what has been the general result in the five years of the working of the Act. During these five years of the Act" the total number of small holdings provided by county councils have been the comparatively insignificant figure of 8,970. I do not mean to say there are not a large number provided by the voluntary action of landowners, but that is the total number of small holdings, provided by county councils. I cannot help thinking that is a very unsatisfactory result. But what does that mean? Does that mean that the county councils are doing their work or that there is no demand at the present moment? What is the unsatisfied demand which Mr. Jennings' very optimistic Report says is not likely to be satisfied. In the year 1912, to which the Report refers, there is an unsatisfied demand of over 9,000 persons who wish to become small holders. That is an unsatisfactory condition of affairs. What does that unsatisfactory condition of affairs show? It shows that the county council—I am not going to blame the county council—are not efficient instruments for the purpose of supplying the demand for small holdings. I am perfectly willing to make the admission that in Norfolk and one or two other counties which I had an opportunity of visiting there has been a response as far as the county councils could go, to satisfy the demand of their neighbour.
  The county council are necessarily and naturally penurious and timid about investing money in land. It is not a very large amount, I think, something over £3,000,000 only has been sanctioned by the Local Government Board up to the present, and for 1912, the largest sum, £800,000, has been sanctioned, and this is to be paid off in a comparatively few number of years, and carries a very heavy interest. It is wholly inadequate, and is merely trifling with the question of meeting the demand for small
  2350
  holdings. Is that satisfactory? If a strong Minister of Agriculture would undertake the task, I think this House will support him in carrying this scheme forward, and instead of taking your county council, and counties as units, if you would take a district, as is done in Germany and in Denmark, if you take the larger unit and have a board created ad hoc, then you would be able to secure power for not only responding to, but for creating a demand for small holdings. Why do I say that? I think hon. Members opposite, who are well acquainted with agricultural conditions, will agree with me that small holdings are instituted by county councils in very small numbers. Sometimes an estate of 600 acres is purchased, sometimes an estate of 1,000 acres is purchased. Very little judgment is displayed
  in this connection. I know one or two small holdings in which the sites are absolutely inappropriate, and impossible of being cultivated with any success. You must have a sufficient number of persons in a colony in order to secure combination in the purchase of their food stuffs and manures and machinery, and transit to market, and by that combination alone, except in a few favoured localities, can success be achieved. I visited a locality some time ago, and saw the remarkable success that had been attained even in the absence of co-operation, but if you take the small holders and deal with them as it is the intention of this Act to deal with them, it is perfectly obvious they cannot enjoy the advantage of co-operation if they are too few in numbers. You must have a comparatively large number to do that as it is done in Germany and in Denmark. I have given a life long study to this matter, and I would point out to my right hon. Friend the desirability of recognising these things before further money is wasted in this futile but praiseworthy efforts of county councils, and in some cases successful effort, but generally speaking, futile effort, to carry out what was the intention of this Act.
  I would like to say a word or two on what is done in Germany. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for favouring us with an invaluable Blue Book by one of those most efficient of our public servants upon the condition of agriculture in Germany. It would pay hon. Members interested in agriculture to read and study what is shown in that report. What does that report show In this country, we have at present forty-

  2351
  five agricultural credit societies. The Board of Agriculture has done nothing whatever beyond communicating with Joint Stock Banks to encourage the foundation of agricultural co-operative societies. If hon. Members had been, as I have been, through the villages of Germany, they would find that throughout the German Empire, ordinarily speaking, there is not a village in which there is not a co-operative credit society subsidised by the Government, which enables small holders to buy their manures, and send their produce to market. Everything is done for enabling the small holder to buy in the cheapest market and to sell in the best. The Board of Agriculture here have done nothing beyond making an appeal to the Joint Stock Banks to help forward this cause, which the Governments in Germany and in Denmark have themselves instituted and carried on. I think that is a serious reflection upon our Administration. I do not refer to this Government any more than to any other in regard to the administration of these Acts intended for the development of small holdings. The matter does not end there. I have read successive Reports, and some very severe criticisms on the administration of the fund which is intended for agricultural improvement. It is a very insignificant fund, and the revenue is totally inadequate to carry out its present purpose. The whole system is perfectly absurd. You have a certain sum for founding a chair or a scholarship in certain universities.
  In Germany and Denmark they do not create a number of pedagogues. They take to the workpeople on their small farms all the instruments and practical means by which they can be taught how, economically and scientifically, to carry out the agricultural operations in which they are engaged. I have made these observations upon a subject to which I have given close attention for many years. We may have the bland assurances of Ministers of Agriculture that everything is going very nicely, and we may have optimistic reports setting forth figures showing that this county and that county is doing very well, and so forth, but we shall not make any progress whatever. No attempt has been made either by the Local Government Board or the Board of Agriculture—though I think it ought not to be the Local Government Board—to deal with the question of cottage and
  2352
  housing accommodation for small holders. I have spoken with many members of county councils who are engaged on committee work in this business, and they all say, "We dare not take the risk," and the result has been that the total number of houses does not exceed 300 or 400. We have heard of the wild scheme of a single tax, and of various other methods of dealing with the agricultural problem, but I submit that we do not use the machinery which we possess at present. We do not give encouragement to those bodies like the county councils, which in a way are able to do the work. We do not increase the powers of the county councils; and when we see that these county councils are absolutely inefficient instruments—as they are—for the purpose of carrying out what Parliament cheerfully granted in 1910, we make no attempt—it is a purely laissez-faire position we take up—to place it in hands strong enough and capable enough to deal with the matter. This report about foot-and-mouth disease no doubt is valuable enough; at the same time there are deeper evils in connection with the cultivation of the soil than those concerned with the diseases of cattle or sheep. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will let us have some statesmanlike declaration of what the policy of the Government is with regard to the extension of small holdings, which undoubtedly are regarded by the agricultural labourers as a means of raising him to a higher status than that to which, under present agricultural conditions, they are able to attain.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sure the Committee have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mt. Atherley-Jones), who has paid such close attention to this subject of small holdings, than which no subject occupies the political platform more largely. The hon. and learned Member has rather minimised the difficulties which underlie the question in this country. I think, in comparing the work done and the results obtained here with the work done and results obtained in other countries, he forgets two factors of very vital importance. Those factors both arise here because we are a great industrial community and our standard of living is very much higher. I have myself been a small holder in Norway for thirty years and I know how the peasants live there, and, although they are happy, their standard of living is far below that which

  2353
  would be accepted by the working class generally in this country; that is, they work harder with less result to themselves. Our happiness is always comparative, and as long as our neighbours are as badly off as we are we remain happy. I wish to ask, is the small holder in England going to accept a standard which is below the standard of living for a man who works less hard than himself and receives higher wages? You will not be able to keep the best men, and it is only a small proportion of the best of our working men who will obey the call to the land. If they have a call they will prefer to work on and do their best, but there are very few of that description.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: What about Canada? The agriculaural labourer has emigrated to Canada in large numbers.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am assuming that these men remain in this country, and I am dealing with the conditions which are applicable to this country. I think the Committee will feel that this is a question in regard to which we ought to look for a solution in the direction of linking up the whole Empire, looking at it as a unit in which a man may go to a large agricultural area and not an industrial area, rather than put a poor man as you do in this case on poor land and expect him to get rich in consequence. I do not say that that is a solution, but I say that it may be the wisest direction in which to look. I say that there are comparatively few in this industrial country who will take a hard life on the small holdings when they have a better industrial opening close at hand.That is one of the difficulties. The other difficulty is that the industrial community, under the conditions in which we live has, wisely or unwisely, set up a standard of living and housing suitable for a population in an industrial centre, but, which it is wholly impossible to provide for a community of small holders. Add both these things together, that is the standard at which the small holder has to live, and the accommodation to be provided for him because of the standard imposed upon him as a member of a great industrial community, and you will find that it is like mixing oil with water. To suppose that you are ever going to retain the industrial supremacy of England and at the same time establish on a great scale similar to that which has been
  2354
  adopted in purely agricultural countries like Denmark a population of small holders is an idle dream, and it will be Absurd to attempt it. The hon. Member said no encouragement had been given to small holdings. We have been told that there is no better encouragement than putting your hands in your pockets. We have just heard that the State for the present comparatively small installation of small holdings is pledged to an extent of no less than £200,000. That is a very considerable sum. We have got about 10,000 small holdings which have cost £200,000. Hothouse cultivation, that is what it comes to ! No industry, to my mind, can be worth encouragement in this country unless, after it has been started properly, it can stand independently and honourably upon its own economic basis.
  The fault of the Act is that it is applied to all counties. Commissioners are appointed, and they are repeatedly told in Debate in this House that counties are compared with each other. The results are compared without any regard to the different conditions obtaining in those counties, and extra Commissioners are appointed to apply "ginger" to those counties that have fallen behind. That is not the system upon which this House should proceed. If small holdings are to be a success in this country, the facts which I have put before the Committee must be recognised. They cannot be universal. Conditions in different counties and districts vary enormously, and it is only with certain conditions and in certain soils that small holdings can be a success. Then the individual small holder left to himself will very probably succeed. Something in the nature of a colony where cooperation and advice are available gives by far the most likely chance of success. Instead of making each county, irrespective of its particular conditions, arrive at a certain numerical standard of success, you ought to recognise that there are only certain particular districts suitable for small holdings. There are no parts scarcely in Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, and the Isle of Ely which are not suitable, but, on the other hand, the heavy clay lands of Suffolk are not suitable. They all, however, have to put the Act into operation; otherwise. Commissioners are sent down to apply "ginger." Let the Board of Agriculture, through the county councils or any other machinery the Government choose to provide, create colonies of genuine small

  2355
  holders in favourable districts, and let that be a national policy. Do not set up this absurd competition between different localities. May I tell the Committee to what a point of absurdity this competition is actually taken? There is an administrative county under the direction of the county council of the Isle of Ely, and there is also, as is well known, a county council which directs operations in the great county of Norfolk. It happened that there was a farm for sale in the Isle of Ely which was suitable for small holdings, and the county council of the Isle of Ely desired to acquire it. They applied to the Board of Agriculture for authority to purchase this farm and the Board gave them permission, but imposed a rigid limit on the price up to which the county council might bid. The Norfolk County Council had also got its eye on the farm, which they desired to obtain for the small holders of the county of Norfolk, and on the principle which I have just suggested that suitable farms for small holdings should not be restricted to any one county—I am not putting it from that point of view—the county of Norfolk, being more independent of the right hon. Gentleman than the County Council of Ely apparently, proceeded in a very perfunctory method. I believe they did inform the Commissioner for the district—the Commissioner who regulates the affairs of the Ely County Council—that they desired to take the farm. Consequently the two county councils sent their representatives into the auction room, and they bid against each other. The Ely County Council bid up to the limit allowed them and the Norfolk County Council paid no less than £70 per acre for this farm to be divided among small holders.
  That is the kind of competition set up by this present system, and the unfortunate small holder is called upon to pay a rent sufficient to cover the absurd price given for the land under such conditions. It surely is an impossible system. I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman to stop this system of competition between the counties. I am sure his speech showed he has paid most careful personal attention to many of the difficult problems he has to face. We all recognise that he is bringing a trained business mind—a mind not trained in agriculture, but trained in business, which is just as important—to bear on his work. It is well that those who take high office should not enter on it supposed to know everything in the
  2356
  office. He should have a trained business mind and get his technical information from the experts, but he should apply ordinary business common sense without entering on the office thinking he is going to put everybody right, owing to his knowledge previously acquired. We all recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has shown great attention to his work; he has shown that he has acquired very great knowledge of the subjects he has to deal with; and I hope he will continue to apply these common-sense business principles. 'So long as he and his Department adhere to the very first duty—I wish it were the only duty—of assisting agriculture in all its branches on wholly non-political lines —so long as he adheres to such questions as he has devoted his time to discussing to-night—the question of agricultural research the question of the diseases of animals, the question of the breeding of live stock and all those most supremely practical matters—as long as he makes himself equally the friend of the little farmer and the big farmer, equally the friend of the landlord and the labourer—so long as he shows that his one desire is, without any political afterthought of any sort or description, to help the industry of agriculture and everybody engaged in it—so long will he have the support of both sides of the House.
  The trouble in this small holdings question solely arises from the introduction of the political element. The right hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well. I do not think he wishes to introduce it—it is forced upon him by debates in this House. This competition between counties is not the result of the action of the Board of Agriculture taken on practical economic grounds; it is the result of political action in this House and outside. If the right hon. Gentleman can only eliminate that political element from the question of small holdings, as he has done in connection with agricultural research and other matters mentioned in his speech I think he will find that soluble difficulties will be solved. The underlying difficulties will always remain. These root difficulties are there and must be recognised. What is done must be done subject to these difficulties, and it is perfectly useless for the right hon. Gentleman to attempt legislation in face of the great economic facts which remain constant and which legislation is absolutely powerless to deal with. He will recognise the limit of efforts of legislation and administration, and

  2357
  when he does not encounter these insoluble economic difficulties he will find plenty of room for practical effort, and he will succeed in founding many successful colonies of small holders. I do ask him and his Friends, when dealing with this question, to avoid the political side of it, and to confine themselves to whatever is practical and useful to agriculture from all points of view.
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt, I think successfully, with almost every point raised from this side of the Committee. He referred to the question of motors for fishermen. I do not think I need add anything to what was said upon that. The right hon. Gentleman evidently knows the matter, and he and his Department have it in hand. I may, however, say that from what I myself have seen abroad, the advantage of motors to fishing boats cannot be exaggerated. I agree with him that in this and all other cases we must do all we can to encourage individual effort. We do not want everybody to be spoon-fed by the State, but we do want to give as much encouragement as possible. There is another matter in regard to the fishing industry. I desire to ask if some assistance cannot be given from the Development Grant to educational purposes in connection with the fishing industry on the same lines as it is given to the agricultural industry. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that the Government require from the skippers and mates of fishing vessels certificates of efficiency such as are required in the case of merchant vessels. These skippers and mates have to obtain the tuition necessary for the scientific side of the work privately at their own cost. In one or two cases the borough education authorities have set up technical schools for fishermen. I will give an instance of what has been done at Grimsby, which will show the Committee the results obtained by means of schools of this kind. I have here the figures furnished to me by the Fishermen's Technical School at Grimsby. During the month of June this year the total voluntary attendances were no less than 12.138, on the part of 834 different fishermen. In June, 1912, there were 10.186 attendances by 810 fishermen. There is a steady increase. It is remarkable that there should be so many of a hard-working body of men, who spend a large proportion of their time at sea in the North Sea under very trying conditions, willing to give
  2358
  voluntary attendance at technical schools of this character. The consequence was that during last month nine of these fishermen who received that instruction successfully passed the examinations for the certificates required by the Government. That school is carried on partly by private effort, but mainly at the expense of the borough education authority. It would be of the greatest advantage to that work if the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries could obtain from the Development Commissioners some grant, not for the purpose of paying teachers, and not a recurring grant, but a grant once and for all—it would not require a very large sum—to assist them in purchasing the scientific apparatus which is necessary for institutions of that character. That is an expensive thing, the teaching of navigation. Various models and scientific instruments are required, and they are a very heavy burden upon a locality. It is possible that a large town like Grimsby or Hull might get over that, but there are many smaller parts where it is very difficult to afford this expenditure for scientific apparatus, and subject to the Board of Agriculture being satisfied that the instruction given merited the assistance, and that the attendances would be sufficient to warrant it, I think the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether he could not move the Development Commissioners to give him some help towards scientific apparatus and encourage the institution of schools of technical instruction for fishermen on the lines of that being so successfully worked at Grimsby.
  It is an unfortunate thing that the right hon. Gentleman should have to come here as a Cabinet Minister and as representing the Board of Agriculture and inform the House of Commons that although he himself has a scheme in which he believes for improvements in agriculture and assistance to be given either to agriculture or fisheries as, for instance, in the scheme for the improvement of live stock, he has to go with his hat in his hand to the Development Commissioners, and unless they agree with the views which he expresses they withhold the money from him. That is not a proper position in which this House should be put. I do not even quite know what our position is here in the House itself. Supposing this Committee expressed in the Division Lobby a very strong opinion that a certain scheme or a desirable one, I do not know what the authority would be with which the

  2359
  right hon. Gentleman would go to the Development Commissioners. I do not know whether the House has any authority itself over the Development Commissioners, but the Board of Agriculture ought to be strong enough, and public opinion behind it ought to be strong enough to insist that where money is granted by Parliament, in whatever form, for an improvement of the agricultural industry or the fishing industry, that money ought to be directly entrusted to the Government Department which has the care of that industry in its charge, and that Minister ought to be directly responsible to the House of Commons. I feel that very strongly, and I cannot see that in this -respect the Development Commissioners are anything but a fifth wheel to the coach which is not required, and we should much prefer to see the right hon. Gentleman take the responsibility himself and be entrusted with the money rather than that he should tell us that the schemes cannot be carried out until he has got the Commissioners to agree to every detail of the proposals which he makes.
  We have had some very interesting suggestions made as to the provision of cottages. The right hon. Gentleman recently made a public utterance on that subject, in which he told us he had no intention whatever of being political, and that we quite accept. At any rate on both sides of the House there is a complete consensus of opinion that many cottages are required in the rural districts from every point of view, and I do not believe that there is any one Royal road to the provisions of these cottages, unless it be that which was rather suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that the State should undertake itself to provide a very large number of cottages. I should be very sorry to absolutely condemn that suggestion, but if the State is to enter into competition with private enterprise in the provision of cottages it must make up its mind definitely before it starts that policy how far it is prepared to carry it. In those districts where cottages are built out of the rates and let at very low rents, the whole machinery being calculated, with State credit behind it, to bring rents down to the lowest possible point, it is obviously impossible that private enterprise can compete in that particular district. That is all very well if the State is prepared to house a district and every-
  2360
  body in it, but you cannot have both concurrently. You cannot have individual enterprise and State expenditure competing with one another within the same area. I cannot see how that can be practicable, and that must be borne in mind. If the State is prepared to house everybody who wants a house in a rural district, let the Government face the problem and provide the many millions which will be required to meet it. Let them tell the House of Commons how they propose to carry out the scheme, but do not let them suppose that by merely finding a few hundred thousand pounds to provide cottages here and there they are going thereby to solve the problem, which is a national problem, and which ought to be dealt with as such, after surveying the whole field before any scheme is undertaken.
  On the question of foot-and-mouth disease there was one aspect which the right hon. Gentleman omitted to mention. He said nothing whatever of the investigations which are now proceeding as to what I regard as the most important point in the whole matter, and that is, the origin of the disease and from what points the infection may reach this country. I think the investigations ought not to be confined to the time when an outbreak is actually upon us. I do not know whether the investigations held on that point hitherto have had any result. He must realise that the success with which we have kept foot-and-mouth disease out of the country has enormously increased our danger. Our flocks and herds not having been assaulted by the disease, the moment it came it would run like fire through them, just as measles when it attacks a North American tribe, which from all time has been free from the disease, rapidly spreads. There never was a case where prevention is better than cure than that of foot-and-mouth disease. No exertion is too great and no expenditure too high in endeavouring to get at a real understanding of the methods by which infection may still continue to reach this country. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman relax the inquiry. Let him do his utmost to trace the origin of the disease. If we can stop it from coming in, we shall really have a feeling of security which we have not now. Outbreaks have been so mysterious, and their origin so absolutely without explanation, that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must feel anxiety on the subject. There is no certainty that when he goes to his.

  2361
  office to-morrow he will not get intimation of an outbreak in some part of the country. We have no indication whatever of how the infection reached us in connection with the outbreaks last year and the year before. I hope he will keep that Aspect of the question fully in his mind, and lose no opportunity of getting information on the subject. The hon. Member for the Horncastle Division (Captain Weigall) raised the question as to what position we should be in as to the maintenance of all this most important research work in agriculture as regards the development of works when those Grants peter out. The President of the Board of Agriculture replied very courteously that this was £400,000 now and that he felt quite sure that no future Government would refuse the Grants necessary to carry on the work. I am afraid that that assurance was hardly sufficiently explicit, because I think the hon. Members will realise that this expenditure which is being incurred for agricultural research is expenditure which involves very large future liabilities indeed, and I am afraid that although the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman was given in the very best faith he must himself know that the local authorities have had a very unfortunate experience in this matter. They have had expensive duties thrown upon them constantly. They have been asked to incur liabilities and they have been told frequently that Parliament would some day help them, and then Parliament has left them to bear the burden themselves. I quite understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. I am certain that the local authorities would undertake this work with a very much better heart and that he would find them very much more responsive to an invitation given by him to undertake work of this Character if they had not only a vague hope but a definite assurance that Parliament would continue to the full the national assistance which is necessary for these experiments and this research work to continue to grow as it ought to grow. Nothing can be more advantageous to agriculture. There is no spoon-feeding about it. It is of the greatest possible advantage to agriculturists at large that there should be this scientific and practical research. I think that there are two sides to it. It is important for the scientist to go about the farm and see the results of his advice being taken. The most important part of the work is not the experiments which enable him originally to give
  2362
  advice, but a study of the actual results in practical use by the farmers of the advice which has been given to them, because what is true on a small scale in practice is not always true on a large scale.
  There is another very small suggestion on that matter. The right hon. Gentleman knows that very valuable work is being done in rural schools, in which they are teaching children with small plots the practical work of agriculture. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should invite the schoolmasters and instructors who are carrying out that work to write to these centres of research to ask them any questions which they may desire to ask for the benefit of the pupils or of themselves who are carrying out this work of instruction. Swine fever is the only matter as to which we cannot feel quite satisfied with the work that is being carried on. Though we all recognise the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his task, we do feel that in this matter the Board of Agriculture has not succeeded, and that the explanation which he has given, although in many points interesting, was not wholly satisfactory, and particularly in the matter of scheduled areas. Nothing was said of and no defence was given of a very curious provision by which lines, apparently without any particular reason, were drawn in different parts of the country. On both sides of these lines there may be infected areas and yet no pigs are allowed to traverse that particular line. That seems to be an unreasonable method, and I am afraid that I cannot advise my hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion which he has made on that ground. I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that if a Division is taken on that point, it is not with any general desire to find any fault with the administration of his office, but solely because of our dissatisfaction on the point raised by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Before the Committee comes to a decision on this Vote I should like to deal very briefly with three or four points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the first place, I would like to say that so far as I am concerned it is impossible for me to promise as to what Parliament will do in future. The Grants which are made available for the Development Commissioners at the present moment for agricultural educational work, and for research work, are quite sufficient

  2363
  to see out this Parliament. It will not be necessary for me to make any fresh claim on the Exchequer, excepting that for the Development Fund during this Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "How long will the Parliament last?"] If there should be an election two years hence, and if we were not in a majority it might be the duty of the hon. Gentleman to ask Parliament for further Grants, but even in two years hence it will not be necessary to ask for any addition to the Estimates. The Development Fund will even then be sufficient to provide for all the requirements. I cannot promise at the present moment what will be done four or five years hence, for as everybody knows the money is voted year by year. So far as we are concerned, it is our intention, having started this agricultural education, that it shall be continued with adequate national assistance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say the same for his side of the House. As to the question of the origin of foot-and-mouth disease, we have been making full inquiries as far as we possibly could into the origin of that infection, and we directed them to particular cases. When some of them originated in Ireland my right hon. Friend the head of the Irish Department did his best to ascertain the source of the disease in Ireland, but I am afraid in vain. We were in exactly the same position here with regard to outbreaks which were not directly attributable to the Irish infection. Inquiries which were made over a very large area—some of them of a most private nature—elicited no information which gave us any proof as to the origin. We are keeping our eyes constantly open on the subject. The only other question I would mention now is with reference to Fisheries education work. We have been in close touch with the board of Education, and I feel that any money that would be available for technical education would have to come
  out of their Grant. They are sympathetically disposed towards the special work at Grimsby and elsewhere, and it is possible we may carry the work to further development, not only at Grimsby, but in other fishing ports. The Grant which the hon. Gentleman asked might be made from the Development Fund for scientific instruments I will take into consideration, and if any case is brought to my notice I shall be glad to investigate it fully.
  Mr. C. BATHURST Mr. C. BATHURST rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of the strong appeal made to him by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland), whether, with regard to the removal of restrictions on the importation of live cattle, he has received from the Argentine Government any request that they should be allowed to export live cattle for slaughter to this country?
  Mr. RUNCI MAN: No, not at present. The Government is unable to assure me that foot-and-mouth disease is absent from the Argentine.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: May I ask whether any such request has been received within the past six months?
  Mr. C. BATHURST Mr. C. BATHURST rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, as he was of opinion that the Committee were very shortly prepared to come to a decision without that Motion.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £159,432, be granted his Majesty for the said service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 58 Noes, 205.

  Division No. 207.]

  AYES.

  [11.1 p.m.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Barnston, Harry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Bird, Alfred

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Cassel, Felix

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Cator, John

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Welgall, Captain A. G.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Sandys, G. J.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Younger, Sir George

  Royds, Edmund

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Stewart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. C. Bathurst and Mr. Stanler.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Hancock, John George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Alden, Percy

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Dowd, John

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Grady, James

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shee, James John

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Barnes, George N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Hinds, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barton, William

  Hodge, John

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hudson, Walter

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Radford, G. H.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Raffan, peter Wilson

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Reddy, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jowett, F. W..

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

  Kelly, Edward

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robinson, Sidney

  Clancy, John Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Clough, William

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rowlands, James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cotton, William Francis

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cullinan, John

  Lynch, A. A.

  Scanlan, Thomas.

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Delany, William

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Sutton, John E.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doris, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duffy, William J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Wardle, George J.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Molloy, Michael

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Webb, H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Morison, Hector

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Field, William

  Muldoon, John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Munro, Robert

  Wiles, Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Neilson, Francis

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Griffith. Ellis Jones

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

  It being after Eleven of the clock, the chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Friday); Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY (recommitted) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. PETO: I desire to assure the House that in rising to speak upon the Third Reading of this measure, which has just passed through Committee with such extraordinary and satisfactory facility, I do not do so with any view of opposing the proposals of the Postmaster-General, but, rather, to point out to the House, as I feel it my duty to do, that the Committee which reported on this Bill to the House felt bound to make a Report of a special nature to the Postmaster-General which was certainly intended in a friendly spirit to the scheme of the Bill, and which I hope personally will result in very considerable improvement in the method in which this railway will be carried out. I think the simplest plan would be for me to read the very short Report to which I refer. There are three Clauses, and I think the House should be acquainted with the nature of the Report. The first Clause says:—
"The Committee while satisfied that ample provision is being made for the extension of the mail traffic on present lines bear in mind the fact that the data of our experience of other countries hi the handling of mails is very limited, and therefore the present scheme is necessarily of a somewhat experimental character."
On that Clause I should like to say this, that in the United States of America, which is generally regarded as fairly up to date, the experience the advisers of the Postmaster-General were able to get, was that of an experimental system in New York which consisted of an 8-inch tube which the Postmaster-General's engineer characterised as a blowpipe, and which has no relevancy to the undertaking the House is now considering. In Chicago there is a system which was characterised as extremely complicated and thoroughly unsuited to the demands of the Post Office in this country, and that also was dismissed.
2368
The experience gained on the Continent was of a most limited and experimental character. I do not blame the Post Office for want of experience in this Flatter, but I desire to point out that this scheme here is in the nature of an experiment, and a very large experiment, and it seemed to me and the Committee to be obviously desirable that all contingencies should be taken into account.
Either this scheme is an experimental scheme from which we may depart, or it may turn out to be a very great success, and perhaps a financial success. In the latter case there will be a very large extension of traffic. If that prove to be so, it seems perfectly clear that this experiment, designed with curves of such narrow radius that no vehicle larger than is at present contemplated, that is 2 ft. 10 in. by 3 ft. 7½ inches, by a maximum of 11 ft. in length, can be operated that tube will be useless. Even if the present two-line system of 2 ft. gauge were given up, and a single line adopted, it would be impossible to run on the railway which is now before the House any materially larger vehicle than that which is to be run upon the double plan. It seems to me perfectly clear that on a plan of that kind, the Postmaster-General, with his advisers, is going "nap" on the continuance of the present system. But if, for some reason or other, the present system turns out to be inadequate for the handling of mails, the right hon. Gentleman will not have in his possession for his million of money a practical tube running on ordinary lines, fairly straight, as one would expect of a tube, which could be used for any other purpose, and was not wanted for the Post Office. It appears to me, if that be so, that the Postmaster General's advisers have asked him to incur the very serious risk of his Department spending money on a tube which may become obsolete in a very short number of years. I do not want this railway in the future to be recollected as "Mr. Samuel's folly." I do not think that anything on which public money is spent should be constructed in such a way as to involve unnecessary risk of its becoming obsolete. It is for that reason the Committee to which I refer made this special Report. The members of that Committee to which I have referred do not pretend to be experts; we did not reject the Preamble of the Bill; we did not desire to hold up a

2369
red signal to the Postmaster-General to say that he could not proceed with his scheme. But we did desire to hold up the green light of "caution," pointing out to him that the scheme approved by his experts, in certain circumstances, will be practically valueless to the community. Therefore, I would point out to the House why it is there has been such hesitation on the part of the Postmaster-General's advisers to advise him on a more courageous policy. There is no doubt the Postmaster-General was very well advised if he was told that he would meet with the opposition of vested interests like railway companies and other undertakings if he adopted a design for a practical tube for ordinary vehicles, and constructed on reasonably straight lines. I cart assure the right hon. Gentleman that Ire avoided a great deal of opposition by constructing a tube to run round the corners of every building and keep under roads in order to keep down the amount of compensation, though it is a tube which may soon become obsolete. I do riot think that a Bill involving the expenditure of £1.000,000 of public money which was considered for nine days upstairs should be passed sub silentio without giving the Postmaster-General the opportunity of explaining what steps he proposes to take to avoid the risk of this scheme being rendered obsolete.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member has suggested that we have not adopted a sufficiently courageous policy, and that we have not foreseen adequately the possibility that later on Post Office business may change altogether and that we may be handling parcels on a much bigger scale; in fact, that we may be handling merchandise of such a nature that our tube railway would not be sufficient to cope with it. It is not intended to deal with merchandise as an ordinary railway deals with it. It is to handle mails and parcels. It allows an enormous margin for future expansion if the Post Office business is conducted on anything like the methods it is now. If we were to adopt a new policy, of course, this tube would have to be remodelled, But that is not our intention. The question is whether we should be justified in spending a large additional sum of money which will not be needed so far as we can foresee the future. We are not spending this money on the chance that the Post Office will require a tube of
2370
larger dimensions. The hon. Member supposes that this tube might, at some future time be turned from a double line to a single line traffic, with another tube to carry the return traffic. That would need fresh Parliamentary powers and the Postmaster General would have to come to Parliament. With regard to the curves my engineers deny their extreme sharpness. The line is not intended to carry big heavy trucks or vehicles such as those run on the ordinary railways of London, and the curves are not so excessively sharp going round every building and turning the corner of every street as described by the hon. Member. I have been advised not only by the engineers of the Post Office, but also by a gentleman who is acknowledged to be a most capable engineer, Mr. Dalrymple Hay, and we have followed his guidance in the matter. Having received a Report from the Select Committee I feel I ought to invite further opinions. It is the working out of the engineering details which the Committee, to which the hon. Member belongs, draw my attention. In consequence of what he has said and the Report the Committee has made, I propose to get further engineering opinions from engineers who have not hitherto been associated with this scheme. I am going to ask the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers to nominate one or two men in whom he would have confidence, and to whom the technical points the hon. Member has raised can be submitted. I am sure the House will agree that we here are not competent, as the Select Committee felt themselves not competent, to adjudicate upon the proper radius of these curves, but can assure the hon. Member that the Report presented by the Committee of which he was a member will receive the most careful consideration, and that I shall not hurriedly adopt plans without having further expert engineering advice. I trust that the House will allow us to get the Third Reading of the Bill now, because it has to go to the House of Lords, and, being a Hybrid Bill, the statutory notice has to be given before it can be taken in Committee. Therefore, if it is to be taken this Session, it is urgently necessary that the House of Commons should deal with it.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill; on the contrary, I thoroughly support it. No one who has read the Report of the Committee which investigated this matter can have anything but the greatest desire to help those unfortunate people who live in the islands off the coast of Scotland, and in some of the wilder parts of Scotland, in north-east and north-west, where a great state of poverty prevails. I certainly would not grudge one single penny of help that it is proposed to give them. I divide the Bill into two categories. First of all, there is the provision for medical men where there are no medical men, or where there are not sufficient for the population which requires their aid; and, secondly, there is the building of houses for the accommodation of those medical men, houses for nurses, and cottage hospitals in order that cases can be properly treated away from the homes where there is no accommodation, and where the patients stand little or no chance of recovery owing to the insanitary condition of the houses. For all these reasons, I would be the last man who would not wish that they should have money given them for that purpose. There is another category. The Bill is intended to provide telephonic communication for nursing and ambulance service. That category is founded upon the inaccessibility of many of these places owing to rugged roads, little communication, and the distance from the doctor's house. There are other parts of Scotland which are just as much in need of assistance in this direction as the Highlands and the islands of Scotland, but that is a matter which ought to be and will be reserved for Committee. The Bill in that respect either goes too far or not far enough. Reserving that point, I am one who will gladly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. HOGGE: I only want. to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the fact that although under the Bill a Board is to be set up for the purposes of administration there is no information as to who is to compose that Board and from
2372
what Government Departments the members are to be drawn. I want the right hon. Gentleman to give us some undertaking that before the Bill leaves the House of Commons we shall have the names of the proposed members.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I certainly hope to be able to do what my lion. Friend desires, and give the House this information.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered:—

CLAUSE 3.—(Duties of school board in regard to medical treatment of children. 8 Edw. 7 c. 63.)
Subject to the conditions and provisions contained in Section six of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, a school board shall have, and shall be deemed since the commencement of the said Act to have had, the same powers and duties with reference to the provision of medical (including surgical and dental) treatment for a child attending a school within their district as they have with reference to the provision of sufficient and proper food or clothing or necessary personal attention under and in virtue of the said Section. In carrying out. the provisions of this Act or of Section six of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, a school board shall have power to act in combination with one or more school boards or with the secondary education committee for the district.
Mr. PRINGLE: Before the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKinnon Wood) is moved, I desire to raise one point. Will it be in order, after the right hon. Gentleman has moved his Amendment to propose another Amendment to an earlier Clause.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, we go onwards, not backwards.
Mr. PRINGLE: That is why I have intervened. I wish to move that the Debate be adjourned.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I propose to take the first Amendment tendered.
Mr. PRINGLE: Am I not in order in asking that the consideration of this Bill be adjourned?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is a question before the House. I called upon the Secretary for Scotland, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will give way if the hon. Member has a prior Amendment.
Mr. PRINGLE: I understood it was possible to move the adjournment of the Debate. I will now move to leave out Clause 1.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have begun the consideration of Amendments.
Mr. PRINGLE: My point of order is this. On the Committee stage on the Motion that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill an agreement was reached between the Government and certain members of the Committee that Amendments should be moved on the Report stage.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On which Clause?
Mr. PRINGLE: Clause 3. That was ten days ago. It then appeared that the Bill did not carry out the intention which was in the mind of the Committee.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: And this probably is the Amendment to which the hon. Member refers.
Mr. PRINGLE: That is the matter in point.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait and see.
Mr. HOGGE: I move that the Bill be recommitted.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have passed that stage. Only one Amendment has been handed in.' If the hon. Member wished to recommit the Bill, he should have put his Motion on the Paper.
Mr. WATT: I have an Amendment which comes prior to that of the right hon. Gentlem an.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Secretary for Scotland is in possession.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move after the word "child" ["treatment for a child"] to insert the words "in need of such treatment."
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the conditions contained in the Act referred to in the earlier part. of
2374
the Clause—the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, are not to be taken as eliminating the benefit of medical treatment for certain classes of children. I think these words cover the point raised by the hon. Member and what the Government promised to meet. It is very doubtful whether it is necessary to alter the Clause, but I think these words make it perfectly plain that a school board will have power to give medical (including surgical and dental) treatment to a child in need of such treatment. I hope my hon. Friend will accept that Amendment, which is intended to meet his point, and will allow us to obtain this evening the Report stage of this Bill, which is very urgently wanted by the school boards to enable them to provide medical treatment to the children under their care.
Mr. PRINGLE: In my view this Amendment does not meet the situation. The Clause as it will now run with the Amendment says:—
"Subject to the conditions and provisions contained in Section 6 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, a school board shall have, and shall be deemed since the commencement of the said Act to have had, the same powers and duties with reference to the provision of medical (including surgical and dental) treatment for a child "—
Then the Amendment comes in-
"in need of such treatment attending a school within their district as they have with reference to the provision of sufficient and proper food and clothing, or necessary personal attention under and in virtue of the said Section."
Section 6 of the Act of 1908 is referred to. This Clause is expressed to be subject to the conditions and provisions of that Section. What are the conditions and provisions of that Section?
"When as the result of medical inspection or otherwise it is brought to the notice of a school board that a child attending a school within their district is in a filthy or verminous state, or is unable by reason of lack of food or of clothing to take full advantage of the education provided."
Those conditions still remain. Unless those two conditions are fulfilled, no matter how much a child may be in need of medical attendance, it will not be entitled to it. The Amendment proposed by the Secretary for Scotland does not

2375
provide medical attendance for a child in need of medical attendance unless those conditions are fulfilled. I raised this point in Committee on the Bill. At that time the Lord Advocate admitted to me that an Amendment was necessary, and would be proposed on the Report stage. Last week he brought to me a form of words which met my case, different from that which is now proposed by the Secretary for Scotland. I accepted that form of words as the Amendment which should be inserted in the Bill. No Amendment has been placed upon the Paper. To-night, without notice, we have been asked to take up the Report stage of the Bill, and we arc asked to deal with this manuscript Amendment without being in a position to consider whether it thoroughly meets the case raised on the Committee stage. On the grounds I have put before the House, I hold that the conditions laid down in Section 6 still continue to limit the giving or medical attendance under this Bill. That being so, I hold that it does not carry out the intention of the Scottish Members in Committee. Therefore I am going to oppose the Amendment.
Mr. JAMES HOGGE: May I point out to the House that this Bill is the result of a legal action taken in Scotland, when the school boards attempted to treat medically the children whom they had discovered to he ill. The point which has been raised by my hon. Friend illustrates again how easily possible it will be to have a similar action raised with regard to the children who are not either verminous or hungry. Therefore it is the more necessary that this Bill should be watertight so that we shall not be subject again to a further amending Bill. I want also to associate myself with the complaint of my hon. Friend in regard to our treatment of this Bill. It is more than ten days ago since this question was raised in the Scottish Grand Committee, and we were informed that an Amendment would be put down which would meet the view which had general acceptance at that time in the Scottish Grand Committee. I attempted to move the recommittal of the Bill, and you, Sir, very properly replied that you had called upon the Secretary for Scotland. How could we know that he was to be called upon to move an Amendment? The mere fact that it was a manuscript Amendment deprived us of the opportunity of recommitting the Bill. That is scarcely a proper way to deal with the
2376
Scottish Members in a matter which is of great importance to them and their constituents.
I think we Scottish Members were entitled to see the terms of the Amendment. Someone must have overlooked what seems to me the very necessary duty of putting on the Order Paper an Amendment which was definitely promised in Committee. I hope that will have some weight with the Secretary for Scotland in not persisting in the Amendment. I would suggest that the Secretary for Scotland withdraws his Amendment and that the Government put on the Order Paper an Amendment which will cover the case in order that we may see it and further amend it if necessary. That will not take very much time because if the Government put on the Amendment Paper an Amendment in the terms which were drafted by the Lord Advocate and shown to us, we shall be prepared to let the Bill go through without any discussion. It does not mean delaying the Government's programme, but it means a very great deal to us. This is symptomatic of the kind of treatment to which we are subject from time to time. I protest strongly that in being called to sit upon the Grand Committee, and having debated this point and agreed with the Ministers in charge of the Bill that they would submit an Amendment of this kind, we should be subjected to a manuscript Amendment of which we have no notice, of which no indication was given to us in any way, and which therefore precludes us from recommitting the Bill, which I scarcely think is fair in view of the procedure of this House.
Mr. BARNES: I desire to associate myself with my hon. Friends, and to say that in my judgment we have not been treated quite fairly in regard to this Bill. I moved an Amendment upstairs which was refused by the Secretary for Scotland as he thought the Bill fulfilled the purpose I had in view. The purpose I had in view is that the Bill should make provision not only for neglected or necessitous children, and those are the only children which can be attended to under the terms of Section 6 of the 1908 Act, which is imported into this Bill, but for children requiring medical attendance whether they are the children of poor parents or whether they are neglected or not. It does not necessarily follow that a child is neglected if it is suffering from ringworm or something of that sort. We want this Bill to

2377
make provision so that if a child is found suffering from some ailment which can be treated institutionally far better than it is possible for a working-man to have the child attended to by his own doctor the school board shall be able to treat the child institutionally, and have power to recover the money which might be agreed upon between them and the parents.
The child of a respectable and well-to-do parent might be attending school suffering from one of those complaints that can be dealt with better in an institution than in the home of the parents, and if the child was so treated the fee could be recovered afterwards. I agree with my hon. Friends that the suggestion of the Secretary for Scotland does not meet the case at all because all the conditions in Section. 6 of the 1908 Act will apply unless we make provisions otherwise in this Bill. I have tried my 'prentice hand in framing an Amendment, but I am told it would not be appropriate to move it at this particular place. I would suggest to the Secretary for Scotland to consider whether the following words could be inserted as a proviso: "and shall also have power to provide suitable medical treatment for non-necessitous children on a scale of fees, with power to recover same from parents." I suggest that would carry. out the object we have in view, and also the object which the Secretary for Scotland has in view.
Mr. McK1N NON WOOD: I regret that the Amendment has not been put down. My hon. Friends think that these words do not carry out the draft Amendment. The speech of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) raises an entirely different point from that urged by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle). As the Amendment has not been put down I am prepared to take the matter back.so that it may be put down. I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."

LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTIONS (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL.
Order for Second Reading Read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. BOOTH: This item is not "starred" on the Order Paper. I do not know why it should be selected from amongst other admirable Bills. I have no objection to this except that it does not comply with the Rule of the House passed on 22nd July.
Mr. SPEAKER: As the hon. Member objects to the Bill being taken now, it must be deferred.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the purchase and maintenance, by the Commissioners of Works, out of Moneys to be Provided by Parliament., of Monuments within the meaning of any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Ancient Monuments, and the payment of any Expenses which may be incurred thereunder."
Mr. HOGGE: Will all this money be spent by the Ancient. Monuments Board, or will the separate Advisory Board in Scotland receive any share of it?
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): This Money Resolution is not necessitated by the expenses of any Board, but because the definition of ancient monuments is extended by this Bill, and the Money Resolution which covers the existing Acts does not cover the Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: Can my hon. Friend give me any idea of the amount of money to which we are being committed?
Mr. BENN: There is no definite commitment. It merely means that the Commissioners have power to take certain monuments which otherwise they would not have the power to do, and any expenditure will be regulated by Estimates which will appear before Parliament every year.
Mr. BOOTH: Surely we can have an estimate of the cost of what is projected by this Bill.
Mr. BENN: The Bill extends the definition of ancient monuments, and the Commissioners may issue an order with reference to any monument under the Bill. When that order has been made it has to be passed through all its stages in this House, and moreover the money has to appear on the Estimates of the Commissioners of Works, and if my hon. Friend thinks it necessary to move a reduction then he can do so. It is not possible now to say how much the money will be because we do not know what monuments it will be proposed to take over.
Mr. BOOTH: Will my hon. Friend inform the Committee whether already that Department has decided to include some ancient monuments they have in view. The object of this Bill is not merely to appear before the House in a grandiloquent way, but for a definite practical object. Surely they have got some monuments in their purview which they have decided to buy.
Mr. BENN: We have not any particular monuments in view. We have an in
2380
spector who recommends monuments of which it might be necessary for us to assume the guardianship, and if we did so the expenditure on repairs would come under this order.
Resolution agreed to; to be reported tomorrow (Friday).

TELEGRAPH (MONEY).
Committee to consider of making further provision out of the Consolidated Fund and moneys provided by Parliament for raising money for the purpose of the Telegraph Acts 1863 to 1911. King's recommendation signified To-morrow.[Mr. Gulland.]
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes before Twelve)'clock

  St. David's Unity of Ivorites.
  St. David's Unity of Ivorites.
  Public Bills (1896–1912).
  Public Bills (1896–1912).
  Sheep Diseases (Research Work).
  Sheep Diseases (Research Work).
  Merchant Service (Apprentices).
  Merchant Service (Apprentices).
  Land Clauses Acts.
  Land Clauses Acts.
  Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Convent National Schools.
  Convent National Schools.
  Steamship Repairs.
  Steamship Repairs.
  Land Purchase Charges.
  Land Purchase Charges.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
ROYAL NAVY.
  DOCKYARD EXPENSE ACCOUNTS.
  DOCKYARD EXPENSE ACCOUNTS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MILITARY BUILDINGS.
  MILITARY BUILDINGS.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  FIELD BATTERIES.
  FIELD BATTERIES.
  SPECIAL RESERVE.
  SPECIAL RESERVE.
AIRCRAFT.
  CENTRAL FLYING SCHOOL.
  CENTRAL FLYING SCHOOL.
  Single School Parishes.
  Single School Parishes.
  Re-exports from India.
  Re-exports from India.
  Colonels' Allowances (India).
  Colonels' Allowances (India).
  Gold Coinage (India).
  Gold Coinage (India).
  Trinidad.
  Trinidad.
  Illegal Trawling (Scotland).
  Illegal Trawling (Scotland).
  Cuban Ports Company.
  Cuban Ports Company.
  International Opium Conference.
  International Opium Conference.
  Peace Conference.
  Peace Conference.
  Vaccination Fees.
  Vaccination Fees.
  Pauper Lunatics
  Pauper Lunatics
  British Westinghouse Company.
  British Westinghouse Company.
  Redirected Correspondence.
  Redirected Correspondence.
  Cork Postmen.
  Cork Postmen.
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Money Order Regulations.
  Money Order Regulations.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15).

Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Ribble Fisheries Provisional Order.

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 22).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

TRADE BOARDS ACT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. (No. 136.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL. (No. 137.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.

EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment to be considered on Monday next.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND) IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
A petition of Mr. Walter Young, Solicitor to the Wandsworth Borough Council, praying for leave to present a petition of the Wandsworth Borough Council, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered on Monday next in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LORD ISLINGTON'S VOTE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): Your Lordships may remember that yesterday, after my noble friend behind me, Lord Islington, had offered an apology to the House for having broken our rules by voting without having previously taken the oath, and after the noble Marquess opposite had made some observations, I promised to consult with the noble Marquess and with the officers of the House in order to see what steps might properly be taken. I have in the meantime refreshed my memory with regard to what happened in the year 1906, when four noble Lords had committed the same crime as did my noble friend. At

1321
that time Lord Ripon was the Leader of the House, and he pointed out that it had at any rate been some time since it was necessary to pass a Bill of Indemnity through both Houses of Parliament in respect of such an offence, and he suggested, therefore, that the names of the noble Lords should be struck out of the Divisions in which they had improperly taken part.
That proposition was objected to by the noble and learned Earl on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Halsbury), and also by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, whom I do not see in his place, but who, as we all know, is one of the most vigilant watchmen on any matter connected with our procedure; and in the result the whole matter was referred to a small Committee, which looked up precedents and considered what had best be done. As it happened, I was on that Committee. The result of our deliberations was agreement that practically the only course which could usefully be taken was to issue a circular to noble Lords who had not taken the oath by a particular date warning them of the serious consequences which might ensue if they sat and voted. Since then that has been done, and I have no doubt that the practice has saved some noble Lords from inadvertent action. In the case of my noble friend, who has been serving his country in more than one capacity abroad and had not taken his seat in this Parliament, I understand that the notice did not come before him, and he was under the impression, as many noble Lords have been who have been introduced to your Lordships' House, with all the ceremony which accompanies such introduction, that it is not necessary to take the oath afresh in every new Parliament.
After the quite ample and frank apology which my noble friend has made, I think that in all the circumstances it will not be the desire of the House to proceed any further in the matter. Of course, I am not in a position to make the assertion, but I cannot imagine that the Attorney-General, with whom the matter alone rests, can have any desire to proceed against my noble friend in respect of the liability which he has thus incurred. At the same time I quite agree with what I believe to be the general sentiment of the House that we are right in alluding once more to the matter, because a lapse of this kind, however excusable it may be, cannot be regarded as in itself trivial or one which ought to be
1322
altogether passed over. But in this particular case, as the noble Marquess opposite was good enough to say yesterday, I think we may regard the question as closed, and accept the full explanation which was offered by my noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I venture to think that the course which the noble Marquess recommends to the House is one that we shall do well to adopt, if only for this reason, that I really believe no other course is practically open to us. I do not think any one, quite apart from technicalities, would desire that the noble Lord should be subjected to penalties, financial or other, for the omission which he explained, and for which he frankly and with obvious sincerity apologised last night. Again, I do not suppose that any one would desire that this incident should be made the occasion for the passing of a Bill of Indemnity through both Houses of Parliament. One's natural impulse in a case of this kind is to amend the record of your Lordships' proceedings and expunge the vote given by the noble Lord in these particular circumstances, but my noble and learned friend beside me (Lord Halsbury) on a former occasion stated to the House, and I believe would make the same statement to-night, that this is a course which, for various good reasons, is not open to us to take. In these circumstances I cannot help thinking that enough will have been done if notice is taken, as it has been taken, by the House of the noble Lord's irregularity, and that notice having been taken the matter may be allowed to drop.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, the only reason that I intervened on the former occasion was that the noble Lord then in question was warned at the time he was voting that it was irregular and that he ought not to vote until he had taken the oath, but he disregarded that warning and voted in spite of it. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House referred to this procedure as a rule of the House. It is not. It is a Statute. If a Statute is openly disobeyed, it appears to me it is assuming a power to this House which it does not possess to think that the House can overrule a Statute. I intervened on the occasion in question because it seemed to me that open defiance of the law was a thing which we ought not to pass over. What happened afterwards I really do not know. I do not remember whether a Bill of Indemnity was brought forward.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No; it never was, as a matter of fact.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: At that time I took exception to the course proposed, but I understand now that nothing is to be done.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I only desire to add to my apology of yesterday my best thanks to the House for the leniency displayed to me on account of the serious irregularity, however innocent on my part, which I have committed in the early days of my entry to this House. I wish at the same time to apologise for having been the unwitting cause of delaying the business of the House. My regret is tempered by a sense of relief that at least I shall not be responsible for further delaying the business of Parliament by causing the necessity for a Bill of Indemnity.

PLURAL VOTING BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I may remind the House that it is an entirely new Bill dealing with a very old subject. The demand for the abolition of the plural vote has been one of the stock demands of the Liberal Party for a great number of years. To go back only as far as 1891, in that year Mr. Stansfeld, a well-known Member of Parliament, moved certain resolutions relating to the franchise, included in which was a demand for the abolition of the plural vote, and in the course of that debate Mr. Gladstone made a speech of importance and great interest. The demand for the abolition of the plural vote found its place in what was known as the Newcastle Programme, and in fact one might say without fear of contradiction that it has been one of the regular items in the Parliamentary bill of fare so far as the Liberal Party has been able to compose it.
After the General Election of 1906 there was a strong desire to proceed with a measure of this kind, and a Bill was introduced—most of your Lordships here will be familiar with the circumstances—by my right hon. friend who is now Colonial Secretary. That Bill compelled all persons who
1324
were placed on the register in more than one constituency to declare beforehand—that is to say, on or before September 5 in the previous year—for which constituency they desired to be effectively registered. It was obvious, therefore, that that Bill, if it passed into law, would have had its effect not merely upon General Elections but upon all elections whenever they take place. When that Bill was summarily rejected by your Lordships' House it was objected to on two grounds—first, that it is not proper to deal with the subject of Parliamentary reform in a piecemeal manner, a ground of which we shall no doubt hear something to-day; and secondly, on account of the exceedingly complicated nature of its provisions and the somewhat intricate proceedings, as it was argued, which would have to be taken by anybody who might claim to be a plural voter. Last year an hon. Member, one of the supporters of the Government, now an official, Mr. Baker, brought in a measure which covered much the same ground. In the case of Mr. Baker's Bill the possession of the franchise was limited to those who were able to claim it by residence, except in the case of certain definite declarations which could be made; and it is worth noting that that measure also would have applied to all elections and not only to General Elections. Then the House will remember the Government Bill of last year, the Franchise and Registration Bill, which besides doing other things also covered this field. That measure absolutely limited the franchise to a residential qualification, and thereby would have had the effect of altogether abolishing the vote for the Universities, and in the case of the City of London would have reduced the electorate there to those who regularly reside in the City of London, and who, as we know, form but a small part of the existing electorate for that important constituency.
This present Bill is far less ambitious in its scope, and it can candidly be stated that it does not profess to offer, and ought not to be regarded as offering, a definite and final solution of the question with which it deals. By this measure a man can register his qualification anywhere, as he can at present, but, having registered it anywhere, at a General Election he can only vote at one of the places for which he is qualified. No burden is placed upon him for a decision where he will vote until the

1325
very last moment when he desires to exercise his right. One criticism which may be offered, and I have no doubt has been offered, against this principal provision, and which emphasises what I said as to the provisional character of the Bill, is that by this facility of deferring until the last moment a decision in which constituency a particular man will exercise his right of voting, arrangements by agents will be facilitated for the production at a particular point of a force which is not greater than required to effect the necessary object of winning the seat, and that therefore a somewhat arbitrary result may follow, not altogether consonant with the theory that every Englishman should be able to vote where he pleases provided that he is qualified. It is important to note that this measure does not disfranchise the Universities, nor of necessity does it affect the City of London at all. All those who possess a qualification for the City of London will be able to vote there if they choose, and, speaking personally, I certainly should not expect that the result of an election in the City of London would in any way be affected by the passage of this Bill.
The marked simplicity of this measure is obtained at the cost of the fact that it applies only to a General Election and cannot be applied at by-elections. When a by-election takes place, or supposing such a thing to be probable, as it certainly is possible, that two by-elections take place on the same day, there would be nothing to prevent a man holding a qualification in both to vote at both; but that, as I say, is the price which has to be paid for the simplicity of the Bill. At any rate I should not expect noble Lords opposite to complain of that blemish on the Bill, if blemish it be, because so far as it has an effect the effect may be assumed to be in their favour rather than in ours. Your Lordships will note that there are three provisos to the first clause of the Bill which at first sight appear to detract somewhat from its absolutely limpid simplicity. Those were inserted in another place in order to meet cases which it had been pointed out might possibly be hard. That marked (a) deals with the case of a voter who has been personated, and who, finding that he has been personated, prefers not to vote in the booth which he has entered with the intention of voting but to go away and exercise his right elsewhere— not a very
1326
frequent case but conceivably a hard case. That marked (b) deals with the case of a voter who, being registered in one division of a Parliamentary borough, has inadvertently tried to vote in another. He is also saved from the consequences of a venial error of that kind. The third proviso, proviso (c), covers the case of a possible voting by the returning officer.
The penalties to be applied for a breach of this Bill are not of the gravest kind, although they are undoubtedly severe. But if anybody is tempted to regard them as too severe he should consider that it is practically impossible for any person who is sane enough to be at large to go to two separate constituencies and vote there by inadvertence. It is hardly conceivable that absence of mind could be carried to such a pitch in any rational person. It must be assumed, therefore, that anybody who breaks this law breaks it with the knowledge of what he is doing.
From the Motion placed on the Paper by the noble Viscount opposite it appears that this Bill is to meet the fate of two others which have lately been before your Lordships. One is almost tempted to ask, without any sort of disrespect to the noble Viscount, why the Motion for the rejection of a measure of this importance did not come from the Front Bench opposite. When the rejection of Mr. Harcourt's Bill in 1906, which was then in charge of my noble friend behind me, was moved, it was moved by Lord St. Aldwyn from the Front Bench Opposite. I have no doubt that a time will come when the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, will be able to strap on the official knapsack, supposing he cares to do so, and to lose that measure of independence from Party which has so far distinguished his political career. I can well imagine various reasons why the noble Viscount was selected for this particular task. He has only lately come to us owing to the lamented loss of his illustrious father, and while he was pursuing his career in another place he was the candidate, either successful or unsuccessful, for, I think, three different constituencies in quite different parts of England, and in all of those he had no doubt frequent opportunities of tracking the plural voter through the jungles which he inhabits and devising the best means of adding him to his bag.

1327
Then it is important to note that on this particular occasion the formula of objection is altogether changed. Noble Lords opposite do not ask for a referendum on this question, and I am bound to say I think they are perfectly right. I am no admirer either of plural voting or of the referendum, but if I was an admirer of either, or of both, I certainly should take the most scrupulous care to keep them as far apart as possible. Everybody knows that if the question was subjected to a referendum the maintenance of plural voting would not have the faintest chance in the world. It belongs to that class of institutions which are kept alive for the profit of the few rather than of the many. It would be easy to state a rather alarming list of questions all of which, if they were subjected to the process of a referendum, would not have what is colloquially called "a dog's chance." You might almost as well, I think, subject the Game Laws to the referendum as this question of the maintenance of plural voting; and therefore I quite recognise why, having changed the formula, it has been thought also desirable to take away from the Front Bench opposite the responsibility of moving the rejection of this particular measure. I can devise a third reason for the selection of the noble Viscount for this task. One of the arguments which is always used from the other side is that it is a wrong thing, and may be an unfair thing, to attempt to remove a single anomaly in these franchise matters instead of dealing with the whole.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Marquess cheers that statement, but I confess I do not see how anybody who was connected with Mr. Balfour's Government can applaud a statement of that kind after the action which Mr. Balfour's Government took in 1905, when a plan for redistribution alone was introduced without any attempt whatever to remove the various other anomalies which, by common consent, existed in connection with our franchise system. I do not know whether the House recollects those Resolutions of 1905. They were ruled out of activity by the action of Mr. Speaker, and they were afterwards altogether laughed out of existence by the comments quite as much of the Unionist Press as of the Press which supports the
1328
present Government. That surely is a further reason why the noble Viscount, who was not connected with the Government at that time, should be asked to move the rejection of this measure rather than one of the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite who shared the responsibility for the introduction of those melancholy Resolutions.
I understand that the principal argument against this measure, at any rate on this question of anomaly, is that we are removing hereby one anomaly, an anomaly which is especially damaging to us as it exists, and that we are not attempting to remove various other franchise anomalies. Perhaps the removal of this system of plural voting may be of considerable advantage to us. It is bound, I think, to be of some advantage to us, although I am old enough to remember the falsification of many prophecies which have been made in past times in relation to franchise changes which were supposed to be going to redound to the sole advantage of one Party and it was not found that that Party profited at all to the extent which had been imagined. But, my Lords, in this connection it is, I think, relevant to ask what anomaly is there the existence of which is damaging to noble Lords opposite which could be removed without dealing with the whole subject of registration and the various other items of franchise reform and of redistribution. And even then, what anomalies remain to be removed the removal of which would be specially helpful to the Party opposite. So far as a general redistribution of seats is concerned I do not think that anybody can foretell, looking at it from a Party point of view, as to what its effect would be. We can say quite honestly that we are in no way afraid of such a redistribution, but I do not think that any hopes or fears can reasonably be founded on what the effect of such a general redistribution of seats would be.
I cannot help asking in passing, when noble Lords opposite and their friends talk about the system of one vote one value, whether they really mean that in any system of redistribution in this country all votes are to be of precisely identical value. Do they really mean to divide the country up into equal electoral districts, obliterating all old landmarks and boundaries and conditions—county boundaries and all the rest of it—in order to get a precise equality

1329
of population in each separate constituency? If so, I can only say that the minds of noble Lords opposite have changed remarkably since the year 1905, when they brought forward those proposals to which I have already alluded; because I note that in the scheme of 1905 there were six boroughs I containing 120,000 persons, that is to say, an average of about 20,000 apiece—I am speaking in round figures—and there were six other boroughs under this method of one vote one value which contained 700,000 people and therefore had an average population of 116,000. Well, those figures being so, it is a little hard to credit the Party opposite with a complete devotion to the system of an absolute equality of the value of votes.
But, of course, it will be said that there is the case of Ireland. Ireland in this connection has been one of the favourite battle-horses of noble Lords opposite. It has been delightful to contrast the fact that Kilkenny returns a Member to Parliament with its absurdly small electorate, and that Romford, with its enormously large one, also returns only one Member. But in our Government of Ireland Bill we are proposing for the Imperial Parliament something as regards Ireland which I take it is stronger and goes further in the direction of the desire of noble Lords opposite than anything which I think in common decency they could venture to propose themselves. Our proposition is that there should be forty-two Members from Ireland in the House of Commons representing large areas. On a population basis—noble Lords opposite having succeeded in maintaining the Union Parliament precisely as it is and having set to work to reduce the Irish representation—on a population basis it would be impossible to give Ireland less than sixty-five Members, so that this particular complaint, that the Irish anomaly which noble Lords opposite say works against them is left untouched, cannot be brought against us. It is only right, however, to add, if noble Lords opposite entertain the stern determination to give Ireland the precise number of Members which it ought to possess by population, that to do so is a deliberate and distinct departure from Mr. Pitt's plan at the time of the Union. The number of 100 Members, which was fixed upon by the Act of Union, was not founded upon the proportion of the populations of Great Britain and of Ireland. As a matter
1330
of fact, Ireland at that time had a population of 5,800,000; the rest of the United Kingdom had a population of 16,300,000. The House of Commons consisted of 653 Members, and the proper Irish representation on a population basis at that time would have been, not 100, but 233. Therefore if you attempt to place Ireland upon a formal population basis now, you are at any rate departing from the principles which Mr. Pitt followed when he carried out the Union, and you will find that it is only quite of recent years that the Irish share on the population basis has fallen as low as this. Down to 1891 my impression is—I have not got the figures—that the correct Irish proportion was something about eighty, and therefore the extreme discrepancy is of somewhat modern growth. Our argument, as noble Lords know, is that so long as the Union Parliament remains on its present basis the number of Irish Members cannot honourably be changed, and that the number can only be modified by consent and in consideration of the creation of a subordinate Parliament.
Another anomaly which we do not attempt to touch cannot be said to be hostile to noble Lords opposite. The difficulty of getting on the register is much greater for the poor man who has to move about in search of work than it is for the more well-to-do man, and though I certainly do not attempt to argue that all well-to-do people are Conservatives and all poor people are Liberals, yet the proportion in those cases surely tells against the Party to which I belong. I should like to say one more word on this question of anomalies because it is an important one, and the argument founded on it is perhaps the most plausible that noble Lords opposite can devise. But I would remind you that this is not the only case in which single anomalies have been redressed, or in which an attempt, has been made to redress them, where other anomalies kindred to them admittedly exist. Take the case of rating. The question of rating is surrounded, as we know, with a series of anomalies and with fetters which we should like to remove, but that did not prevent noble Lords opposite from dealing with agricultural rating by itself, with the general agreement, no doubt, of the agricultural community, at the same time leaving unredressed discrepancies and inequalities scarcely less marked than those which affected agricultural ratepayers.

1331
I do not know whether in this House in the course of this debate the existence of plural voting will be defended in se as a desirable institution, or whether noble Lords opposite will lean entirely, or almost entirely, upon the argument of anomaly and opportunity. I have looked at the debates in another place, and I find that there several Members on the Opposition side boldly and categorically defended the existence of the plural vote —I do not mean only in relation to the argument which was also used, that in the case of the possession of a University vote and an ordinary occupation vote you might end by disfranchising the University because every one would prefer to vote for the place in which he lived rather than the seat of learning to which he had once belonged—but the actual possession of plural votes founded on property was seriously defended by a certain number of Members of the Opposition in another place. The argument that is used is, that a local stake in any particular part of England ought to be represented by a vote for that constituency. I confess, again, I do not see how that argument can be entirely reconciled with the desire that one vote should only have one value, and it also leaves out of consideration an argument which is freely used in another connection—namely, that the vote is by no means the only method by which influence can be exercised by property owners or by persons of education. There is no argument which is more freely used by the opponents of the giving of the suffrage to women than to point out that, after all, the vote is not the only method of exercising influence, but quite the contrary. It has also been pointed out that the belief used to be held by a former generation that the possession of a vote was practically everything, and that if you had not got a vote you were a cipher as regards impressing your opinions on the country. That argument has now worn rather thin, and consequently it is argued by the opponents of woman suffrage that its advocates make a mistake in depending so much on the vote and on the vote alone. That argument can also be addressed to the owner of property in several places who conceives that he ought to have a vote in each one of those places. It can be pointed out to him, with exactly the same degree of force, that his personal and social and political influence is by no means limited to the moment at which he writes
1332
a cross on a piece of paper in a polling booth opposite the name of a prospective Member of Parliament.
I may assume that your Lordships intend to reject this measure. I have not forgotten the now famous observation of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition made in 1906, when be stated that in rejecting measures your Lordships ought to select ground favourable to yourselves. That was in relation to the Trades Disputes Bill which your Lordships passed that year. I cannot believe that the rejection of this Bill can be said to be taken on ground favourable to this House, and I cannot believe that the average citizen will be convinced of the equity of the argument that, unless the time and the conditions admit of the creation of an absolutely perfect and flawless measure for the conduct of elections, it is then better and fairer to leave every single absurdity and every single abuse to flourish as it likes until the propitious hour strikes. I cannot believe that the country will take that view, and I venture once more to express the opinion that in rejecting this measure your Lordships are making a mistake.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
VISCOUNT PEEL*VISCOUNT PEEL rose to move the following Amendment—
That this House is not prepared to accept a Bill which deals only with the question of plural voting, and makes no attempt to remove the serious imperfections of the present electoral law.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Marquess in the introductory part of his speech devoted a good deal of speculation, and apparently he had devoted also some research, to the question why I had been selected to move the rejection of this Bill, and he seemed to find in the history of the past a considerable number of sinister arguments. So far as I know there is nothing very mysterious about it, for may I call the noble Marquess's attention to the fact that when the Welsh Church Bill first came before this House its rejection was moved by an occupant of the Back Benches, and I certainly never heard any speculations of a similar character on the part of the noble Marquess on that occasion. It is not of much moment, but

1333
there is also the case of the Home Rule Bill when it was first brought before this House. Its rejection was moved by the Duke of Devonshire, who has never, to my knowledge, been a member of the Cabinet.
The noble Marquess is, of course, quite correct in stating that this is rather an aged item in The Liberal programme, and possibly for that reason it might suggest to his mind that it requires a little more revision and a little more defence. I remember very vividly the occasion in 1906 when the Bill was thrown out. At that time I was active on platforms in the country, and I can assure the noble Marquess that not only was there no indignation expressed at the fall of that Bill, but it was hardly noticed in any local newspaper throughout the length and breadth of the country. I should like to allude to the closing observation of the noble Marquess. I will not say it was a threat; I will say rather that he gave a word of kindly warning. He said that he did not think it would be very favourable to the prospects of this House if we rejected this measure. But, my Lords, I understand that the Prime Minister has given notice that he is going to establish a totally new House of Lords next year. These threats fall rather coldly, therefore, on this House, and I think they might more fairly be addressed to the future Chamber which the Government are now lucubrating.
I cannot say that the noble Marquess has said so, but it was stated in the other House that this being a matter purely of machinery connected with the election of the other House it is not a question on which your Lordships should venture to have any very strong opinion, hostile or otherwise. All I can say is that there should be some reciprocity in these matters, and I have not noticed during the last few years any very singular or ascetic abstinence on the part of the other House from dealing with the affairs or the composition of this House. Indeed, not long ago the Government were credited with the intention of possibly doubling the quantity of legislators in your Lordships' House. I lay marked stress on the word "quantity." They seem now to want to go to the opposite extreme and remove the hereditary basis from this Chamber altogether. In those circumstances I think we may almost venture to deal with the
1334
affairs, if they are the affairs, of the other House. I go further and say that this is specifically a matter with which this House ought to deal, because every single Member of the other House may be said to be a keenly interested party in electoral reform and plural voting, and I think it is no paradox to say that it is the other House really which ought not to deal with plural voting but that this House ought to have almost exclusive jurisdiction over it. With the exception of the precedent set by the Government themselves in 1906 there is absolutely no precedent in our constitutional history for bringing in a measure of this kind in this way.
The noble Marquess, throughout his speech, seemed to refer to this as being a method of electoral reform. I assume that to be so because he referred to "other measures" of electoral reform. I had some doubts when I read the title of the Bill, "An Act to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a General Election." I confess that that sounded to me more like some Criminal Law Amendment Bill than an Electoral Reform Bill; but I will do the noble Marquess the courtesy to assume that he was referring to an Electoral Reform Bill. It has not, like some other Bills that have come up to this House, got even the decent drapery of a Preamble to cover its inadequacies or to throw out tantalising suggestions of what is going to happen in the future; although it would be very difficult, no doubt, to construct a proper Preamble to the measure.
When dealing with these grave matters of electoral reform and machinery, I submit that there are several principles to which all these measures ought to conform. The first that I venture to give utterance to is this, that the utmost care should be taken in constructing your machinery for electoral reform that no colour should be given to the charge that under the guise of electoral reform you are seeking Party advantage. I think that principle becomes of increased importance at this time, when your elected House of Commons is practically supreme and is in a totally different position from what it was in 1906, or even iii that remote period of 1891, when I understand plural voting first became a portion of the programme of the Liberal Party. I would say, also, that these electoral changes should be made, and made only, with a

1335
view of improving the truly representative character of the various interests and views of the electorate, with full regard to the dignity and stability of the institutions which are affected. The third principle I would venture to lay down is this, that the main principles of the Bill should appear openly on its face, and that the country should not be committed to new principles which are merely inferences from the propositions there contained. They should be explicit and not merely implicit, as was said of the Welsh Bill; and you must not assume, as some noble Lords opposite are inclined to assume, that the electorate is capable of deducing and assenting or dissenting to all the inferences which are drawn by the keenest logicians from Bills presented to this House. I hope to show your Lordships that this Bill contravenes all these three principles, and contravenes them in the most flagrant way.
In looking at the conduct of a Government, as of a person, one has to examine their previous record and history, and as regards my first principle some observation should be made on the character of the Government. Take their action over the Parliament Bill and the reconstruction of the Constitution. In that case, as in this, they take the easy part which is an advantage to them as a Party in reconstructing the powers of the House, and they put aside the more difficult part in case they might construct some Chamber which possibly might not support their views at all. In this matter they take the palm without the dust. Home Rule was introduced first, and the introduction and the passing of the Home Rule Bill would be, as has been most clearly pointed out, not only of no assistance but an obstruction to that scheme of federation which has also been suggested. When you come to this Bill the case is very similar. This Bill is a fragment, a plum picked out of the Franchise Bill of last year. Why is it that this particular portion of it was picked out by the Government and is being now pressed on to accomplishment? The noble Marquess dealt very tenderly with the suggestion as to whether there was any Party advantage in this matter. I do not think he alluded to the fact—and it seemed to me a rather curious omission—of the number of plural votes affected, which is about half a million; nor did he give us any estimate as to how
1336
they could be divided among the different Parties. Perhaps he thought it was common knowledge that between three-fifths and four-fifths of those votes were supposed to be cast on the Unionist side. I should like to ask, in passing, whether, if the balance had been the other way and the majority of those votes were usually cast upon the Liberal side, we should be now discussing this measure.
A good deal has been said in other places about Party advantage, and I do not wish to dwell upon it too much, although the noble Marquess seemed to me in the course of his remarks rather to infer that plural voting did tend to the Party advantage of this side. I venture to suggest to him that we should look upon things from a broader basis as regards our political machinery. Mr. Crooks, talking of this Bill, said—
"The fact of the matter is, the Government are trying to help themselves. Is that wrong?"
That is not a plea of confession and avoidance; it is a plea of confession and justification. After an observation of that kind I think I need not comment on the proverbial inconvenience of candour in your friends. This Bill is very nicely timed, because if the programme of noble Lords opposite goes through the Bill will come into operation a little after the date when a certain number of their Irish supporters will have disappeared from the House of Commons. Therefore I suppose there is a sort of feeling that if the Government are losing support on the one hand they must make it up on the other by disfranchising a considerable number of their opponents. The noble Marquess did not make very much allusion to the fact that you do not have plural voting in the Dominions, and I congratulate him upon that. The circumstances and the responsibilities are so different that I was very glad he did not try and establish any comparison thereupon. He alluded to the referendum and attacked members on this side with inconsistency in supporting in certain cases the Referendum, which, of course, involves to a certain extent as far as it goes one man one vote. So far as I am concerned I confess I should prefer the referendum to be more balanced by plural voting; but, after all, the comparison seems to me a wholly inexact one. It is impossible to compare the opinion on one special question, put, as the noble

1337
Marquess knows, on rare and limited occasions only, to a system under which the whole representation of this country has to be elected to Parliament. Under the referendum, at any rate, the minority gets the full weight of its voice unencumbered by the disproportion of constituency or other electoral discrepancies.
The noble Marquess prided himself on the extreme kindliness and indulgence he has shown to the plural voter, but I would point out that in being kindly and indulgent you must not at the same time be ridiculous. This crime, if crime it be, of plural voting, as the noble Marquess pointed out, can be committed only at General Elections once in every four years. Your Lordships have heard that once in every four years young ladies are allowed to put a question to young men which would be considered indelicate on other occasions. The Government have reversed this. This act of plural voting is harmless for four years, but becomes a crime every fourth year when the General Election takes place. I do not understand this leap-year system. I do not understand this periodic intermittence of crime. After all, you may have a man who would be put into prison according to this Bill for committing this crime at a General Election, but as soon as he comes out of prison some by-elections may take place and he may then commit with perfect impunity the very crime for which he was imprisoned six months ago. This is very confusing to the moral sense, a matter with regard to which the Liberal Government, as we know, is peculiarly sensitive.
Then, my Lords, this Bill as drawn positively makes redistribution more difficult than it was before, because under this Bill no one can know until the election has taken place how many voters are going to vote in a particular constituency at a General Election. The result is that you put an absolute drag upon redistribution, and until you have repealed this Bill redistribution would be practically impossible. The noble Marquess alluded with satisfaction to the activities of the agents. I agree that this Bill does stimulate the activities of the wire-puller and the agent. Although I am familiar with the operations of those gentlemen and have found them extremely useful on occasions, I have never looked upon this
1338
class of activity as very edifying; but the noble Marquess seems to give them a sort of cachet of distinction as being most eminent gentlemen in the community. There is hardly a proposition throughout this Bill which has not been previously condemned by the Government themselves in some of those previous Bills which were brought in by private Members. That is a singular inconsistency. The noble Marquess suggests that the Bill is transitory. I think it is, but that is the very vice of the thing. In these matters you must not have transitory Bills, but Bills based on some more general and enduring principle.
The noble Marquess rather challenged noble Lords on this side as to the question of the plural vote itself. I am one of those who venture to think there is a good deal to be said for the plural vote. We have not had a single argument from the noble Marquess on the question of equality. He seems to think that equality of persons as regards votes is one of those sure principles which can be assumed without discussion. He tells us that the country is in favour of it, but I think, even at this time, we may submit that the will of the people is open to some sort of criticism from the point of view of common sense and knowledge; and considering that this principle is contrary to the whole trend of science and the common observation of ordinary men, I think it does require some explanation from the other side as to why absolute equality should be adopted in electoral institutions. It is based on a purely abstract doctrine, and I thought that abstract doctrines had by this time received sufficient condemnation. I may remind the noble Marquess that it was these abstract doctrines that aroused the fullest indignation and scorn of one of the greatest masters of English prose that ever lived, and I had thought that the passion and reason of Burke had laid these ghosts forever. The only question worth asking is not whether one man is equal to another as regards voting, but whether or not your institutions will be strengthened and your representative system made more truly representative if you adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess. I could understand your giving one man one vote if Government were merely a matter of largesse, a question of distribution of plunder; but if it is a question of selecting the best men to deal with and govern the affairs of the country

1339
then I submit that equality cannot be maintained.
There is nowadays a great and growing fear that minorities may be submerged, and it is only recently that the doctrine that minorities must suffer has been elevated to the dignity of a maxim of State. Moreover, I think that your representative system should to some extent follow the facts of the case and of life around. You will find in your representative system that the minorities which you wish to submerge in this way are tending to secure special representation for themselves. You find an example of that in another place with regard to the teachers, who are combining together to secure a representative for themselves. Then, again, the Labour Party in itself is a class representation which has been growing up, and growing up naturally. The Labour Party's aims have been very often commended by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and they are recognised to such an extent by the members of the Party themselves to-day that if you were to suggest to a representative of Labour that he was anything else but a representative of Labour he would club you in the Lobby. I see that in the new Constitution in Egypt you are going to secure by nomination, if not by other means, for Bedouin and Copt and other interests special representation in the Parliament you are going to set up in Egypt.
There are other considerations even more important than the ones I have mentioned. It is common knowledge that practically the whole of your taxation is being thrown on a very limited class. The Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons the other day, dwelt upon this, and objected to the free breakfast table on the ground that those who exercised electoral power must contribute something at least towards the policy which they themselves were able to dictate. But every one knows that the free breakfast table would very soon be proscribed by the Liberal Party in the first heavy weather they had to en-counter; and when you have six-sevenths of the whole electorate now not paying Income Tax, the fact that you are going to enlarge the electorate very soon must make every man who is anxious about the stability of the State consider whether you are really going to treat as an anomaly a system which allows important interests and views to have some sort of represent
1340
ation. It has been said by the noble Marquess, and I have heard the observation before, that these classes are very well able to defend themselves in other ways, but when they do they are severely anim-adverted upon by noble Lords. Are they going to do that in the future? I think the signs are in another direction, and that the force and the position and the situation of wealth is greatly diminished and will be still more diminished before the next generation has passed away.
The question is interesting when looked at historically. You enlarged the franchise in 1832, and you retained plural voting when you brought in the middle classes. Then again in 1867 and in 1884, when you included the town and the country householder, even then you retained plural voting. And now when you are bringing in masses of new voters who cannot be said to have great political experience, surely it is absurd to remove that one check and balance which you retained in 1832 and 1867 and 1884. Are you going merely to apply these abstract doctrines to the complicated affairs of State and become pure Pythagoreans, mere apostles of the supreme importance of numbers. I should like to ask this question. Is plural voting as it has been suggested by the noble Marquess and others really an anomaly? I contend that it is absolutely the opposite. I say that the plural voter is a necessary and radical part of our present system of representation. I contend, further, that your system of "one man one vote" is an anomaly itself, and that you bring about by this Bill one of the greatest anomalies you could introduce into your electoral system.
The antithesis is generally put by noble Lords opposite as existing between the representation of property and the representation of men. It is nothing of the kind. The antithesis is between the representation of mere individuals and the representation of individuals collected together and associated together in communities. I venture to think that that is a splendid system, and I think we all have the experience that you have to be a good patriot before you can be a good cosmopolitan, and very often you find that a professor of humanity does not hold very inspiring views about the character and prosperity of his own country. When you are

1341
recognising the value in history of ancient institutions, it is a remarkable thing that you are going to discard this spirit now when it is most wanted in your electoral life. I feel most strongly that it is precisely in democratic days and countries that you want more than ever, much more than you did under oligarchally ruled countries, to stir the feelings of all the citizens to a reverence for the institutions and the feelings of the past. I suggest also that your representative system is inseparable from the plural voter. A man is not sent to the House of Commons merely as a representative; he is sent as a representative of a particular locality. There are a great many private Bills introduced into Parliament in regard to which counsel and advice in the locality may be very necessary, of which the locality would be entirely deprived if the plural voter was not able to use his vote and influence in that particular place. We know that many Members retain their seats, not on account of their political views, but rather on account of their personal popularity. I think I may allude to the noble Lord who is going to follow me in the Debate to-night, who sat for many years as Member for South Somerset, not, if he will pardon me for saving so, owing to his political opinions, but owing to his own personal attractions, and the moment he retired that constituency returned a Conservative Member. You must defend, if you support this Bill, the principle of one man one vote, of perfect equality; and that is a principle which I think you apply so far, and only so far, as it squares with your nice calculation of Party advantage. You are not content with attacking only the representation of locality and property; you attack the representation of education as well. The noble Marquess said, "We are not taking away the representation from the Universities." I know. But what is the record of the Government? In their Irish measure they take away the representation of Universities, and also in the Scottish Bill; and in the Franchise Bill of last year, of which this is a fragment, they destroyed the representation of Universities. If anybody supposes that there is any tenderness going to be shown to University representation, all I can say is they will find they are mistaken.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In the Irish Bill the representation of Dublin University is retained.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps that was my mistake. It may be good enough for Ireland, because Ireland is put outside the Parliamentary system. But anyhow the noble Marquess will not deny that it is true both of the Scottish Bill and of the Franchise Bill. That is what I complain of. This power of the representation of Universities is taken away indirectly. I would rather it were done directly, if it is to be done at all. The whole of the nine University Members, who are unfortunately Unionists, are going to be abolished as the result of this Bill. That seems to be an amazing paradox when you are insisting more than ever you insisted on the necessity for higher education, and when the Minister for Education, only a day or two ago in another place, said there ought to be a broad pathway fashioned to the University. You select this time to discredit the University by taking away its representation in Parliament. The plain man looks at facts, and if the University is going to be dishonoured by an Electoral Bill the plain man will probably consider that education is not so important in the minds of the Government, and possibly in his own, as the Government would like to make him consider. You are proposing to multiply the number of Universities. Is it not of supreme importance that the high standard of University education in this country should be fully maintained, and that the representatives of the older Universities should be able, from their place in the House of Commons, to maintain that higher standard? For myself I would very much rather that the new Universities got representation than that you should take away the representation from the older Universities.
I cannot help referring for a moment to the position of the City of London. We are told again that the City of London is not going to be disfranchised—and here again it is no doubt unfortunate that the City of London should send two Conservative Members to Parliament. But I do think it is very ungrateful of noble Lords opposite to treat the City of London in this way when it is remembered that for centuries the City of London supported the Whig Party and those causes on which the Whig Party laid most stress. When you are talking of a city which has been, and which justly boasts to be, the chief monetary centre of the world, it is regrettable that you cannot make an exception and secure that the City of London shall have direct

1343
representation in the Imperial Parliament. May I, as one last word, remind you on that point that the City itself boasts the right for its two Members to sit on the Treasury Bench in the House of Commons. That right was given and is still maintained, because of the great part which the City played against the tyranny of Charles I, and in protecting the five Members from his illegal attacks. I do not pretend to prophesy about the future, but if you say there are anomalies about the system of plural voting I cannot believe that when this Bill is passed there may not be some system which will give recognition to brains, to success, and to education.
I must, passing away from that question, ask who is the plural voter, because if we are objecting to the plural voter let us be certain that we have got at the right man and are not attacking the wrong one. The noble Marquess referred to certain discrepancies. In the large constituencies compared with the small constituencies those discrepancies are so prodigious that they really relegate the plural voter in this Bill to an insignificant place. Take Romford with its 57,000 electors, Walthamstow with its 43,000, Harrow with its 43,000 and Wandsworth with its 39,000, and compare those with Bury with its 2,800, St. Georges-in-the-East with its 3,000, Pontefract with its 3,700, and Whitehaven with its 3,000. I had the experience of standing for one of the largest and sitting for one of the smallest, and I prefer the comparative repose of the one to the prodigious physical exertions entailed by the other. The disparity between the largest and the smallest is rapidly growing greater. The percentage was 8 to 1 in 1884, in 1900 it was 18 to 1, and now in 1913 it is 34 to 1. I do not like to refer to Kilkenny, for I think the noble Marquess has a special affection for that minute borough. In four constituencies there are 184,000 voters, in fifty constituencies there are also 184,000 voters—four against fifty. One-half of the 670 Members returned to the House of Commons represent 5,500,000 electors; the other half represent 2,500,000. One-half of the electorate send 459 Members to Parliament; the other half send 211. In the face of gigantic discrepancies of that kind is it any use talking of this miserable half-million of plural voters whose rights you want to take away? If representation means anything, if your representative system is to
1344
be put on any sort of basis, surely if you were to appeal to an impartial person—I do not say there are any in this country, but let us take the President of the Swiss Republic or some man of noted impartiality of that sort—would he not tell you that this anomaly is so great that it should be dealt with before anything else, especially at a time when you are bringing about great changes in the Constitution?
Then, again, the injustice is very great as between countries. Take the average number of voters whom each Member represents. The Irish Member represents 6,800 electors, the Scottish Member 11,000, the Welsh Member 12,500, and the English Member comes at the top of the scale as representing 13,200. So that as regards the countries, England, the predominant partner, is most heavily weighted. In one or two instances the stress is very heavy against the Conservative Party. At the present moment in Scotland one Unionist Member represents 25,000 voters, whereas each Liberal Member represents 6,000 voters. Those discrepancies arise by the accidents of the representation. What prodigious changes there would be in the representation if those discrepancies could be corrected! If I may allude to the position of Parties in 1906—that terrible election for us—the Liberals came back 428 strong, that is including the Labour Party of course, and the Unionists 155. If you had had any sort of equal representation—I do not say the sort of mathematical system which the noble Marquess alluded to—you would have had a representation of 327 Liberals and 256 Unionists instead of 155; and if you had had a minority of 256 instead of 155, what a prodigious difference there would have been in the legislation of the House of Commons at that time. These electoral anomalies cry to Heaven. I submit that it is ridiculous to suggest in any dealing with the matter that these anomalies should not be first selected for revision. Of course, I know it is suggested that there is a delicious doctrine of averages—one of those pleasant doctrines which not only are not true but are so terribly false—that what you lose in one way you make up in another. The figures I have given your Lordships show explicitly that that is not so. In these days when Party feeling is so keen and when Party spirit is so much regarded, that comfortable feeling which satisfied our ancestors will no longer satisfy us to-day.

1345
The noble Marquess said, with regard to the case of Ireland, "If you complain about Ireland, we are remedying that grievance because we are giving them only forty-two Members instead of the sixty-five which they deserve." I am considering this on the basis of existing institutions, because, of course, no man can say when those forty-two Members are going to make their appearance in the House of Commons. The noble Marquess seemed to me not fairly to represent the state of things which existed at the Union. He dealt with the Union as if the Members had been based on numbers. They were not. They were based on the mean of two proportions, numbers and contribution. If the principle is sacred, surely its application can be varied with circumstances. But this talk is all idle from the point of view of the Government, because in 1893 they did their best to force through the House of Commons a measure tearing up the Union although at the time there was a majority of the predominant partner in the House of Commons in favour of maintaining the Union. Therefore it does not lie in their mouths to deal with that matter.
We are told that all sorts of things are going to follow, and we are going to have redistribution shortly on the heels of this Bill. We have heard a good many of these undertakings and pledges, but as unfortunately they are all of them conditioned by time and circumstance I think the noble Marquess will not consider me discourteous if I place rather less confidence in them than I should be inclined to do in any other undertakings he is likely to make. He says, Why are you so anxious for redistribution? that is just as likely to be as advantageous to us as to you. From the point of view of the ordinary Member there is a great divergence between this Bill and redistribution. First of all, plural voting is a definite advantage in this way, that the Member of the House of Commons can go down to his constituency and tot up the numbers. He discovers that by the abolition of plural voting he would be 100 or 200 votes to the good, and he comes back to the House of Commons blazing with indignation against the plural voter and burning to redress this terrific wrong. It is very different with regard to redistribution. It is all uncertainty. The Member does not know where there are going to be two constituencies instead of three, whether he will not be the one who is to be sacrificed,
1346
and every Member looks upon his own constituency as being the linch-pin of the universe. He is not certain whether he will be the one who is going to survive, and that is why it is so vastly different to pass a measure of that kind through a representative Assembly from merely cutting away the plural voter, which is such a very simple matter. When is this to be done? It is to be done towards the end of 1915, when, according to the noble Earl on the Front Bench, the Ministers are arriving at that mental phase which is the necessary condition of all ageing Governments. An Amendment was moved in another place suggesting that this measure should not come into force until a measure of redistribution had been passed. That was refused. If the Government had accepted that, I should have placed much more confidence in their pledges as to distribution.
Then, my Lords, there is a mass of other anomalies. There is the question of the returning officers' fees. That is a small matter, no doubt. I had the pleasure once of sharing a payment of £900 with my opponent in the Harrow division, which seemed to me a very large sum, in order that I might be returned or not returned to the House of Commons. Then you have the thirteen different franchises and the nineteen different varieties full of anomalies, as anybody who studies the electoral law knows. The greatest anomaly of all is the length of residence necessary for qualification. Take the last election in 1910. Only those people could vote at that election in 1910 who had been in residence since June, 1908. All those who had changed their residence during that time—and in a London constituency perhaps 30 per cent. of the electors had changed their residence—were disfranchised, which is a gross and monstrous injustice; and if anything is done with the electoral law that matter surely ought to be dealt with at once. In the face of all these anomalies I ask, Why are we asked to deal in this piecemeal manner with the plural voter? I think the proposition is absurd. I ask your Lordships, with some confidence, to reject this measure because it is really directed against the cardinal principles on which our Constitution is based. I want you to give the Government a chance of reconsidering this Bill, and of bringing in another measure based on a fairer and more national basis divorced from the sinister suspicions of Party bias and of Party gain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out all the words after ("That") for the purpose of inserting the following Resolution, viz., ("this House is not prepared to accept a Bill which deals only with the question of Plural Voting and makes no attempt to remove the serious imperfections of the present Electoral Law.") —(Viscount Peel.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, while I do not intend to follow the noble Viscount over the large field he has travelled. I desire to take exception to his statement that this Bill is an undisguised attempt to take a Party advantage. I agree with what the Leader of the House said, that it is very doubtful if there is much Party advantage in this particular Bill to either side. It may affect a few seats undoubtedly. I have had long experience of Parliamentary elections, I hope the noble Viscount will pardon me for saying a greater experience than he himself has had, for in my time I have fought eight hotly-contested Parliamentary elections; and while I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for the kind way in which he referred to myself and attributed to a large extent my return to the House of Commons to personal grounds—simply because the men in the district knew me and voted for me from personal considerations—I have to inform him that it is very likely that I was returned to the House of Commons on one or two occasions by a greater majority than I otherwise would have had—and perhaps I might not otherwise have retained my seat—owing to the plural voter who came and voted for me on personal grounds even although he would have given a Conservative vote under other circumstances. So that I think the personal argument is rather a doubtful one used against myself.
If I may take another illustration from the county in which I live and which I used to represent in another place, I think I can show that the plural vote is not entirely a Party advantage. You cannot say that a seat may be safe for either Party because of the plural vote. I do not see the noble Lord here who used to sit for the Frome division, but that is a typical case of the plural vote. There are some 400 to 600 plural voters in the Frome division of Somerset. But although on my side we believe that the great majority of those men are Conservatives
1348
and vote Conservative habitually and certainly if they did so it would make the seat safe—yet it is rather remarkable that the noble Lord who sat for that division did not at all have a safe seat, for sometimes he sat for it and sometimes he was not re-elected, showing that the plural voter cannot be said to be an asset which makes it perfectly certain that in that seat at any rate a Conservative would be returned. And it cannot be said that by abolishing the plural vote we should, on our hand, make that seat perfectly safe for ourselves. It is very doubtful indeed, when there is very strong feeling in the country at a General Election, what way the plural voter will vote. There is as much doubt as in the case of any other voter.
The noble Viscount went on to say that the main principle on which this Bill is based is simply Party advantage. I contend that it is nothing of the kind. The main principle of the Bill is to remove an anomaly. I think there are very few noble Lords, and certainly very few who are going to take part in contested elections, who would take the line which the noble Viscount took as to the reasons why you ought to maintain the plural voter. The noble Viscount said it was necessary in these days, especially when you had Income Tax at a high figure, the Super-Tax and Death Duties, that the best men should be able to vote two or three times. What practically he meant was that the richest men of the country who would suffer most by high taxation ought to have an opportunity of voting against that taxation four or five times over at the same election. If the noble Viscount really thought that was desirable he ought to have gone further and said that it should not be a mere question of whether it is an accident that a man happened to have a thousand acres distributed over four or five electoral divisions, but that he ought to have votes according to the actual acreage he holds in any particular county. As the case is now, a man may hold 10,000 or 20,000 acres in one county and have only one vote, while a man with a thousand acres in two or three different counties may have a vote for every single Member of Parliament returned for those different counties. If you press it to an extreme, the ridiculous state of things might arise that a man with £10,000 a year might have merely one vote, while another man who

1349
had property in different parts of the country producing, say, £1,000 a year, would be able, by getting 40s. qualifications all over the country to have, it might be, something like 400 or 500 votes in different constituencies. So it may fairly be said that it is an absolute anomaly that anybody who likes to buy property qualifications of 40s. each should be at once put on the electoral roll, although his interests are infinitesimal as compared with the interests of the people who actually live in the district itself. Therefore there is no justification whatever for saying that we have picked out a fragment from the Franchise Bill simply for the purpose of electoral gain. The only object of the Government has been to do away with this great anomaly. The majority of the people in a locality think it right that they should be able to send their own representative to Parliament, and object to people from, say, Cumberland, or Westmorland, or Northumberland coming down to Somerset, or Dorset, or Wilts and outvoting the man the local people wish to represent them.
Again, this Bill is only following a precedent which was set by the Conservative Government as long ago as 1888. When the Local Government Act of that year was set up it had for its object the election in every county of a local parliament upon which the local interest should be represented, and great care was taken under that Act that it should be impossible for any man to vote in more than nine electoral district if an election was going on for the county council. Although a Mall may be registered on the Parliamentary register in every division in which he has property, yet for the county council election he is able to vote in only one of those areas. If that applies in the case of the local parliament for a particular county, why should it not apply in the case of the Imperial Parliament? I take it that the same rule applies for rural district council elections. A man may own property in every parish in the rural district council area, but when there is an election for the rural district council he can only vote in one of those districts. Therefore there is already set up the precedent recognising that it is not right that a man should have more than one vote for these local purposes; and as regards these local purposes, it is perhaps even more important for a property owner to have
1350
more votes than one and to have larger representation in the various districts in which he has property than in the case of the Imperial Parliament. Those of us who have had to do with local matters know that the increase in the rates is a much more burning question in the various localities of the country than many Imperial questions. A man may suffer much more in his own person in the matter of rates by an extravagant county council or rural district council, yet he has not the protection that the noble Viscount wishes him to have in the Imperial Parliament of being able to use influence greater than that of the other electors in the area.
Then the noble Viscount said that this Bill was nicely timed for His Majesty's Government. I will tell the noble Viscount at once why it is only possible to bring in this smaller Bill now. Last year a great Electoral Reform Bill was brought in, and, for reasons the noble Viscount is aware of, that Bill had to be withdrawn. If a Bill were introduced in the House of Commons at the present moment to deal with the franchise, registration, and redistribution it would be impossible that that Bill could be brought into force unless by common consent; and I do not think a Redistribution Bill would be treated either in this House or in the House of Commons as an agreed Bill. The only thing the Government could do, therefore, was to bring in this Bill, which can be passed under the Parliament Act and which can come into force by the next General Election. That is a possible thing, and it is very desirable that it should be the case.
The noble Viscount said that he had never heard any complaint at all throughout the country when the last Plural Voting Bill was rejected by this House. All I can say as regards that is that my experience has been exactly the opposite. As I have said, I have fought a good many more elections than the noble Viscount has, and I can say without fear of contradiction that in all places there was a very strong feeling expressed as to the unfairness of one man having two or three votes and another man having only one vote at a Parliamentary election. There was a general feeling that it was an anomaly that those living in a particular district should be outvoted by plural voters coming in

1351
from outside. The noble Viscount himself admitted that, because he said that one of the great things was that representation should be based on local principles, and that you ought, as far as possible, to have men to look after local interests. I venture to say that the best way of obtaining that is to see that the only people who vote shall be men who have a direct personal interest in the constituency through living and carrying on their work and gaining their livelihood in the constituency. Surely those are the men who are most interested as regards local matters. I believe that the reason why I myself was fortunate for so many years to retain my seat in Somerset was that a large number of people like to have a local man and a man belonging to the county—a man living in and connected with the county, and voted for by people who also live in and are connected with the county. If a candidate does not live in the county his interests necessarily cannot be so great, in the personal affairs of the county; and men coming in from outside and recording their votes in a particular district will vote, perhaps, for purely Party considerations, and will not allow purely local considerations to influence their vote, as often happens in the case of those who are living in the district.
I cannot see that the noble Viscount has brought forward any argument at all in favour of his Amendment except the one argument, which I do not think he is inclined to push any further, that those who have the greatest stake in the country ought at the same time to have the largest voting power in the country. But, my Lords, the present state of things does not entirely do that. As I have already pointed out, if a man has a large stake in land all in one particular district he has only one vote. His representation is not any greater because he happens to own 50,000 acres, or to possess £50,000 a year; whereas if he happened to have this large sum of money in realty in half a dozen different counties he would probably have half a dozen votes or more. If you are to carry that out you must go backwards and introduce proposals basing the whole representation of the people on the antiquated interest of property. That is what it would, in practice, come to; and I venture once more to say that when the noble Viscount said minorities ought to be represented, it is the argument that the rich man minority ought to be represented.
1352
The real fact is this, that the noble Viscount strongly resents rich men being deprived of their at present immense power of securing a vote in any district in which they like to acquire a 40 s. freehold. That, to my mind, is an argument which this House ought not to regard, and I am perfectly certain that it is an argument which would be rejected in nine-tenths of the constituencies in this country, whether Liberal or Conservative.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Marquess in his opening observations drew attention to what seemed to him a change in the recognised procedure from the fact that my noble friend behind me rose to move the rejection of this Bill rather than a noble Lord on the Bench on which I sit. I do not think that the duty could have been placed in more competent hands. I have never heard a more conclusive and from his point of view convincing speech than that which my noble friend delivered. But there is another reason why it was particularly appropriate that my noble friend should have moved this Amendment. The noble Viscount moved an Amendment to the Parliament Bill in the House of Commons on May 1, 1911. He moved that the operation of the Parliament Act should be restricted to one Bill in a session, and he drew from the Prime Minister the assurance that all his fears were groundless. The Prime Minister on that occasion said that my noble friend had drawn an alarming picture of a future Government trying to carry through in a single session a number of first-class controversial pleasures. He pointed out that that would not be the case, and that it was only where there were acute matters of principle in controversy between the two Houses that the Parliament Act would be brought into operation. Yet, my Lords, here we are, within a fortnight or three weeks of the end of the session, engaged on the third measure which is being hurried through by His Majesty's Government under the Parliament Act. That is the position which my noble friend foresaw, and I cannot help feeling glad, therefore, that it has fallen to him to move the rejection of this Bill. But of course noble Lords on the Front Bench on this side take full share of the responsibility.
There is something humorous at this stage of the session in the noble Marquess who leads the House twitting the Front

1353
Opposition Bench with not taking an adequate part in the debates. I would ask your Lordships to recall on how many occasions during this session have speeches been made on this side without any attempt at answer from the Front Bench opposite. We have heard a reply made by the Government, and then an absolutely crushing rejoinder with fresh facts in support of it from this Bench; yet not a word have we heard by way of further answer. That travesty of debate is the reason why, in my opinion, the debates in your Lordships' House have been worse attended this session than has been the case since I have had the honour of listening to your debates. The noble Marquess said that he was no admirer of plural voting, and he expressed a desire to get rapidly to work to get rid of it. Well, some of us sit here by our own right and vote for other members of the House as representatives of the Scottish or Irish Peerages. That is a privilege of plural voting which I enjoy myself, but it is one which the noble Marquess has never troubled himself to remember in his zeal for abolishing plural voting. I sincerely hope, therefore, that that may stimulate him to assist the Prime Minister to put in the forefront next session that measure for the reform of the constitution of your Lordships' House which we have for two or three years anxiously anticipated, and which as a matter of honour the Government have pledged themselves to see through. The actual measure which we are engaged upon the noble Marquess told us was really an affair of the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot recall any remark that I made of that kind. I do not think I said that.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I forget the noble Marquess's exact words, but I thought he said that it was rather a domestic question.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No, I do not think so.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am sorry if I have misrepresented the noble Marquess, but I thought that was his view. However, I was merely going to point out that this House has a particular acquaintance with the business of electioneering; and if our capacity to deal with it is challenged, I should like to remind the noble Marquess
1354
that sitting on this Bench are no fewer than ten noble Lords who, between them, make an average of twenty years' service in another place, and that is a very high average. The acquaintance with the electoral law which we therefore have entitles us, I thick, to be heard on this subject. I will not labour what my noble friend has said so admirably as to the representation of communities, but I earnestly hope that in the consideration of the number of plural votes we shall not mix up two questions which seem to me entirely distinct. I do not think any member of your Lordships' House would be specially concerned to defend a system of faggot votes. So far as the possession by one man of a dozen qualifications in different parts of the country is concerned, no doubt that is a state of things against which much may be said; but of the 500,000 plural votes I believe those who know the subject well will tell you that by far the larger number are legitimate and desirable qualifications, and that, if communities are to be represented at all, you would be abstracting from the communities some of those who have the best right to vote if you deprived these men of their power of plural voting.
Is it in the interest of true representation that a man who has a residence and a vote in the country should be deprived of his vote in a town where he has a large business and a direct interest? In old days to a much greater extent than is the case at present men lived over their business premises or in close contiguity to them. But all that is changed now. Even comparatively small men leave the towns in which they carry on business and take houses in the country. If we consider what the position of such men is— men who employ largely in the town in which they carry on their business and devote their whole time there with the exception of the hours they spend at their residences in the country; men who, therefore, have great interest in the affairs of the town—I venture to say that not merely have they the right to form a part of that consultative community who send a Member to Parliament to represent the town, but that you cannot do a worse thing for the cause of the towns than to say to such a man that the moment he has a residential interest in the country elsewhere he is to resign his vote in the town in which he carries on his business and is to have practically nothing more to

1355
do with the community amongst whom he is making his money than if he were a mere shareholder in a public company.
In this Bill the Government draw a distinction between by-elections and General Elections, as my noble friend pointed out. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, when discussing the Home Rule Bill the other night, pointed out to us on this side of the House that whereas we had based our conception of the rights of Ulster to a large extent on the fact that the majority of the representatives of Ulster were opposed to Home Rule, that argument had been rather cut away from us by the fact that the result of the by-election at Derry had changed that position. But I would point out that the present Member for Derry was returned by a majority of some eight or nine votes. According to my noble friend we ought to have changed our views in consequence of the result of that by-election. But let us suppose that a General Election takes place immediately afterwards, then the present balance will be lost, not because of any change of opinion on the part of the electors in Derry but because certain persons who are eligible to vote at a by-election are withdrawn at a General Election. Could any anomaly be greater than that?
Our electoral laws require to be reformed from top to bottom. The breaches that have been made since the Act of 1884 are so wide that we have gone back to the condition of things which Parliament, by that Act, said should be set aside. It is impossible that the present distribution should be allowed to continue much longer. Shall I weary your Lordships if I mention just one or two cases I have in mind in order that you may see the enormity of the anomalies we are going to pass over as compared with the very modest one, to put it at the highest, which we are going to redress by this Bill. In the first place, as my noble friend said, the returning officer has to be paid by the candidates. What could be a greater anomaly? That might have been considered reasonable when a seat in Parliament was regarded as a service gratuitously given, but when you come to paying Members of Parliament is it not an anomaly to ask a candidate to put down £450 as an investment to obtain £400 a year for carrying out his duties.
Then by the Act of 1884 a special limit was placed upon the charges which were
1356
to be incurred upon elections. It was provided that upon halls and speakers and posters there should only be such a reasonable expenditure as would enable the electors to hear a candidate and his supporters, but that there should not be an exaggerated attempt by the expenditure of money to influence the poll. The result of the system on both sides has been to drive a coach-and-four through that provision. I cannot spend as a candidate more than a certain sum on posters, but an association may come down into my constituency and placard the whole district with the very things I desire to see put up. I cannot pay the fare of a single speaker, yet associations can send speakers in such numbers into it constituency that I have heard in one case of sixty or seventy meetings being held in support of one candidate on the night before the poll: In order that Grimsby might be stimulated by the eloquence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he was brought from Scotland by a series of special trains, at enormous expense, in order that on the eve of the poll he might rally the electors of Grimsby to the great principles of Irish disunion and Welsh plunder. Who paid for that? I should like to know. Not the candidate; he could not afford it. And as to the distinguished and eminent statesman who was brought there, it would be rather hard on him, after his exertions to get there, to be out of pocket to the tune of several hundred pounds. But thanks to some philanthropic administrator of Party funds an amount was shelled out which in itself probably equalled one-third or one-half of what the candidate himself was allowed to spend on his election expenses during that election. That gross anomaly rouses me a great deal more than the idea of a couple of hundred plural voters who happen to be employers coming into the town in which their business is carried on in order to record their votes.
My noble friend quoted Mr. Crooks, a Labour Member. I would like to quote another Labour Member, Mr. Snowden, who said that in most constituencies twenty or twenty-five per cent. of the workmen moved every year. By the Act of 1884 you are not allowed to pay the railway fare of one of those men to bring him back to vote; you may not send a fly for him, or pay sixpence to bring him back. But since 1884 there has arisen the great system of travel by motor car, and

1357
the intention of Parliament has been frustrated and motor cars are now marshalled and sent off sometimes as far as 200 or 300 miles to bring up voters. Not a farthing may be spent by a candidate in cab fares to bring these voters back; yet they can be brought up at an expenditure three or four times as great as if they had come by train. I know a case of one philanthropic lady who bought ten motor cars just before a General Election and brought to the poll thousands of voters and received the thanks of our Party. There is also the effect upon the voter who sees a large number of men—men who perhaps only came to live in the place for a time in order to carry out a building job or something of the kind and who had left the district and had no further interest in it, men knowing nothing about the trade of the place or the local requirements and perhaps caring less, and men who might have a strong bias in favour of Fair Trade when the voter himself has a strong bias in favour of Free Trade—brought in from outside to out-vote the local electors, a thing which under the law can be done but which is a direct violation of the spirit of the Act. His Majesty's Government propose to allow such an anomaly as that to remain.
On the question of our present registration system I should like to read what was said by Mr. Pease in the House of Commons. He said—
"If an individual goes into a constituency on the 17th of next month (July), he will not of course obtain a vote for this year. He will not obtain a vote during 1913, and he will not obtain a vote during 1914, but he will only go on the register on the 1st January, 1915."
That anomaly in our electoral law cries for redress. We are all ready to redress it. I should think that you could carry an unopposed Bill on that subject. But you leave it alone because that is a thing which cuts both ways; whereas to this measure, Mr. Pease says—
"I am quite prepared to make the admission freely to hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite that by the abolition of the plural vote we do expect to gain on this side of the House."
With regard to redistribution all the facts have been put before your Lordships already, but there is one fact which brings home the great inequality in the present law. Mr. Snowden told the House of Commons that although he was an un-
1358
successful candidate in 1900 he polled more votes than 650 out of the 670 Members returned at that election of them; and yet there was no second ballot or any of the remedies which are provided abroad in such cases. I am not recommending the adoption of them, although I do strongly say that when we talk of one vote one value we may not mean absolute equality.
It is impossible for the electoral distribution of seats to remain much longer in the present condition. How is it going to be changed? Instead of introducing a Small and partial and one-sided measure, would it not have been more statesmanlike and more practical for the Government to approach this side of the House, as Mr. Gladstone was ultimately forced to do? Surely this is a subject which ought not to be relegated to the Parliament Act and passed piecemeal with all the friction and all the imperfections inherent in a Bill of this character, but which ought to be dealt with in a frank and generous spirit by an interchange of views between the two Parties, such as had to take place in the case of every Reform Bill that has ever been carried into law. There was an enormous amount of concession with regard to the Reform Bill of 1831; the Reform Bill of 1867 was adopted by one Party after it had been put forward by another; and the Bill of 1881 was arrived at by agreement.
The aspect of this House to-night when the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, was speaking was not eloquent of any great feeling in the country for a Bill which he warned us we should be very unwise to reject. When he rose there were fourteen members of his own Party present in the House to support him, and when be sat down there were fifteen. We know that noble Lords opposite are in a minority in this House, but we also know that His Majesty's Government have created fifty or sixty new Peers to support such measures; and I can only say that the interest taken by noble Lords opposite in this Bill is indicative generally of the feeling that exists with regard to it throughout the country. I may say that I have not been asked a single question in the country with regard to this Bill. I believe no constituency has petitioned for the Bill. If it is passed I do not believe a single bonfire will be lit in the country, and if it is rejected I do not

1359
think any man will shed a tear except, perhaps, the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party, who will find himself unable to secure the return of those he desires to see in Parliament. That being the position, I think my noble friend is amply justified in the Amendment which he has submitted to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, has drawn attention to the lack of interest shown by noble Lords opposite with regard to this Bill. So far only two noble Lords on the Ministerial side of the House have hardened their hearts sufficiently to say one word in favour of the Bill. I have listened very attentively to their speeches. I listened to the carefully-reasoned speech delivered by the noble Marquess opposite, but I venture to say that nothing that fell from his lips in any way controverted the conclusive arguments brought against this Bill by my noble friend Lord Peel. Lord Strachie has tried to establish a precedent for this Bill. He accused us of inconsistency in opposing it. He pointed to the Local Government Act of 1888 which was passed by a Unionist Government, and said that under that Act we gave only one vote within a county area to any man who had interests in the county. There is no analogy between the two cases. As regards local government, the county council represents broader county questions, and local interests are safeguarded by the borough councils and smaller bodies. A man within a county area has really more than one vote if he has interests within the areas which are under the control of the smaller bodies, and those interests are safeguarded by the vote which he possesses in each of those areas. Then the noble Marquess opposite tried to find some comfort—I felt that he was endeavouring to reassure what seemed to me a somewhat guilty conscience —when he said that, as regards Irish representation the Government by introducing the Government of Ireland Bill would, in fact, reduce the representation of Irish Members to forty-two, whereas under a redistribution scheme we would have to give Ireland at least sixty-five. But if the principle on which our electoral system is based is in any way the representation of communities within certain defined areas, then the interests of the electors of Ireland will be safeguarded by the Members of the Irish Parliament which the
1360
Government propose to set up. So far from taking any credit for their action, I would almost say that in leaving forty-two Irish Members to come over here and vote on all sorts of questions the Government are really establishing a vast number of plural voters represented by those forty-two Irish Members.
The object of this Bill is quite clear. It is to alter the law in favour of the Party at present in power, while leaving untouched the more serious anomalies in our electoral system. In carrying out their object, the Government are going to take away from 400,000 or 500,000 electors rights which have been conferred upon them in respect to representation in Parliament. It is left to a Liberal Government to bring forward the first Bill which has for its main object a restriction of the franchise, a restriction avowedly brought forward to secure a Party advantage. That was admitted by the noble Marquess when he was speaking this evening. He said that the Bill might be of considerable advantage to his Party. It was more frankly admitted by one of his colleagues in another place during the Second Reading of the Bill. Mr. Pease said—
"Of course I admit that we believe from a Party point of view the passage of this Bill would be an advantage to us; that there are many small constituencies in which by the abolition of plural voting, we should secure a better majority for our candidates than we have at the present time."
I can add nothing to those words. I can only say this. If politics were a game, and if members of the Government found themselves on the committee of management, what would any one of them think if they made use of their position on the committee to alter the rules of the game in order to secure an advantage to themselves in the game they were playing? In the private affairs of life we can regard our political opponents as honourable gentlemen, but different rules apparently seem to apply when the object of the game is political place and power.
It is true that the Government have given us a pledge to deal with other electoral reforms during the lifetime of the present Parliament. Mr. Pease, on the introduction of the Bill, unfolded the programme of the Government. He put himself a very pertinent question and then proceeded to supply his own answer. He said—
"The question, therefore, which I presume they could like to put to me is this. 'Why introduce

1361
legislation merely to help One Party in the State from an electoral standpoint and defer franchise registration and electoral reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords and redistribution—subjects on which there might be a great consensus of opinion in all quarters of the House?' My reply to any such question would be that during the lifetime of the present Parliament we intend to proceed with those reforms."
That is a somewhat ambitious programme and, as Lord Peel said, it is a question whether there will be time and opportunity to carry out these things; but in any case we have here a distinct pledge on the part of His Majesty's Government, and I would not for the would cast any doubt on the value of that pledge. It will form a very valuable addition to the numerous pledges which have been given to us by His Majesty's Government in recent years. We on this side of the House might, however, point out to noble Lords opposite that the Government which they represent are pledged to reform our Second Chamber. They are pledged to readjust the burdens of Imperial and local taxation before a certain date, which has long since gone by. They are pledged to carry out a good many measures of considerable magnitude, measures which would take a considerable time if they are to be placed in a satisfactory form on the Statute Book. Surely the noble Marquess, in offering us this new promissory note on behalf of the Government, this Government I O U, is adopting somewhat the attitude of Mr. Micawber when he found himself in a difficulty as regards his obligations. Your Lordships have probably read "David Copperfield." There is a well known passage in that book to which, with the permission of the House, I should like to allude. The passage runs as follows—
"To leave my friend Mr. Thomas Traddles," said Mr. Micawber, "without acquitting myself of the pecuniary part of the obligation would weigh on my mind to an unsupportable extent. I have therefore prepared for my friend Mr. Thomas Traddles and I now hold in my hand a document which accomplishes the desired object. I beg to hand to my friend Mr. Thomas Traddles my I O U, and I am happy to recover my moral dignity and to know that I can once-more walk erect before my fellow men."
I can only suppose that the members of the Government, like Mr. Micawber, having handed us their I O U, imagine that they once more have earned the right to walk erect before their fellow men. I confess I cannot see that this Bill in itself confers any such right upon members of the Government.
1362
As I have pointed out, this Bill is drawn up simply with the object of securing a Party advantage to the Radicals when they have to face the electors of the country. A challenge was given to us from the opposite side of the House in regard to the question of plural voting in itself. I dispute altogether the proposition that there is anything wrong in a man under certain circumstances having more than one vote. I deny that plural voting is an anomaly in our electoral system. It is certainly not inconsistent with the representation of localities or communities. But no doubt it is true that a certain number of people, as the noble Marquess said, are opposed to plural voting. I cannot admit that they are so numerous as the noble Marquess imagined, and a good many of those people are opposed to plural voting only because they believe that plural voting means that a man may vote more than once in the same constituency. This, of course, is not so, but whether Radical speakers who condemn plural voting are always careful to explain that fact to their audiences is open to question.
The noble Lord who spoke last on the opposite side of the House dealt entirely with plural voting on a property basis. But I would ask your Lordships to take the ease, which is far more common, of a man who has succeeded by brains and energy and ability in building up a successful business in a district, and whose enterprise has brought in its train prosperity and employment to many people in the district. Surely a man of that hind is entitled to vote in the constituency in which his business is situated, although he may possess a vote in the locality in which he resides. Putting aside that argument, I would like to revert to what was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Peel in regard to education. Are not brains and the trained ability on which the whole future of this country is going to depend worthy of some representation? The members of the present Government talk a great deal about education. I feel inclined to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who, as we all know, takes great interest in educational reform, why members of the Government are so opposed to brains and ability receiving representation in Parliament. Do they really think that these attributes are so common as to seriously imperil the chances of their Party at the polls?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): As the noble Earl appeals to me I would answer that brains and ability are not represented by University constituencies. Those constituencies consist mostly of people who do not live there and who form a dominant majority.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: The University vote is another matter, with which I will deal presently. At present my contention is that the plural voter represents to a very large extent the brains and business ability of the country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not necessarily.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: The noble and learned Viscount disagrees, but I say that where a man gets a plural vote and is qualified to vote in more than one constituency it is because he has built up those interests by means of some inherent quality, in most cases by his energy, his brains, and his ability. If you are going to adopt the principle of making the House of Commons representative merely of numbers, then you are committed to the principle of proportional representation, otherwise your whole theory even of the representation of niece numbers falls to the ground. If you are to have representation of numbers, minorities must be represented. You cannot represent numbers under the system which you propose to set up in this Bill. There are many anomalies which detract, from the representative character of the House of Commons, but you are not going to make that House more representative by bringing in this measure of disfranchisement. The very fact that a man is rated and taxed in more than one constituency does establish his claim to a vote in each of those localities. A large proportion of the time of the House of Commons is devoted to dealing directly with matters of local concern, and I am sure that no member of your Lordships' House who has sat in the House of Commons will contradict me when I say that a great deal of the time of a Member of Parliament in connection with his constituency is concerned with the grievances or the desires either of individual constituents or groups of his constituents. For instance, the local railway service is inadequate, or the postal arrangements leave room for improvement, not altogether an unknown contingency. The Member of Parliament is naturally appealed to. A
1364
glance down the Question List of the House of Commons on any day of the session will show a multitude of semi-private topics raised with regard to the affairs of different localities. A man who has interests in different constituencies has at present the right, if he thinks those interests are being affected by legislation, to approach his Member even if he does not happen to be in political agreement with him. Every elector, irrespective of Party has a right to the services of his Member, but if you abolish a man's vote in all save one constituency you are going to deprive him of the right of approaching a Member of Parliament on the same footing on which he is at present able to approach him, and that to my mind is not in the public interest.
This Bill in taking away these votes contains seeds of further mischief. The Bill provides that at a General Election a man who has more than one vote is only to exercise that vote in one constituency. He is not tied down to any particular constituency. Assuming that a man's interests are affected and he goes to his Member of Parliament, what is going to happen? Will there not be a very strong temptation on the part of the Member of Parliament when he is appealed to for assistance to inquire as to whether that man is going to exercise his vote in his particular constituency at the next General Election? I do not say that the Member of Parliament is going to suggest to the man that in return for his services he should exercise his vote in his favour, as that would amount to bribery; but lie might enquire, and not without some justification, as to whether he is being asked to put himself to a considerable amount of trouble on behalf of a constituent or on behalf of a gentleman to whom he is under no sort of responsibility.
My Lords, this is a bad Bill; it does not even pretend to he an honest attempt to deal with the anomalies in our electoral system, anomalies which prevent the House of Commons from being to-day really representative of the people. It is drawn up with the intention of inflicting an injury on political opponents. The Bill deals with a particular class of voter because the Government, suppose that that class for the most part support Unionist, principles. The last great Bill which was drawn up with a similar object was adorned with a preamble. This Bill is deficient in that respect. If I had been

1365
asked to draw up this Bill for the Government, I could have provided a suitable preamble and one short clause which would have embodied the Government's objects. My Bill would have run as follows:—
"Whereas the Unionist Party is opposed to many proposals brought forward by the Radical Government: And whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for reducing if possible the representation of Unionists in future Parliaments: And whereas under the Parliament Act, 1911, measures can be passed into law without reference to the people: Be it therefore enacted that it shall be a crime and offence for certain voters at future General Elections to exercise the franchise which by law is conferred upon them."
I think that is a fairly concise and accurate method of describing the Government proposals, proposals so contrary to all our ideas of equity and justice that I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment which has been moved from this side of the House.
LORD COLCHESTER: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this subject because there is one point that has hardly been dealt with. No measure is worthy of consideration which does not deal with the most important question of all, the question of making the proportion between the division of opinion in the country and the division of opinion shown by the elected representatives in the House of Commons more real than it is at present. A great deal has been said in and out of the House about the question of one man one vote and one vote one value. I do not think there is a shadow of reality in one or the other as Icing as you retain a system whereby a majority of three or four at an election means as much as a majority of 3,000 or 4,000. You might meet it by the strictly proportional system resting on the basis of a single transferable vote, the basis which was to be adopted in the Irish Bill with regard to the Upper Chamber. That is one method which would require a modification of the single Member system. Where it is admitted that there are many anomalies, it is extremely likely that in correcting one anomaly alone you may do more mischief than good. It is not my intention to go very deeply into the merits or demerits of the plural vote, but I do attach importance to what was said by my noble friend Lord Dunmore, that it is probable that a man who is connected with several districts and possesses votes in those districts may be a
1366
man with a wider view of the wants and interests of the whole country than a man who is only connected with one. What I think you require to do is to consider deeply this question of proportional representation, Reference has been made to what occurred at the election of 1906, and the ridiculous disproportion between the voters and the Members returned to Parliament. That is a matter that requires to be dealt with. It is useless to argue that the representation system cannot be workable unless it is unreal. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, on a former occasion, referred to the old Constitution. When I heard him speak of the old Constitution it occurred to me that there is nothing of the old Constitution left under the Parliament Act. Now that the House of Commons is aimed with powers it never before possessed I think we do need new machinery and safeguards, and this ought to be one of the first considerations of any one who attempts to deal with the subject of electoral reform. I see no considerations of that kind in this Bill. What we require is a broad, comprehensive, statesmanlike measure dealing with the whole of the problems which require solution, and because I think this Bill would rather hinder than help in that direction I trust your Lordships will not give it a Second Reading.
[The sitting was suspended at half-past seven and resumed at nine o'clock.]
LORD BYRON: My Lords, I should be glad if I might be allowed to add a few words to the arguments that have been used on this side of the House against the charges of inconsistency which have been brought by noble Lords who oppose the Bill. It has been said that it is anomalous pith the feelings of the times that this measure should have been introduced by the Government unsupported by a scheme of redistribution, of Parliamentary reform, or of registration of voters. It has also been said that the Bill is inconsistent with Liberal policy. I propose very briefly to deal with the question of those anomalies. I think I may say that we on this side of the House fully share the regrets of noble Lords opposite that measures dealing with various important matters of electoral reform have not yet been able to be brought forward. They have been accidentally, or perhaps I should say involuntarily, suspended. We know that an Electoral Reform Bill was part of the programme of

1367
the present Government. There is a private Bill for the better registration of electors, and we may be pretty sure that a Redistribution Bill will not be very far behind a Reform Bill. Whether these measures when produced will be more acceptable to noble Lords opposite than the Bill now before your Lordships' House I cannot say. Of one thing, however, I am perfectly certain, and that is that any scheme of electoral reform must contain one element which is present in the Bill now under discussion—the democratic element. I must confess that it surprises me that it is the Unionist Party which has for some time past been calling aloud for these reforms—an Electoral Reform Bill, a Redistribution Bill, and what is more a reform in the constitution of your Lordships' House. All these things have been called for by that great Party which is still in many parts of the country known by its old name of Conservative. This may be a sign of the times and of the pressure of political competition, but, anyhow, there are the facts.
It has been alleged that this Bill, if unaccompanied by a scheme of redistribution, does nothing to change the anomaly of different values for different votes. I admit that that is so; but I do not believe that any scheme of redistribution will do that. It does not matter how you re- distribute your seats, it does not matter what figures you make the basis of population for your new constituencies, there are sure to be some constituencies that will, very soon after the redistribution has taken effect, fall below that unit, while there will be others that will as rapidly rise above it. In addition to that there are many boroughs, especially in the metropolis, where there is a large and continuous immigration of alien people, sonic of whom wait many years, not only before they are enfranchised, but before they are naturalised. As a matter of fact, there is always in these constituencies a floating foreign population who never seem to get the franchise. I do not believe, therefore, that by any scheme of redistribution you can get a system of one vote one value. Whether you can get such a system as the noble Earl opposite, Lord Dunmore, suggested, by a scheme of Proportional Representation, I cannot say. It seems to me, considering all things, to be the most feasible way, and I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Courtney would
1368
have risen to-night, and that we should have heard something on that subject from him.
But if this measure does not affect the value of the votes it does affect the voters. It does not limit the voting power in any way, but it does limit the power of a certain class of voters and prevents many thousands of them swarming into various constituencies besides those in which they dwell at the time of a General Election. I remember some years ago reading an obituary notice of a clergyman who, it was stated, at the time of his decease possessed no fewer than twenty-one votes. Most of them, no doubt, were faggot votes in respect of small properties bought by himself or his predecessors for the purpose, but others were genuine property votes. It was stated at the time, and I can well believe it, that this clergyman was the greatest plural voter in England. I should like in this connection to draw attention to one anomaly. Here you have one elector with the power of exercising no fewer than twenty-one votes, whilst, on the other hand, I think I am right in saying that of all the boroughs and counties of this kingdom your Lordships who are members of this House do not possess a single vote in any one of them. In saying this I am not, of course, alluding to the elections at the Universities, where Peers have the right to vote, although it is, I believe, a right that is very rarely used. It does seem to me to be an anomaly that one person, such as the clergyman I have mentioned, should have a voting power represented by twenty-one votes, whereas some six hundred of the largest landowners in England, with, of course, a great stake in the country, do not possess a single vote between them in all the counties and boroughs of the Kingdom.
This Bill, I admit, does not rectify that altogether, and I suppose it will be necessary to wait until we have a full measure of electoral reform before the members of your Lordships' House obtain the franchise. This measure does not raise the valleys, I admit, but it does something to remove the excrescences and to lower the hills and mountains. May I remind your Lordships that the total number of plural voters in this country at the present time is something like 525,000. What does that mean? It means that at every General Election

1369
something like half-a-million voters pour into various constituencies from every part of the country to the great scandal and grievance of the 'resident voters. My noble friend Lord Strachie alluded to this fact, and said with great truth that in some cases the out-voters literally come in at election times and out-vote the resident electors. It must be remembered, too, in discussing this grievance that many of these out-voters hardly ever visit the constituencies at any other time than during the progress of an election. I believe it is correct to say that in an average county constituency the number of out-voters is about 500, and in as it is stated I hat the number is over 1,000. I am prepared to admit that where at the last General Election the Unionist majority was in some cases under 500 and in others under 1,000—according to the number of plural voters—the possession of those seats by the Party opposite will be jeopardised by the passing of this Bill; but, on the other hand, I am not at all sure that when this grievance of the plural voter is removed it may not have a Conservative influence among the resident voters. It is quite possible then that electors who now vote Liberal or even Radical may take a Conservative turn. I mention that because I do not believe that the Bill is of such a one-sided character as it is generally made out to be.
It has been said that plural voting has become so traditional that it has actually become a part of the Constitution. Lord Peel alluded to this, and seemed to think that it would be almost unconstitutional to abolish it. I suppose that every precedent must have a first occasion, and that there must be a fist tint when every reform is promoted, and I feel confident that when the new system has become law it will come to be regarded as every bit as constitutional as the old system was. We know that by-elections are excepted from the provisions of this measure. I listened to the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, as I wanted to hear an explanation of the reason why by-elections have been omitted. I forget the exact phrase he used regarding this omission, but it is, as I thought, intended as a kind of pax vobiscum, as a peace offering to noble Lords opposite which it was hoped would facilitate the passage of this Bill through the House. I am afraid, however, that it will rather
1370
fail in that sense. I do not believe that any Reform Bill or Redistribution Bill introduced in future, whether in the present or a succeeding Parliament, will retain one vestige of the plural vote either for General Elections or for by-elections.
Before I close I should like to allude to the criticism of inconsistence that has been levelled against this measure. I do not know that it has been referred to during the debate to-night, but I have seen it stated on many occasions by its opponents that the measure is wholly inconsistent with Liberal policy. May I point out one very remarkable piece of consistency which runs through; all these measures of reform, from Lord Grey's Bill to the present one. I say nothing as to the desirability of the policy—there is something to be said on both sides—but the fact remains that there has run through; all these Bills the policy of the gradual elimination of the power of the land. Previous to 1832 in the counties, at any rate, the landowner alone had the franchise. By the Act of 1832 the great middle and commercial classes were enfranchised and the monopoly of the landowners—I do not use the word in any invidious sense—disappeared. Theme was a redistribution scheme at the same thaw, and in consequence of that a great number of the old pocket boroughs disappeared. All that lessened the influence of land in so far as it was used for political purposes. Then came the Act of 1807 and the Act of 1884, by which more pocket boroughs were made to disappear and the franchise was again lowered. All these measures, no doubt, meant indirect eliminations of the property vote. This, perhaps, is the first direct elimination. But, as I say, the same principle is unmistakably to he seen running through all the Reform Bills with remarkable consistency, and therefore the charge of inconsistency brought against this Bill can hardly, I think, be fairly sustained.
I suppose I may say that this Chamber is more representative than any other body of the great landed interests of this country, and that in some way it may be regarded as its trustee. In that case it is alike the duty and, the privilege of noble Lords in this House to defend the interest of the land, and I am perfectly certain that if landowners themselves do not stand up for the lauded interest nobody else will.

1371
But we on the other side see it in a different light. We say that there is a mischievous element in plural voting; we say that we have right on our side in dealing with that subject; we say that the time has come to remove a great anomaly in our electoral system; and we feel certain that in the long run we shall be successful in that object. I must apologise for having detained your Lordships so long, and I thank you for the attention you have given me.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, the noble Marquess opposite, in recommending this Bill to the House, made rather a point of the argument that it was a less drastic measure than some of its predecessors. He pointed out that under this Bill the representation would be left to the Universities, and that at by-elections the plural voter would still he able to wander about the country and record his vote. Those are points which, as far as I am concerned, certainly make this a better Bill than the one which was introduced previously by the Government. But there is one important omission in the Bill which I think is very applicable and which we in this House especially should consider. I do not believe I am wrong in saying that the previous Bill produced by the Government gave Peers what I consider is now their absolute right—namely, the power of the vote. This Bill carefully avoids that. I suppose that the Government thought there would be a majority of Conservative voters in sonic places if Peers were allowed to vote, and so they are carefully omitted from the Bill.
The noble Marquess opposite seemed to think that there was still left to us a great amount of influence which we could exercise upon our fellow-countrymen. He referred in his speech to those of position and wealth who would still be able to exercise a controlling influence at elections. I must confess that I am very doubtful about that myself. I have fought a good many hotly-contested elections in my time, and I know that when the ballot box has come to be turned out the only vote that I could be absolutely sure was right was the vote I had given for myself. I question whether nowadays so much wealth and influence is possessed by noble Lords as the noble Marquess seemed to think. I have no doubt that the noble Marquess himself and his colleagues on the Front
1372
Bench do exercise great influence, but in other quarters I do not think that, generally speaking, there is very much of that influence left in the country. All the activities of the Gladstone League, I believe, only sufficed to discover a very few trumpery cases where pressure had been put on people to obtain votes, and I was only too pleased to hear of the result of the investigations of that body. As a matter of fact, I think the noble Marquess and other speakers on the Government side largely over-estimate the power which can now be used by people of influence or wealth in the direction of swaying the result of an election. Personally I would rather rely on my own vote than on any power of my voice to bring the unfaithful into the proper fold.
Passing from that, I wish to say that there is one aspect of the Bill which curiously enough has been very much overlooked in all the debates on the measure. This is a Bill which on the face of it has for its object the abolition of the plural vote, but as a matter of fact if the Bill were accepted by your Lordships and in due course became law there would be thousands of plural voters still left in the country. In every constituency which returns two Members of Parliament every one of the electors who happens to reside in that constituency would be in the fortunate and exceptional position of being a plural voter. This works out in a very extraordinary manner. I happened myself to go down a short time ago to assist a candidate in one of the Parliamentary divisions just outside the city of Manchester. I cannot do better as an example of how this would work out than take the case of two divisions situated in Lancashire. I happened to be speaking in the Stretford division in that county. In that division—I am dealing only in round figures—there are 30,000 electors. In North-West Manchester there are 12,000 electors, making a total for the two divisions I have named of 42,000 electors. A man may have business premises in North-West Manchester and a villa residence in the Stretford division; yet according to the noble Marquess it is an absurdity and an abuse that such a man should have two votes. But if that man should happen to move to Bolton a few miles only away, he would find that when he had shaken the dust of Manchester off his feet and breathed into his lungs the

1373
freer political atmosphere of Bolton he, with a place of business in the centre of the town and a villa residence in the suburbs, would immediately have two votes. According to the noble Marquess that is perfectly fair and just; whereas if the same man had two votes in Manchester it would be absolutely wrong. Yet in the divisions of North-West Manchester and Stretford there is a total of 42,000 electors, whilst in the division of Bolton there are 21,000 electors. The Government, therefore, are deliberately leaving thousands and thousands of plural voters in the country, while passing a Bill to disfranchise plural voters because Ministers think these men vote against them.
No doubt the answer will be that this matter will be dealt with when the Government take up—if they ever do—the subject of redistribution. I may remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister, in recommending this Bill for Third Reading in another place, "hoped" that a Redistribution Bill would soon follow this measure. I would ask your Lordships to note that we have now passed from the stage of debts of honour which brook no delay to pious hopes, and there is now a pious hope with which we are to console ourselves that a Redistribution Bill may follow this measure. When the Prime Minister proceeded to deal with this question of redistribution—and, if I may say so, the noble Marquess also used the same argument in recommending the Bill to your Lordships—I was amused because he informed us that the Government had already moved a step forward in the direction of securing redistribution. We were told that if only the Home Rule Bill were allowed to become law a gross anomaly which requires redress in connection with the present distribution of seats—namely, the over-representation of Ireland—would be remedied. I consider that to he really a masterpiece of fallacious argument, for why on earth, I should like to know, should Ireland under Home Rule have forty-two Members? By all the principles on which anybody is allowed to vote in any country, when we come to deal with English matters Ireland is entitled to absolutely no votes whatever. There will be, of course, in I every session of the Imperial Parliament hundreds of occasions on which Members I will be called upon to vote on questions in which Ireland has no interest whatever.
1374
Yet every Railway Bill may be blocked in the House of Commons by these forty-two Members from Ireland on the ground that the London and North Western Railway Company had not provided suitable sleeping accommodation on their trains for the Members who have to hurry backwards and forwards between the Parliament in Dublin and the Parliament at Westminster.
We are told, as I have pointed out, that one of the reasons for passing this very partial Bid is that the Government are already dealing in some measure with the question of redistribution by means of the Home Rule Bill. Leaving aside the question whether Ireland should have any Members voting in the British House of Commons on questions concerning only England, Scotland, and Wales, I desire to point out that both the noble Marquess and the Prime Minister entirely failed to tell the Assemblies which they were respectively addressing that the moment a question arises on a matter in which Ireland ought to have a voice, the moment, that is to say, when the thorny question of the financial relations between England and Ireland is brought up for consideration, Ireland is to have her full representation in the Imperial Parliament. I think on such occasion twenty Members are to be added, the most that, according to population, Ireland is entitled to. I am bound to say that if, under Home Rule, forty-two Irish Members are to sit and vote in the British House of Commons, and that is to be the Assembly in which von intend to carry your redistribution scheme should it ever be presented to Parliament, I do not think the taxpayer, the unfortunate man who has to find the money, will feel any hope that the matter will be dealt with in any very fair or equitable spirit.
The question of redistribution has been dealt with ad auseam in this debate and on previous occasions, and I do not intend to pursue it further. But there is one other point which I should like to mention in connection with one of the arguments used by the Prime Minister in recommending this Bill for the acceptance of Parliament. On the Third Reading of the measure in another place I notice that the right hon. gentleman said—
"One item one vote is a principle recognized by every other democratic country and also by our own Colonies."
I agree that that is perfectly true, and I for one do not in the least, in the presence of so

1375
many distinguished statesmen who have had vast experience in responsible posts in our Colonies and also in dealing with other countries, wish to enter into any lengthy argument as to the power of the democracy in foreign countries or in our own Colonies. But I do not believe it can be said that there is any great civilised country in the world where the democracy is more powerful than it is in this country. It may be perfectly true that in the United States of America, in Germany, and in France the principle of one man one vote is fully recognised; but I do not believe I am wrong in saying that in France, Germany, and the United States of America—the United States I am perfectly sure about—the democracy has far more checks than exist at the present moment in the United Kingdom. There is the President, there is the Senate, and there is the House of Representatives—all with powers far greater than those exercised at the present moment by the Crown and your Lordships' Chamber in this country. Again, take Germany. I am not so conversant with the Constitution of Germany, but I believe the House of Representatives there is not imbued with the same absolute power that the House of Commons is in this country; and I also believe, although I am quite ready to be corrected, that the popular vote in Germany is very largely checked owing to the fact that large industrial districts which vote Socialist or Radical are very poorly represented in the House of Representatives in comparison with other districts which are more likely to vote in a more Conservative manner.
And if we take the country which is, after all, held up as the leader of democratic principles, the United States, not only have they in the Senate and in the President a far greater check on the popular vote as represented by the House of Representatives, but, in addition, when anything is clone which is at all of a revolutionary character they instantly run foul of the written Constitution, and the Constitution of America is frequently in the way of any very drastic proposal which may emanate from a popular vote. Though, as I say, it may be perfectly true what the Prime Minister, in recommending this Bill for acceptance, has told us, that the principle of one man one vote is recognised by the Great Powers throughout the world and also in our own Colonies, at the same time if you take the great countries of the world
1376
you will find that there are far more checks to the popular vote than exist at the present time in the United Kingdom. It may be argued, and I think with great justice, that perhaps that is not the state of affairs in some of our Colonies. I do not intend for one moment to criticise the policy of our great Colonies, but as a humble individual I can say this—and I believe it is an Opinion which is shared by a large number of people—that certainly in Colonies such as New Zealand and Australia this principle of democracy has not worked altogether satisfactorily, and that if capital had only had a little more say in the government of the country both those countries would have progressed more rapidly and would have been greatly developed and had far larger populations. I am rather inclined to think that if you were to adopt the same principles as have been adopted in New Zealand and Australia in this country—an old country with a very limited area—at the end of a very few years You would have a large portion of your population absolutely on the brink of starvation and I do not think it is altogether encouraging to an old country like this to have examples such as that held up for a democratic measure still further to decrease the voting power used by property owners.
Before I leave this subject I may also mention that there is one country in Europe which is also a progressive country and a very prosperous country, and in some ways is very similar to this country, having a small area of land with a very dense population and a large amount of manufactures—I speak of Belgium. What has happened in Belgium? There is not one man one vote in Belgium. In Belgium there are 1,000,000 voters who have one vote, 400,000 with two votes, and 300,000 with three votes; and I am not at all certain that Belgium is not a country which has managed its affairs pretty well. At all events it has one great boon and blessing it has a good Conservative Government in office. I therefore believe that the argument of following the example of our Colonies and of foreign countries is not altogether applicable in our case. I am one of the first to admit that if you give real efficient powers to a Second Chamber—if you like, a proper Second Chamber according to Radical ideas—this principle of one man one vote might be perfectly sound; but I am certain if a country is to progress and

1377
capital is to be invested and employed in the country, it is a grave mistake to do this which you believe is going to give still greater power to what you choose to call the democracy.
In the whole of this argument which you use for this Bill you lay down the law as regards the plural vote as if in this country we had been governed by the counting of heads. Such a thing has never existed. We have never been governed in this country by the mere counting of heads. After a General Election you do not run and find out how many people voted Conservative and how many Radical, and say that according to those numbers there will be so many Conservatives and so many Radical Members in the House of Commons. Before we reach that happy day we must adopt the scheme of the noble Lord I see sitting opposite (Lord Courtney). We have never been governed by these methods. We have always been governed in this country by what is known as the representation of localities, and in spite of every argument, which has been used I cannot see why, if a man has an interest and pays taxes in a locality, when it comes to voting for a Member to represent that locality he is not to have a vote. If we get to the counting of heads, let us do that; but by the Government Bill, that, of course, is not touched in any way. In moving the Second Reading of this measure the noble Marquess dealt with former measures. He, perhaps quite rightly, tried to put upon the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench the charge that on previous occasions they had not always spoken with the same voice. I think the noble Marquess in the remarks he makes upon the Opposition should for one moment consider that the situation during the last three years has very-materially changed. During the last three years the powers of this House have been practically rendered nil, and consequently the argument that property—the capitalist, if you like—should have a little increased voting power in the other Chamber is strengthened.
It is always difficult in dealing with these questions to describe exactly the classes or the people of whom you speak. I hate speaking of the rich and the poor. I think it is much better to divide the classes of electors into direct and indirect taxpayers, and in my own opinion—and I
1378
believe it to be an opinion which would be endorsed by a large number of men who have studied the government of countries—for the good government of the country you do require a certain balance of power between the direct taxpayers and the indirect taxpayers. Sometimes when you listen to member, of the Government speaking on this question you would imagine that the indirect taxpayers were a poor down-trodden class who found it perfectly impossible to make their voices heard in the House of Commons and quite unable to carry reforms that they require. In my opinion nothing could be wider of the mark. It rather reminds me of the story of the policeman who, after a very hot and tiring day and feeling very thirsty, ran a man in for being tipsy. An old lady who was present said, "Do not hurt the poor man, he is ill," and the policeman remarked, "I only wish I was suffering from half his complaint." If the direct taxpayers of this country, as regards the question of making their voice heard in the House of Commons, could exercise a quarter of the power of the indirect taxpayers, I feel perfectly certain they would be extremely happy. One may roughly estimate that there are about 1,000,000 direct taxpayers, who find £86,000,000 of the taxation of this country; and 7,000,000 indirect taxpayers, who find £74,000,000. So that the 1,000,000 direct taxpayers already find a great deal more money towards the expenses of the country than the 7,000,000 indirect taxpayers. In addition to that, as regards the indirect taxpayers, I find that an enormous amount of the money which they provide is paid back to them in the way of benefits—or, as I think in certain cases they rather believe, imaginary benefits—because I find that old age pensions, education, insurance, and labour exchanges eat up some £55,000,000 of that money.
I am old enough to remember a good many speeches made by Chancellors of the Exchequer, both Liberal and Conservative, in the House of Commons, and my recollection is that there was a sort of idea followed that direct taxation and indirect taxation should about balance one another. That was the principle which a great many Chancellors of the Exchequer acted upon. Well, we have departed from that. It is a principle which. I think, modern Chancellors of the Exchequer have entirely abandoned, and, as I say, you find that

1379
the quota paid by direct taxpayers is steadily going up, and, if I may prophesy, will go up a great deal more in the future. At the same time you say they are to have far less voting power. It may be argued that the plural vote only favours investment in a certain class of property. It may be argued that the man who invests in stocks and shares or industries is not hurt much if deprived of a plural vote, but that the man who is helped by a plural vote is the man who invests in land. I think there is very good reason for that, because the man who invests in land runs a big risk. His investment is there for anyone to take, but the man who invests in other things very often invests in an enterprise out of which, if he thinks it is getting insecure, he can clear, and I think it can be easily argued that it is only fair and right that a man who invests in a commodity which can be seized by the Government should have this extra voting power. These are days when prominent statesmen, both Liberal and Conservative, are very busy making speeches upon land reform and upon the future of our agricultural industry. I will only say one thing about that. I am perfectly certain that the greatest disaster that could possibly happen to the agricultural industry is that, owing to fear of interference or confiscation, you should dry up the source of capital going into agricultural pursuits. We have heard a great deal about the security in days gone by for farmers' capital and their investments. I think it is just as important that landlords and would-be landlords who are about to invest their money in the improvement of their property should also feel secure in their investments, and I do not think it is at all unreasonable that a man who invests his money in land in a county and spends money in improving it should have a vote in that county in order to protect that investment.
If we wish the taxpayer in future to pay regularly, willingly and honestly the taxes which are imposed upon him it is absolutely necessary that he should feel he has some power in the spending and levying of those taxes. I am pleased to say that in the past taxes have been paid regularly and honestly in this country, but I am also convinced that if the direct taxpayers believe they are being taxed unjustly, and if they are not allowed any extra voting power owing to the investments that they
1380
have made in this country, you will very likely find a different state of affairs will exist. This argument may not be very convincing to noble Lords opposite, but I firmly believe that, however tight a Chancellor of the Exchequer may draw the strings, a door will be open to evasion. I remember, when this question of one man one vote was being debated in the House of Commons, speaking to a wealthy Liberal Member and saying to him, "I cannot understand a man like yourself who has a great deal to lose voting for a Bill like this." What was his answer? "Oh," he said, "I don't believe very much in the plural vote for saving my property. I know a much better way than that. It is to sell out all your securities which can be got hold of and put them into bearer bonds. Then hire two safes at the Chancery Lane Safe Deposit, one belonging to yourself and one to your wife, and when you feel ill you give your wife the key of your safe and tell her to open it and put all the bonds from your safe into hers, and then you die a poor man and do the Chancellor of the Exchequer." I am only quoting that to show that evasion is possible.
I believe that if you begin by giving a feeling that the people of this country are being taxed unjustly and not given proper representation future Chancellors of the Exchequer will find that evasion will grow. I have no doubt that politicians who believe they can get power by confiscatory promises will still continue to get voters to vote for them by open bribes, but I am perfectly certain that anyone who studies the teaching of history or looks at the foundation of good government in any country will see that a country can be as quickly ruined by the spoliation of the—I will not call them the rich; the "idle rich" is the name usually applied to them by noble Lords opposite—by the spoliation of the prudent and the thrifty as by the oppression of the poor. I fully admit that in the plural vote there is a small advantage given to the owners of property in this country, and I, for one, though I have fought a good many contested elections, never hesitated for a moment to stand up for that principle on the ground of taxation and representation going together. And now that you have absolutely destroyed the power of the Second Chamber I can only hope that in this country there may be a feeling that there should be some extra

1381
security and some extra power given to the payers of direct taxation. I am perfectly certain that democratising the franchise, as it is called by noble Lords opposite, will only mean that there will be fresh inducement to politicians, not only on the other side of the House but on this side as well, to try and get office by making promises which would not redound to the future benefit of the country, but which would, perhaps, only secure for themselves a passing popularity and a pass to office.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I support the Amendment of Lord Peel from a rather different point of view from that from which he moved it himself, or from which it has been defended by most of the speakers on this side. I cannot, like others who have spoken from this side, defend the existing present practice of plural voting on its merits. Nor do I think the arguments which the noble Viscount used to defend it constitute any real defence. He said, and said very truly, in the course of the able and eloquent speech which he delivered this evening, that additional representation should be given to intellect, to education, to industry, and, I think he added, to wealth. With all that I am quite prepared to agree; and if we were setting oat to form an entirely new representative system I should be very glad if machinery could be devised to give such additional representation to those particular interests; but this is in no way accomplished by the system of plural voting which we are discussing—a system which is not the deliberate act of Parliament to give additional representation to education or even to wealth, but is purely accidental and incidental to our existing system of registration.
A great deal, I think, might be said in defence of the noble Viscount's point of view, but surely if we are quite candid we must all admit that no one setting out to establish a new representative machinery to-day would bring into existence a system of plural voting such as we have at the present time. That being so, I may be asked by noble Lords opposite why it is that I propose to vote for the Amendment of Lord Peel and not for the Bill of the Government. Well, my Lords, I have had no hesitation whatever in deciding which way my vote should be cast. I do so because of the circumstances in which this Bill is preuented—circumstances which, I believe,
1382
would justify any Second Chamber in the world in rejecting this Bill. For, after all, if we strip the Bill of all humbug, there can be no doubt whatever that it is simply a mere shameless Party manœuvre. It is not based upon any ground of public policy whatsoever. The other night when I was speaking on the Scottish Temperance Bill Lord Courtney took me to task for using the word "insincere" in connection with that Bill. I have no doubt he would equally take me to task to-night for using the word "humbug." He would perhaps retort—I have no doubt the noble Earl who will reply for the Government will retort—that if we accuse the Government of bringing forward this Bill on Party grounds it is on the same grounds that our opposition is based. I do not deny it for a moment. It would be equally humbug for us to pretend otherwise; but there is a difference between the Government and us. We are prepared to consider the general problem of how the representative machinery of tins country can be improved, with a full knowledge that in doing so this system of plural voting, together with a great many other anomalies, will probably be swept away. Our opposition, therefore, is not obstinate. It is merely conditional, whereas your insistence upon dealing only with this particular anomaly is obstinate, and that is the difference between us. In other words, we ate willing to consider the whole question on the grounds of public policy, and you are only willing to consider that particular portion of it which happens to serve the interests of your own Party.
Let me consider for one moment the only ground of public policy on which this Bill can be defended. It can only be defended on the ground that under the system of registration which we know to-day a proper representation of the political feelings of the country is not obtained in Parliament. I agree that the most urgent of all political reforms are those which would improve the representative character of Parliament; but consider for a moment what has been the action of His Majesty's Government upon this question from that point of view. The political Party which supports the present Government was returned to Parliament in 1906 with an overwhelming and unprecedented majority, and what has been their attitude towards this question of defects in our representative institutions? Did they in that Parliament to which they were returned

1383
with this enormous majority say, "Let us first of all try and amend the most serious defects of our system of voting in order that we may be certain that we in this House who exercise power to-day fully represent the people who have returned us to Parliament?" Did they, for instance, say, "We notice, in the first place, that more than half the population—namely, the whole of the womanhood of the country—is entirely unrepresented, and therefore we will in the course of our next Parliament introduce a Bill for woman suffrage?" No, my Lords, they did within of the kind; and yet what is the grievance of the man with one vote against another who has two compared with the grievance of those who have no votes at all.
Again, did they say, "We notice at the present moment that in this Parliament there is not a single Unionist Member for Wales, and therefore clearly there must be some defect in our representative institutions, because we know there is a large Unionist population in Wales, yet that Unionist minority in the Principality is entirely unrepresented in the House of Commons?" I have no doubt that a good Liberal like my noble friend Lord Courtney would at once have brought in some system of proportional representation to correct this anomaly; but that is certainly not what the Government did. Did they examine the defects of the system of registration, or the anomalies of the distribution of seats, to which reference has been constantly made in this House, and all of which are serious blemishes in our electoral system? Nothing of the sort. What the Government did, and the only thing the Government did, was to scrutinise the votes which had been recorded in that General Election of 1906, and finding that a certain number of them had been repeated, and that of those repeated the majority were cast in favour of their political opponents, the very first use they made of their unprecedented majority was to pass a Bill with the object of reducing still further the representation of their opponents, and one of the first Bills they sent up to this House was the Plural Voting Bill of 1906. It was rejected by this House, as your Lordships remember; and now, having strained the Constitution to overcome the opposition of your Lordships, the very first use they make of the Parliament Act, as the first use they made of their unprecedented majority in 1906, is to
1384
bring in a Bill to abolish the plural vote. If that were the whole case it is sufficient justification, I submit, for the Amendment which has been moved by Lord Peel this evening; but it is not the whole case, because there is more and worse behind it, for through all these years since 1906 the Government have been making pledges and promises with regard to the removal of these other more important electoral anomalies, and of all these pledges and promises they have failed in the whole of that time to fulfil a single one.
It was in 1908—two years after the General Election of 1906—that, in answer to a deputation of those who support woman suffrage, Mr. Asquith replied that he and the Government were prepared in the course of that Parliament to introduce a Reform Bill which would deal with the whole question. He took the same view then that we are taking to-night, and he said, "You must not deal with this single question alone. The Government are going to deal with the whole question of our electoral machinery. We are going to bring in a Reform Bill in the course of this Parliament, when it will be open to you to move an Amendment to carry out what you wish." Your Lordships remember that owing to the rejection of the Budget in the following year and the Dissolution of Parliament that pledge was not carried out; and when Mr. Asquith was again asked after the election of that year, which again returned him to power, he repeated the pledge and again promised to pass a Reform Bill in that Parliament. By a deputation in' November of 1911 Mr. Asquith was asked three questions. First, would the Government pass that Reform Bill through all its stages in 1912? and Mr. Asquith replied, Certainly. Secondly he was asked, would that Bill be so drafted as to admit of an Amendment to introduce the question of woman suffrage? and lie answered again, Certainly. Lastly he was asked, if the Amendment so introduced was carried, would the Government become responsible for it and defend it through all subsequent stages as an integral part of their Bill? Once again Mr. Asquith replied, Certainly.
Now I want to ask one question of His Majesty's Government. Does any member of the Front Bench opposite doubt for a moment what would have been Mr. Asquith's reply to this question if it had

1385
been put to him at that time, "Do you consider that the withdrawal of your Reform Bill and the substitution of a Bill to abolish plural voting would be a breach of your pledge and a violation of the whole spirit of the undertaking which you have just made?" Does any one doubt for a moment that Mr. Asquith would have answered, Certainly. Such a question was unthinkable at that time, and it would have been resented as an insult to suppose, after the repeated pledges and promises that had been given, that the Government could fail to carry out what they promised. Yet that is precisely what they have done. When in the end this long-promised Reform Bill was introduced—it was introduced as late as January of this year as your Lordships remember—what was it that happened? The Speaker of the House of Commons on that occasion ruled that the Government was not in a position to carry out the promise it had given. I do not blame the Government for that. I do not suggest for a moment that the decision of the Speaker was in any way under their control; but I do blame them for the manner in which they have dealt with the situation which was thus created. For, my Lords, when they found that the miscalculation was theirs, when they found that it was impossible for them to carry out the promise which they had given, surely they were in honour bound to substitute something which was at least as good as the promise they had previously made.
And what is the substitute which the Government have given us in return for their Reform Bill? This Bill—this little, insignificant, paltry, Party measure; this is what they offer us as a substitute for a great Reform Bill which was to have dealt with all the anomalies of the electoral system of the country and to make our system thoroughly representative. If this is the substitute for that Bill, what is the offer the Government make to the women whom they have deceived with their promises unfulfilled and whom they have exasperated with their pledges unredeemed? The offer is that they should be satisfied with a Private Member's Bill, whose chances of passing into law they have themselves destroyed and which for years past they have constantly deprecated as an unpractical method of passing important legislation. Out of the shipwreck of their
1386
own proposals of last session the one little thing they have succeeded in saving is this Bill, a Bill with no object of improving our representative institutions, a Bill not to remove the faults and anomalies of the registration laws, a Bill not to give votes to those who are without them at the present day, but simply a Bill to take away from their opponents a portion of the votes on which they count at the moment. I repeat what I said before, that there is not a Second Chamber in the world who would not have rejected this Bill when presented to them in such circumstances and I do not think I have ever given a vote with a clearer conscience or with more satisfaction than the vote which I shall give to-night for this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the subject we are discussing is becoming rather threadbare, and I shall only stand for a few moments between the House and the noble Earl who will no doubt wind up the debate. I wish, in the first place, to notice one or two observations that fell from the noble Marquess who introduced the Bill. He appeared to me to be at first concerned, not so much in a defence of its provisions, as in an attempt to carry the war into the enemy's country, and he asked us a series of questions, to one or two of which I should like to reply. In the first place he expressed some surprise that this Amendment should not have been moved by some noble Lord sitting on the Bench behind me. My noble friend Lord Peel gave it satisfactory answer to that question so far as the precedents are concerned; but, if I may be permitted to say so, he gave a further and still more convincing answer by the manner in which he acquitted himself of the task we had asked him to undertake. I do not think any one of us has had the pleasure of listening to a better expressed or more closely reasoned speech. Then the noble Marquess suggested that this arrangement had been made because we desired to sonic extent to relieve ourselves of our responsibility for the Amendment. That is a complete misapprehension. We take the fullest responsibility for the Amendment. It expresses our views; its wording has our approval; and I venture to think that it expresses in a very succinct and unambiguous form the opinion which most reasonably-minded people would form as to the merits of the Bill upon the Table.

1387
The noble Marquess asked us, when we pointed out that this Bill was a partial measure and did not deal with the question of redistribution, whether we believed in the possibility of so arranging our electoral machinery that there should be no inequalities. I do not suppose anyone ever for a moment conceived that such a solution of the electoral question was possible. All that we are concerned to plead for is that if any attempt is made to touch the present electoral system, its most glaring inequalities should not remain, as they do under this Bill, entirely untouched and unremedied. The noble Marquess asked what our attitude really was with regard to this question of plural voting; whether we are or are not thick and thin supporters of plural voting as it exists at this moment. I say unhesitatingly that the Amendment of my noble friend does not commit us to anything like a thick and thin support of plural voting as it exists at present. We are perfectly ready to have the whole question of plural voting investigated, provided that the investigation extends to the whole of our electoral machinery and is not confined, as this Bill is confined, to a single fragment of it. No one, of course, for a moment could defend plural voting in ifs most extreme form. I think Cord Byron mentioned a case where one individual had no less than twenty-one votes. I have been told in confidence by a member of this House that there was a time when he himself disposed of no less than sixteen votes. No one, I venture to think, would defend any arrangement of that kind, or attempt, as my noble friend Lord Lytton put it, to set up deliberately a system of plural voting corresponding exactly with that which now prevails. On the other hand, where the voter's dual interest is a substantial interest, where the dual vote really means that the voter has a substantial stake and substantial interest in more than one constituency, it does not in the least shock me that he should be allowed to vote in respect not of his qualification in one constituency but of his qualifications in two constituencies. As has been truly said during this discussion, the whole principle of our electoral law is that it is based upon the representation of localities and communities. A voter votes, not because he has so much live flesh and blood, but because he fives in a particular place, and because he
1388
is rated and taxed in that particular place, and has therefore a right to take a part in the choice of a Parliamentary representative of that place.
Two cases which are much to the point have been mentioned during this discussion. There is the case of the voter who owns business premises in a large city and who also has a residence in another part of the country. The effect of this Bill upon a voter thus qualified is obviously most unfair. The effect of it is to hand over the representation of the city to people who have really no concern in its affairs, or, if that does not happen, then to deprive the city man of his share of the representation of the locality in which he has his private residence or home. The same thing is true of the representation of our Universities. I heard with soiree surprise what was said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack as to University representation. Surely when these Universities were given the right to return Members to Parliament it was never suggested that that right should be given at the expense of other constituencies, because that is what it comes to. The noble Marquess, speaking on this part of the subject, said, "Oh, but we are not disfranchising the Universities." His Majesty's Government meant to disfranchise them in the Bill they introduced last year; and in the Bill of this session, although they do not actually disfranchise them, they do put a heavy disability upon them. They give them the vote, but then punish the University voter by only allowing him to use his University vote if he sacrifices his vote in another locality. That is not a fair and reasonable way, in my view, of treating the question of University representation.
Then there is the extraordinary discrepancy between the treatment of the question of the dual vote in this Bill and in the Bill of last session. Under the Bill of last session no one could be registered for more than one constituency; but under this Bill you allow the plural voter to retain all his plural votes—he may have several—and he is allowed to use them freely at by-elections. Surely that is a most grotesquely inconsistent way of dealing with the question. We can all recall cases where by-elections have had an extraordinary political importance; and by what train

1389
of thought can you defend a provision which makes it perfectly lawful to use a second vote at any number of intervening by-elections, and under which you punish the same man for using his vote twice when a General Election comes round? There seems to be neither rhyme nor reason in that proposal, and it is one which, as has been pointed out, will certainly have the effect of leading to a great manipulation of votes at the time of a General Election. I remember when I was at the War Office there was a Committee presided over by a very distinguished officer whose business it was to allocate the recruits to the different battalions according to the needs of those battalions. Well, you will have exactly the same thing under the plan of this Bill. You will have the organisers in these matters manipulating these plural votes and using them precisely at those points where they can be used to the greatest effect. You will be increasing the power of the Party machine, which most of us think is quite powerful enough already.
I trust it will not be supposed that those of us who use these arguments use them because we have a sneaking affection for plural voting with its attendant abuses. Our opposition to this Bill is not due to a feeling of that kind. Our opposition to this Bill is due to the fact that in our view there is no justification whatever for the manner in which you fasten upon this one inequality in our electoral law, neglecting the many other and much more glaring inequalities which presents. And we all know that of do so because it suits your book politically to take up this particular question. Will anyone—will any noble Lord opposite—tell us that His Majesty's Government would have taken up this question if the result of the Bill would have been to have helped our side, or to have left things as they are? And I must say I was rather surprised when the noble Marquess, with an air of irresistible simplicity, told us that he really did not know exactly how this Bill would operate, and that very often these changes in the law did not have precisely the effect anticipated from them. If the noble Marquess chooses to make inquiries he will not only be told what the effect of the Bill will be, but I think be will be very likely told within a small number of seats what its anticipated result at a General Election would be.
1390
Our complaint is that you leave untouched the greatest of all the anomalies which prevails under our present system. You desire to have a system under which one man will have one vote, but you are content to sit down under a system which gives to the vote of a voter, according as he votes in one constituency or another, a disparity of value which is becoming with every year that passes more noticeable and more intolerable. It has been said with truth, and by a supporter of His Majesty's Government, that the real plural voters are not these 500,000 electors who vote in more places than one, but the men who have votes for the small constituencies in which every vote given counts, it may be, ten, twenty, or thirty times what each vote counts in another constituency.
If I remember rightly, it was the noble Marquess who took us to task because in the year 1905 we attempted to deal with the question of redistribution without dealing also with plural voting or any of the other anomalies of the electoral law. But, my Lords, there is surely a little difference between our conduct on that occasion and the conduct of His Majesty's Government at the present time. We, at ally rate, had sufficient courage to deal with the larger anomalies, although, perhaps, we did not show sufficient courage in attacking the smaller ones also; but you are selecting the smaller ones and leaving the larger untouched for the obvious reason that it suits your book to do so. I will not take up your Lordships' time by illustrating the manner in which these anomalies work in different parts of the country. My noble friends have given sufficient instances. There is no part of the kingdom in which the present system of distribution does not work with gross unfairness. In Scotland 40 per cent. of the electors are Unionists, but only 8 Unionist Members of Parliament out of 74 are returned. In Wales there were 17 contested constituencies. The Radical candidates polled 91,000 votes and the Unionist candidates 52,000 votes, or more than half that number; and yet not a single Unionist member of Parliament sits for any of those 17 constituencies. So much for Scotland and Wales, I will not say anything about Ireland, because the noble Marquess let us see at the beginning of this discussion that the mention of the word "Kilkenny" gave the utmost offence to his ears.

1391
Our complaint is that you tolerate what we regard as a wholly indefensible condition of things, and that you do so in spite of the fact that you are pledged up to the neck to deal with the question of redistribution. Those pledges have been given again and again ever since the Government came into power. They were given in 1908; they were renewed in 1910, and again in 1911. You brought in a Bill, very different from this Bill, though still an imperfect measure, in the last session of Parliament. In the present Bill only one plank of the platform survives. The rest, including redistribution, is to be dealt with, according to Ministerial language, "whenever opportunity offers." I should like to ask noble Lords opposite when they think the opportunity is likely to offer? I sometimes wonder whether they ever seriously reckon up their legislative commitments. They are committed to a measure dealing with the reform of this House. The Minister for Education has already presented Bills dealing on a vast scale with that question. The noble and learned Viscount is dealing with land transfer in all its branches. We know that the question of agricultural reform is to be dealt with, and Irish land purchase. All this in addition to arrears of legislation running their course under the Parliament Act.
Do noble Lords opposite seriously desire us to understand that they have the slightest hope of bringing in, in the midst of all this accumulation of business, a measure dealing with the great question of redistribution. I, for one, am thoroughly incredulous upon that subject. It does not seem to be the least likely that a Parliament which certainly will no longer he in the plenitude of its vigour will be able to attack with success so colossal a task. My Lords, what is the explanation of the sidetracking of this question of redistribution, and of the manner in which this one little imperfection of the electoral law is being treated by His Majesty's Government? We can be in no doubt as to the explanation. In our view it is an attempt—I would almost say a cynical attempt—to load the electoral dice in their favour, and I feel quite certain that your Lordships' House will not be a party to so discreditable a manœuvre.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down
1392
will, I hope, allow me to say that the interest with which we on this side of the House listened to what he had to say upon the subject of this Bill was heightened by the expectation that, we should hear from him something more upon the new Constitutional proceedings which have been foreshadowed in this House during the course of the last two weeks. The noble Marquess will remember that what he foreshadowed himself was amplified by the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, on Tuesday of last week. We had from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, something further upon the subject when he moved the rejection of the Welsh Church Bill; while Lord Lansdowne himself said something more upon it on Tuesday last. Therefore it seemed to us natural that he would have explained to us this evening whether or not he thought your Lordships' House should treat this Bill differently from the Bill on the same subject which was introduced in the year 1906. Unfortunately, the noble Marquess does not think that this Bill should be treated differently from the Bill which was then put forward by His Majesty's Government, although I venture to think that this Bill, similar in its purpose to that one, deserves more consideration from your Lordships than a summary rejection.
Let us remember how thoroughly this Bill fulfils the conditions which the noble Marquess laid down last week. The Bill of 1906 received from, I think, every member of the majority in another place approval before the General Election of that year took place. It was in the forefront of the programme of, I think, nearly every member of the then Opposition; and therefore it came to your Lordships, supported as it was by a succession of very large majorities in another place, with particular sanction and particular force. I venture to think that it exactly met the conditions which were laid down last week as being necessary before your Lordships passed a Bill into law. Once more your Lordships are going to treat this Bill with summary rejection, although in our opinion it has behind it the full force of that sanction which the noble Marquess demanded before Bills were passed by your Lordships' House. It illustrates once more the very different way in which the noble Marquess advises your Lordships' House to treat measures which are introduced by His Majesty's present Government, as compared

1393
with the treatment which measures receive when they are introduced by a Government which the noble Marquess himself supports.
We were left in some little doubt as to the exact position of the noble Marquess opposite. He was not committed to support the plural voter, and in that respect there was a very distinct difference between him and the noble Viscount who moved the Motion for the rejection of this Bill and also the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, both of whom, I think, were thorough and wholehearted supporters of the principle of the plural vote. The noble Marquess, on the other hand, said it deserved investigation, and we can only conclude that in the end the Bill would receive—perhaps after yet another General Election or a referendum—,sufficient treatment to make it what the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, called "palatable" to your Lordships' House. Much complaint has been made of this Bill because it deals with only one part of the whole scheme which is necessary for the thorough reform of the laws referring to this subject. The noble Marquess alluded to the redistribution scheme of 1905. Let me remind noble Lords opposite that that also only dealt with one part of the whole scheme; it dealt with the scheme of redistribution, but by no means with the full measure of reform which I think on both sides of the House we admit to be really necessary. And there was, at any rate, this to be said in favour of dealing with the question of redistribution in 1905, that we were then at the end of a Parliament—obviously, and by law, nearly at the end of a Parliament—whereas that is not the case at the present moment. I hope your Lordships will not think me ungrateful if venture to refer to the Polling Hours Bill, with which your Lordships were good enough to deal a -fortnight ago. Your Lordships were good enough on my suggestion to pass that Bill, and yet very much the same objection applied to that Bill as has been urged against the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House—it only dealt with one point among many considered necessary to be dealt with. I confess that I refer to that Bill with some hesitation in view of the willingness which your Lordships showed to pass it into law during the present session.
There have been naturally during the course of this debate several admissions
1394
of which we took note for future use. The noble Viscount who moved the rejection told us he thought that this House was better able to decide questions of this kind because it was less interested than Members in another place, and he thought it was a good thing that those who were not interested in measures of this kind should have decisive influence in the passing of such measures. We shall remember that when a Bill for the reform of this House is before your Lordships, and we shall ask whether that does not equally apply to Members of another place, and whether their opinion upon a Bill for dealing wall the reform of your Lordships' House may not be of equal or even greater value than the opinion of your Lordships' House. Then the noble Viscount opposed the passage of this Bill upon the ground that there was no reason why there should be equality of votes, and he called in aid the inequality of the intellect of different individuals and the latest discoveries of science, and what he thought was the desirability that the professions should be more largely represented in another place. The plural vote does not mean, as the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, thought, that brains or ability are represented, nor wealth or intelligence. The plural vote is really the outcome of a series of anomalies which has crept in because the laws relating to our representation are full of difficulties, full of pitfalls and full of legal anomalies, with which the ingenuity of lawyers has dealt with considerable success.
Let your Lordships remember what some of these circumstances are. Take the case of three places of business in a borough which is divided into three constituencies. The owner of three places of business only has one vote when they are situated within the borough, although the borough is divided into three constituencies; but let him have one place of business outside—quite a small place of business—and also one place of business inside, and he then has two votes. The plural vote does not for a moment mean that riches or energy necessarily get an advantage. It is purely the accident of an anomalous law. And I may remind your Lordships that one of the easiest ways to gain a plural vote, certainly in one of the constituencies in the North of England, is for a man to buy a site for his grave in one of the cemeteries there, and he thereupon becomes a freeholder in that constituency. That really

1395
is a ridiculous and anomalous position. And we say that just as the present state of the law does not fairly represent wealth, so it does not represent intelligence or intellect.
Take the case, so frequently quoted, of the Universities. Probably the most brilliant men in the University have just the one vote for the University and for nowhere else; whereas the people outside who have paid whatever is necessary to get their degree—I do not know from experience what that amount may be—have their votes not only for the place where they reside but also for the University in which they have purchased a degree. These men, who have been taught by the professors, have two votes, whereas the professors who have taught them, men of far the finer intelligence, have only the one vote for the University.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Why?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is not unlikely.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: They have a vote for the town as well.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That certainly would be the case if they have the further qualification for the town, but it does not always follow that they have that further qualification. Therefore what I say holds good. The people who have the highest intellect would not necessarily have so many votes as the people whom they themselves have taught. There was one argument to which, if it were established, we on this side of the House should attach a great deal of importance—the argument that this Bill would delay redistribution. That, I think, was the argument addressed to your Lordships' House by the noble Viscount who moved the rejection of the Bill. I think I must call in aid for His Majesty's Government on this point a passage from a speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, in 1906. When we were discussing the Plural Voting Bill of that year, and I myself had tried to make a point by saying that in so far as that Bill gave liberty for choice to individuals it was necessary that that choice should be exercised before redistribution took place so that those who were concerned in dividing the constituencies should know what size they would ultimately be, the noble Viscount
1396
disagreed with me and told me on that occasion that—
"All our Redistribution Acts have been based not upon electors but upon population, and I believe that whenever the question of redistribution is taken up by Parliament the allocation of seats will be dealt with as before, on population and not on the basis of electors."
I think it is not unfair to quote that as showing that at any rate so far as this Bill is concerned it cannot really delay the redistribution proposals for which Lord Peel is so anxious.
The noble Earl who spoke later this evening, Lord Ancaster, spoke of the assimilation of the law of this country to the law of the Dominions, the law in Germany, and the law in the United States of America. My Lords, we are not concerned to-night with the various checks which may or may not be necessary upon the action of the democracy; we are dealing only with a plain and simple measure of electoral reform; and I would venture to point out to the noble Earl that this reform is in existence both in our self-governing Dominions and also in the United States of America. The other reference which was made to a foreign country was to Belgium. I admit that there are cheeks with regard to the elections in Germany, to which I need not refer; but with regard to Belgium I think I may fairly point out that it is not very long ago that there was a strike in Belgium in favour of "one man one vote." Though it is true that in certain circumstances you may get three votes in Belgium, it depends, not upon the mere accident of your possession of property, but upon whether you are the father of a family, whether you have obtained a certificate from certain educational establishments, or whether you belong to a profession. Those, I venture to think, are perfectly clear-cut, logical, demonstrable propositions, whether you agree with them or not, very different in character from the anomaly with which we are trying to deal in the present Bill.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the ownership of a certain amount of land does not entitle one to another vote in Belgium?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I understand that in Germany it is as the noble Earl states; but the three instances I have quoted are the only ones that exist in

1397
Belgium for giving another vote. Into the further points to which the noble Earl referred, and the inviting suggestions as to the different methods in which we might "do" the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I cannot follow him upon the present occasion. We may have a more suitable opportunity when we are dealing with the Revenue and Finance Bills of the year. We heard a remarkable speech from Lord Byron this evening. He is, if I mistake not, a noble Lord not generally to be found in support of His Majesty's Government, and we therefore value the more the expressions of opinion we heard from him to-night upon this subject. After all, when noble Lords opposite tell us that we support this Bill for Party purposes, we are entitled to ask them why it is they oppose this Bill? Is it from a love of abstract justice alone, or is it from a passionate desire to revive the redistribution scheme of 1905?
We have heard a lot about the other various reforms which are desirable. As to most of them we heartily agree. We think that they are desirable, and that we should probably gain by the introduction of all of them. We believe that all these anomalies work against the Liberal Party, but we are dealing with this one anomaly and not with another which we think would give us at any rate an equal advantage, because this is a quick and an easy reform to make. Noble Lords opposite must remember that we think we should gain at least as much by the introduction of one vote and one value. We certainly have nothing to fear from the thorough democratisation of our electoral system. It is a curious fact that, whilst a majority of the seats which have only 5,000 voters are represented by Members who support noble Lords opposite, three-fifths of the seats with 20,000 voters and over are represented by Members who support His Majesty's Government. We are, therefore, entitled to conclude that if these smaller boroughs were to disappear and the larger constituencies were given representatives His Majesty's Government would gain a large measure of support. We fully admit that the figures which the noble Viscount gave us as to the inequalities in 1906 were very striking. We believe they were equally striking in the year 1900. Therefore we say that we have nothing to lose by a thorough reform.
1398
There are a great many reforms which ought to be dealt with and which we should like to see dealt with. Many of them have been mentioned. There is redistribution, with which we mean to deal. There is franchise reform; there is the payment of returning officers' expenses, and the question of the absent voters; there is the system, on which I regret we heard nothing from my noble friend behind me, Lord Courtney, of proportional representation which must be very seriously considered in connection with any general scheme of reform. There is the scheme of the alternative vote; and the noble Earl below the Gangway (Lord Lytton) showed us by his speech that the question of votes for women must also be seriously considered both in this House and in another place. Many of us are firmly convinced that when we come to deal with all these questions we cannot possibly leave out an amendment of the law relating to corrupt practices. The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, mentioned the question of carriages and posters. Well, I congratulate noble Lords opposite upon their anxious desire for an autumn session, which would inevitably be necessary if we were to deal with all these questions during the present year; but if they are anxious for that autumn session I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope or expectation that either His Majesty's Government or Members in another place are likely to give it to them during the present year. We are content to deal with the reform which is before us, and these larger questions will have to be dealt with when they arise at a future period. For myself, I am inclined to agree with what was said by one of the noble Lords opposite who told us that the Bill did not affect a very large number of votes, and the half-million whom it concerned was a comparatively negligible quantity. It is not so much for the sake of the number of votes concerned that we are dealing with this subject, but because of the fact that as long as plural voting exists there is a real sense of injustice on the part of the voters of this country.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-contents, 166.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Islington, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Aberconway, L.

Loch, L.

Acton, L.

Lyveden, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Airedale, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Blyth, L

Pirrie, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Byron, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

St. Davids, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Charnwood, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Southwark, L.

Brassey, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Stanmore, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Eversley, L.

Strachie, L.

Kimberley, E.

Farrer, L.

Swaythling, L.

Spencer, E.

Granard, L. (E.Granard.)

Tenterden, L.

Haversham, L.

Weardale, L.

Knollys, V.

Hemphill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Morley, E.

Carew, L.

Beaufort, D.

Morton, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Bedford, D.

Orford, E.

Clinton, L.

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Leeds, D.

Plymouth, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Portland, D.

Rosslyn, E.

Colchester, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Scarborough, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Doune.)

Somerset, D.

Selborne, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Wellington, D.

Shrewsbury, E.

De Mauley, L.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Ailsa, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Digby, L.

Verulam, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Bath, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Bristol, M.

Wicklow, E.

Faber, L.

Camden, M.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Farquhar, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Salisbury, M.

Forester, L.

Winchester, M,

Bridport, V.

Gwydir, L.

Chilston, V.

Hare L. (E. Listouel.)

Abingdon, E.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Albemarle, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harris, L.

Ancaster. E.

Falkland, V.

Hatherton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Falmouth, V.

Hindlip, L.

Brownlow, E.

Goschen, V.

Hothfield, L.

Cairns, E.

Hampden, V.

Hylton, L.

Camnerdown, E.

Hill, V.

Kenyon, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hood, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kinnaird, L.

Dartrev, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Peel, V.

Lamington, L.

St. Aldwyu, V.

Latymer, L.

Eldon, E.

Tredegar, V.

Lawrence, L.

Essex, E.

Leigh, L.

Fortescue, E.

Abinger, L.

Llangattock, L.

Haddington, E.

Addington, L.

Lovat, L.

Halsbury, E.

Aldenham, L.

Lovell and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Harewood, E.

Alington, L.

Howe, E.

Allerton, L.

Ludlow, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lurgan, L.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Bagot, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Lanesborough, E.

Balfour, L.

Methuen, L.

Leicester, E.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Lichfield, E.

Berwick, L.

Monck Bretton, L.

Lindsey, E.

Blythswood, L.

Mostyn, L.

Londesborough, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Newlands, L.

Lovelace, E.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Lytton, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Ormathwaite, L.

Manvers, E.

Brave, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Besaborough.)

Mayo, E.

Camoys L.

Rathdonnell, L.

1400

1401

Revelstoke, L.

Seaton, L.

Templemore, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Sempill, L.

Tennyson, L.

Rosmead, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Torphichen, L.

St. Audries, L.

Sinclair, L.

Vivian, L.

St. Levan, L.

Southampton, L.

Waleran, L.

Sanderson, L.

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

Worlingham, L. (E.Gosford.)

Sandys, L.

Wynford, L.

Savile, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative accordingly, and the said Resolution agreed to.

MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to restrict the undue use of certain medical prescriptions—Was presented by
1402
the Lord Lamington; read 1a, and to be printed. (No.138.)
House adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock