House of Commons
Tuesday, June 16, 1914
Private Business
Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Beira Railway Company Bill [ Lords ], Chelmsford Gas Bill [Lords], Longwood and Slaithwaite Gas Bill [ Lords ],
Read a second time, and committed.
Manchester Corporation Bill [ Lords ],. To be read a second time To-morrow.
Motherwell Water and Sewage Purification Bill [ Lords ],
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [ Lords ],
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [ Lords ],
Read a second time, and committed.
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 19) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation." Presented by Mr. McKinnon Wood; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 24th June, and to be printed. [Bill 285.]
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read a third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 16) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read a third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read a third time To-morrow.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Primary Education (Ireland)
Copy presented of Appendix to the Third Report of the Viceregal Committee appointed to inquire into Primary Education (Ireland), 1913, Minutes of Evidence, 28th June—17th September, 1913, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Public Records (Ireland)
Copy presented of Forty-sixth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records in Ireland for the year 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Labourers (Ireland)
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 8th April; Mr. Flavin ]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 276.]
Labourers' Cottages (Ireland)
Returned presented relative thereto [ordered 8th April; Mr. Flavin ]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 277.]
Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1871
Copy presented of General Order made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Naval Expenditure (Principal Naval Powers)
Return ordered, "of the total Naval Expenditure of the United Kingdom in each of the last ten years, showing the interest on naval loans included in the Estimates, the amount of expenditure out of naval loans, if any, and the Appropriations-in-Aid, the expenditure on new construction and armament, the amount of new construction expressed in tonnage in each of the years named, and the numbers of personnel; also giving for the same period similar information, so far as it is available and appropriate, for each of the principal Foreign Naval Powers, with any explanations which may be necessary for the elucidation of the figures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 274, of Session 1913)."—[ Mr. Chiozza Money. ]
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Mongolia
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has been requested by the Mongolian authorities to send an authorised representative to Urga; and, if so, what answer has been returned; and what is the position of Mongolia in regard to the Chinese Government at the present time?
:His Majesty's Government have been given to understand from private sources that the Mongolian Government would be prepared to welcome a British representative. There has, however, been no opportunity for the Mongolian Government to make any official communication of this nature. Mongolia is now an autonomous State under the suzerainty of China.
Greece (Mr. and Mrs. Masker)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what satisfaction has been obtained from the Greek Government for the treatment to which Mr. and Mrs. Musker were recently subjected at Okdjilar, on the Greco-Bulgarian frontier?
:I am in communication with His Majesty's Legation at Athens on the subject, and have been informed that inquiries are being made by the Greek Government, but I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement.
United Kingdom and Japan (Treaty Rights)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the treaty of 1905 between the United Kingdom and Japan postulates equal rights for the commerce and industry of both nations; and, if so, whether the rigorous exclusion of British ships from the coasting trade of Japan while subsidised Japanese vessels participate in such trade between Indian ports, and conduct a Japanese service exclusively between Calcutta and Rangoon, is justified by the terms of the treaty?
:As regards the first part of the question the hon. Member is presumably referring to Clause ( b ) of the Preamble to the 1905 Agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan which affirms the adherence of both Powers to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China. The coasting trade of the two countries is dealt with in Article 21 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 3rd April, 1911, which provides that the trade shall be regulated according to the laws of the United Kingdom and Japan respectively.
Mexico
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the fact that British merchants in Mexico exceed those of any other Power and that her nationals are the chief sufferers from the present condition of the country, he will urge upon the United States Government the necessity for recognising the de facto government of General Huerta?
:I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on the 5th May last, and to those given to the hon. Members for Enfield and Orkney on the 9th and 10th March last to which I have nothing to add.
Persia
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that a Russian post office is about to be established m Teheran?
:The answer is in the negative, though I understand that a postal official is to be employed at the Russian Legation to deal with correspondence arriving there by the messenger service. I have heard that a post office has been established for this purpose at Tabreez.
asked whether the Government have made any representations to the Russian Government protesting against the collection and appropriation of Customs by Russian agents in the province of Azerbijan, in Persia, as a breach of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907?
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the collection of Persian Customs Duties in the province of Azerbijan by Russian agents without the sanction of the Persian Treasury; and whether any steps have been taken to secure that the sums collected shall be paid into the Persian Treasury?
:My attention has been drawn to the matter. I have brought it to the notice of the Russian Government, and pending the receipt of their views, I cannot make a further statement.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an interview with the Russian Minister in Persia in which His Excellency stated that he was in favour of the withdrawal of the whole of the Russian Army from Northern Persia; that the Czar and Foreign Office had given him orders to make arrangements for a speedy withdrawal, "that a commencement would be made from Kazvin, only small forces being left for the protection of the Russian Consulates and no troops being sent out to replace those leaving Persian territory; and whether he has received any reports from Persia showing that this policy is being carried out?
:The answers to the first three parts of the question are in the affirmative. As to the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to him on the 12th ultimo, which showed that some progress in the withdrawal of troops has recently been made.
:May I ask if the-British Government or the British Indian Government has not sent troops to Shiraz, Bushire, and elsewhere when it desired to do so in Persia?
:Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give notice of that question.
France (Three Years' Service)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have ever officially or unofficially, by word or writing, indicated to any French Government or French statesman of Cabinet rank or to any French Government servant whatever that they were interested in the Three Years' Service Act, or were glad that it had passed, or that they would care in the least if it were repealed?
:The answer is in the negative so far as I am aware. It is no-part of our business to offer or express any opinion about the Three Years' Service Act in France.
:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will communicate with the "Times" newspaper and other newspapers in this country which are carrying on an agitation for this side in favour of the three years' service in France?
:No, Sir. I am certainly not going to communicate with any organ of the Press. The best way of communicating with the organs of the Press no doubt is from this box, as I have done already this afternoon.
:May we gather from that reply that this agitation in this country for the Three Years' Service Act is really directed towards compulsory military service in this country?
:The hon. Member's question relates to three years' service in France. That is all I can deal with. It seems to me that the hon. Member wants to raise the question of military service in this country. That is not the same as the question on the Paper nor specially connected with the Foreign Office.
Opium Traffic
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the city known as the Inter-, national Settlement of Shanghai, though consisting mainly of Chinese, is governed by a municipal council of foreigners, mainly British; whether lie is aware that Mr. Landale, the chairman of that council, at the annual ratepayers' meeting in March, 1908, expressed on behalf of the foreign residents his sympathy with the Chinese in their desire to dissipate the opium habit, and assured them that the community had every intention to assist them; whether, in spite of that declaration and of the drastic suppression of the opium habit in the surrounding country by the Chinese Government, the Shanghai municipality has since steadily increased the number of licensed opium shops from 87 in 1908 to 628 in 1912, with corresponding evil effects upon the Chinese population of the city and neighbourhood; and, if so, what steps he is taking to put an end to such a state of things?
:I am aware that there has been an increase in the number of licensed opium shops in the International Settlement at Shanghai during the years mentioned, though I am not in possession of the figures which would enable me to-estimate its extent. As I informed the hon. Member on 14th August last, I believe the majority of the members of the municipal council to be British subjects, but the council is an independent internatioal body over which His Majesty's Government have no control. It appears to be matter of regret that the number of opium licences in this settlement has been increased at a time when the consumption is being extinguished in the rest of China, and I hope the municipal council will soon reverse the policy.
:Are not the great majority of foreigners in Shanghai British subjects, and to whom would they look for protection in case of attack by Chinese or anybody else, and have we therefore not some authority over them?
:I must ask for notice of that question.
India
Bankruptcy Laws
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a creditor who holds a judgment in India against a debtor who has no effects which can be distrained on has no means of enforcing his claim by process of bankruptcy unless he first puts his debtor in prison; and whether he will reconsider, in the public interest, the question of amending the bankruptcy law in that country so as to give advantages equal to those afforded by the law in this country?
:As regards the first part of the question, the Secretary of State is advised that the statement made is not correct; and that, in the case of a debtor without distrainable effects who has not been guilty of an act of bad faith, the practice of the Courts is not to commit him to prison, but to direct him to file his petition in insolvency. I would refer the hon. Member generally to the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V. of 1908), Section 55, and Order XXI., Rules 37 and 40. As regards the last part, I would refer to my replies on the 28th April.
:Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that traders in India have protection equal to that which is afforded by the bankruptcy laws in this country without involving imprisonment?
:Yes, that is what my answer was intended to convey. May I refer the hon. Member to the portions of the Code which really deal with the subject t
High Court of Justice (Judges)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether judges of High Courts hold office by letters patent at His Majesty's pleasure; and whether the Act of Settlement is extended to their case?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question on the 28th October, 1912.
Delhi
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has received any further representations to the effect that it is inconvenient for members of the Imperial Legislative Council to meet at Delhi; and that the isolation of the Department of Commerce and Industry in Upper India seriously impairs its ability and efficiency?
:No, Sir.
Abetment of Murder (Savarkar)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Savarkar, who was sentenced to imprisonment for importing pistols and other weapons into India, is still in prison; if so, how long he has still to serve; and where is he confined?
:The answer to the -first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the crime of which Savarkar was convicted was abetment of murder. He was sentenced in January, 1911, by the Bombay High Court to transportation for life. He is confined in the penal settlement in the Andamans.
:Is it the fact that he is kept in chains in the Andamans?
:That is not in the question. I do not know, and must ask for notice. He is confined in the penal settlement at the Andamans.
:In view of the recent immunity granted to gun-runners in Ireland, will some steps be taken to reduce the sentence on Savarkar for a similar offence?
:The offence is not similar. The offence for which Savarkar was convicted was abetment of murder— a totally different offence.
:Is it not the fact that the abetment of murder was the importation of revolvers into India?
:He was made a party to. the crime for which those revolvers were used.
Press Act
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether he can yet say when the information which he promised with regard to proceedings under the Press Act of 1910 will be laid upon the Table?
:I understand that the Papers have been despatched from India, and hope to lay them by the end of this month.
Questions
Inland Revenue Officers, Glasgow
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representations as to the inconvenience experienced in Glasgow owing to the absence of a complete fully-equipped Inland Revenue office, and owing to the necessity of going to Edinburgh in order to transact business with the Inland Revenue office, especially in respect to Death Duties; and whether he can now take any steps to remove that inconvenience?
:I recently received a deputation on the subject to which my hon. Friend refers. I indicated to them the reasons why I could not see my way to establish a fully-equipped Inland Revenue Office at Glasgow, but promised to consider in respect of Death Duties any suggestions for promoting the convenience of the city which might be put before me.
:Have any suggestions been put forward?
:I am not sure, but I think there were two or three.
:Does the Department intend to take any initiative in this matter in respect to Death Duties?
:I should think that that would lie with the Glasgow authorities with reference to the carrying out of certain proposals which have been put forward.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 75 per cent, of the business done in Edinburgh is Glasgow business?
:I could not say that.
Super-tax (Ireland)
asked whether any estimate of the amount contributed by Ireland to Super-tax has attributed to Ireland the whole of the Super-tax paid by persons domiciled there, or how otherwise has the estimate been arrived at?
:The estimated true contribution of Ireland to the Super-tax for the present financial year has been arrived at on the same basis as has been employed in former years, namely, that explained in House of Commons Paper, No. 200, of 1913.
:Is not the right hon. Gentleman estimating Super-tax on the same erroneous principle which he denounced as absurd in connection with the local Income Tax in Prussia?
:No; the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman say where I am wrong?
:I should say on all points.
:How?
Income Tax
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the judgment of Mr. Justice Rowlatt in the case of Purdy V. the King, in which he held that the proviso in Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, that the profits of any married woman living with her husband should be deemed the profits of the husband and be charged to the husband did not apply to charges by deduction; and whether, in view of this decision, the Commissioners will now recognise the claims of married women to exemption and abatement in respect of separate incomes?
:I am unable to recognise that the decision in this case, under which it was held that Mrs. Purdie was not entitled to the repayment of tax claimed by her, involves the consequence suggested by the hon. and learned Member.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that, although an income from which the tax has been deducted is not deemed to be the husband's income, the wife is not entitled to claim her exemption?
:The hon. and learned Gentleman is now entering into an argumentative matter which I could not possibly discuss by way of question and answer.
asked if, for the purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A and Super-tax payable during the current financial year, deductions for maintenance, insurance, repairs and management beyond the 25 per cent, limit can be made?
:Under Clause 8 of the Finance Bill there will be no 25 per cent, limit to the allowances of Income Tax, Schedule A, on account of maintenance, etc., in respect of the current year. I am considering the question of extending to this year the corresponding relief in the case of Super-tax, which under existing law would not come into operation until 1915–16.
Cattle Disease (Administrative Expenses)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed by Sub-section (3) of Clause 13 of the Finance Bill to limit the amount payable to local authorities in connection, with live stock diseases by relieving them from contributing to the administrative expenses of the Board of Agriculture in the event of a deficiency in the pneumonia account owing to exceptional prevalence of serious contagious diseases, or whether as announced in his Budget Statement, the whole cost of local administration in connection with cattle disease will henceforth be defrayed out of the Imperial Exchequer; and, if so, by what provision in the Finance Bill or by what other Government measure will this be effected?
:This question will be answered by the President of the Board of Agriculture.
:Does it not arise out of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget Statement?
:It deals with an item of expenditure to which I had to allude, but which is under the control of my right hon. Friend. I have handed the question over to him.
:Is it not an item of expenditure dealt with in a Clause in the Finance Bill for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible?
:That is perfectly true, but I hope to get the assistance of my right hon. Friend in that matter.
:The effect of Clause 13, Sub-section (3) of the Finance Bill is in substance correctly stated by the hon. Gentleman in the first part of the question; and my right hon. Friend has asked me to express his regret that by inadvertence he did not make this more clear in his Budget Statement. It is not proposed otherwise to amend the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Acts, but provision is to be made for the payment of one-half of the salaries of veterinary officers employed by local authorities out of the Public Health Grant.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, after the explicit statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the whole of the cost of cattle disease would in future be borne by the Imperial Exchequer, his present statement will cause great disappointment among agriculturists?
Land Valuation
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the present position of the land valuations under the Budget of 1909; how many valuations have been completed and how many remain to be made; how many have been completed, but which will have to be revalued under the decisions of the Courts which have affected them; and if any statement or Papers on the subject will be presented before the Revenue Bill comes on for discussion?
:Up to the 31st May, 5,924,710 valuations have been served in respect of 7,952,111 hereditaments in Great Britain, and it is estimated that some two millions still remain to be served in respect of two and a half million hereditaments, but in a number of these cases, which are affected by the test case now before the Courts, the preliminary work essential to the making of the valuations on any basis has been completed. The answer to the third part of the question depends on a test case which has not yet come before the higher Courts. The answer to the last part is in the negative.
:The right lion. Gentleman has given the figures for Great Britain; can he give similar figures for Ireland?
:I must ask for notice of that.
:Does the right hon. Gentleman include the provisional valuations?
reply was. inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Local Taxation (Licences)
asked whether it is proposed under the Finance Bill to take away from local authorities the power of levying local taxation licences conferred upon them by the Finance Act, 1908; and, if not, upon what grounds it is proposed to deprive them of the Grant of £40,000> to meet the costs of the collection of such, duties?
:It is proposed that the local authorities shall continue to levy the licences referred to, and that in lieu of a direct Grant from the Exchequer, which is no longer appropriate in the altered circumstances, they shall receive an allowance to meet the costs of collection, which will be more than the. equivalent of the discontinued Grant.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Finance Bill no-allowance at all is made for the cost of collecting these duties?
:I am in negotiation with the local authorities on the-matter—in fact, I met their representatives yesterday.
:But, in fact, is it not the case that under the Bill no provision is made for paying anything to the local authorities for the expense of collecting, carriage, and Motor Car Duties?
:As I have said, I am in negotiation with the local authorities in reference to the collection of these duties, and until I come to some arrangement nothing will be settled. I shall then move an Amendment.
:Will not the right hon. Gentleman answer my question: Is not that the case under the Bill?
:The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that as well as anybody. The Bill has been circulated to the House.
:May I ask whether the allowance which it is now proposed to make will be at least equal to the cost of such collection to the local authorities?
:I think that that ought to be the basis—in fact, that was the basis I was suggesting yesterday. Their accountants and the officials of the Treasury have to discuss the amount it would cost to collect the duties.
Oscar Slater (Inquiry)
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received the Report of the inquiry into the case of Oscar Slater; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
:The Sheriff of Lanarkshire has reported to me the results of the inquiry which he held recently at my request into certain statements laid before me relative to the case referred to. After careful consideration of the information obtained by the Sheriff in the course of a full and searching inquiry, I am satisfied that no case is established which would justify my advising any interference with the sentence. I propose to lay the statements and evidence before the House.
:When will they be laid before the House?
:Within the next day or two; probably on Monday.
:Will the original evidence be included?
:Certainly not.
:Just the new evidence?
:Only of this inquiry.
Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill (Scotland)
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any requests from Scottish local authorities in favour of the application of the Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill to Scotland?
:I have received one such request, from the Annual Committee of the Convention of Royal Burghs.
Classification of Roads
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has taken any steps to consult the local authorities with regard to the classification of roads under the proposals of the Budget of the present year?
:I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave on the 25th May and 9th June, respectively, to questions relating to the same matter by the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and the hon. Member for South Aberdeen.
:Does that mean that the Road Board have not been called upon to classify the roads in Scotland?
:No.
Population, Birth Rate, Emigration (Scotland)
asked whether the population of Scotland is, approximately, 30,000 fewer than it was three years ago; what is the decrease in the birth rate during that period; and whether the tide of emigration shows any signs of decreasing in volume?
:I am informed by the Registrar-General for Scotland that the population of Scotland is now, according to his estimates, about 30,000 less than the population at the date of the Census of 1911; and that while the birth rate of the year 1913 was 0.1 per thousand less than that of the year 1911, the birth rate of the first quarter of 1914 is 0.2 per thousand greater than that of the corresponding quarter of 1911. I am informed by the Board of Trade that their Returns of passenger movement have shown a marked falling off in the volume of emigration during the later months of 1913 and the current year, and that this reduction appears to operate in Scotland somewhat more than in the other divisions of the United Kingdom. The recorded net emigration from Scotland in the first four months of 1914 was less than one-half that of the corresponding months of 1913.
Imprisoned Cottars (Calton Gaol)
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a Report on the result of the investigations into the case of the cottars lately imprisoned in the Calton Gaol and their application for land?
:I have received a Report from the Sub-Commissioner who was sent to investigate the matter, and negotiations have taken place between the Board and the proprietor, who has not so far been willing to depart from his previous attitude. If, however, the proposed amendment dealing with this district of Lewis in my hon. Friend's Bill is passed into law it will be possible for the Board to take action.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Members of this House a copy of that Report?
:Oh, no; it is merely a Report of a Sub-Commission of the Board. It is not usual to publish it.
:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there have been hundreds of applications for land in the last three years, and that no steps have been taken, so far as I know, for the acquisition of land?
:Oh, no, a great many steps have been taken; that statement is quite incorrect. A great many steps have been taken for the acquisition of land, but, of course, there is not enough land in Lewis itself for all the applicants.
National Insurance Act
Cost of Administration
asked what is the total cost, including every item, of administering the National Insurance Act (Part I.) for the year 1913; and what is the total estimated cost of the same for the year 1914?
:As to last year I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. The amount estimated to be expended by approved societies and insurance committees for cost of administration during the year 1914–15 is £2,579,400. The amount included in the Estimates for the financial year 1914–15 for central administration is £876,140.
Requisitions for Moneys
asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether it is necessary for approved society No. 103 to be required to make three separate financial statements in three separate weeks to the Welsh Commissioners when making a requisition for moneys to pay accruing liabilities under the National Insurance Act, Part I.; whether he is aware that by such delays it has been necessary to secure an overdraft from the bank to the extent of £997 wherewith to meet the calls of sick members; whether he is aware that the interest per cent, for investments is much lower than the charge for an overdraft; and whether action will be taken to prevent the imposition of such additional clerical work upon societies and to prevent loss to societies by such dilatory methods?
:My right hon. Friend is informed by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners that two of the statements referred to were ordinary applications for issues from the National Health Insurance Fund. The remaining statement was required in order to ascertain the precise period covered by one of these applications. Except in the instance where this point arose, issues have been made immediately on receipt of the applications.
Scottish Legal Health Assurance Approved Society
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that on the 24th November last, at the first general meeting of the Scottish Legal Health Assurance Approved Society, a resolution was unanimously carried calling upon the committee of management of the society to resign, and that, notwithstanding this resolution, the committee are still holding office; whether it is at the instance of the National Health Insurance Commissioners (Scotland) that they remain in office; and whether, in view of Section 23 of the National Insurance Act, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
:The committee of man-angement referred to remain in office not at the instance of the Scottish Commissioners, but under the provision0073 of the rules of the society. These rules provide for election by the members in each year except that, in order to secure continuity of management in the initial period of the Acts working, the first committee retires in June, 1916, subject to removal before this date on the ground of personal misconduct or incapacity.
Board of Referees
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that appeal cases from insured persons who are members of societies that have made arrangements under Section 105 of the National Insurance Act are now considered by the Boards of Referees, he will fill up the vacancy in the Windsor ward, or invite nominations of candidates, so that the Board may have its full complement of representatives?
:As was explained to my hon. Friend, in answer to his question on the 25th May, the Board's power of nominating to the workmen's panels is restricted, under the Regulations, to the filling of casual vacancies. The vacanacy in the Windsor ward is not of this nature. I will, however, see how far it may be possible to meet my hon. Friend's suggestion.
:Is the hon. Member aware that they have not had the opportunity of nominating?
:I think my hon. Friend has been misinformed. It was the fault of the workmen themselves in failing to nominate. I will, however, see what we can do to meet the difficulty.
Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Scotland)
asked the Secretary for Scotland what is the reference to the Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Scotland; and whether they will consider the question of superannuation for teachers other than those certificated in the technical sense and also for workers in these schools?
:I will circulate the terms of reference with the Votes— [ See Written Answers this date. ]
:Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that this Departmental Committee will actually consider the workers in these schools who are not certificated in the technical sense?
:The words of reference are in general terms, "the staffs of the schools."
Small Holdings (Shetland)
asked the Secretary for Scotland when applications were received by the Board of Agriculture for enlargement of holdings at Cunnings-burgh, Shetland; if he will state on what grounds the said applications have not already been dealt with; and whether, in view of the fact that the landlord would be no loser by the particular portion of this estate being taken for enlargement of existing holdings and that there would be no tenants to compensate, he will ascertain if it would be possible to have the said applications considered without further delay?
:Applications for enlargement of holdings at Cunnings-burgh were received on various dates from May, 1912, onwards. Over 800 applications have been received from Shetland, and owing to the pressure of the Board's duties it was not possible to complete local inquiries concerning them till February last. As mentioned in reply to a former question, negotiations have been opened with the proprietor of the lands desired by the Cunningsburgh applicants.
Scottish Board of Agriculture (Report)
asked why the Report of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, first promised to be issued by the middle of April and thereafter by the middle of May, has not been issued; and when it is to be presented?
:I regret that the completion of the Report, and especially of the Appendices to it, took longer than was originally anticipated. The Report was, however, presented yesterday, and will, I am informed, be issued to-day or to-morrow.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the real reason for the delay in presenting the statement? Is he aware that hon. Members on this side of the House have been seriously inconvenienced by the non-presentation of the Report?
:I cannot give any other reason than the one I have given in my reply. I have not received the full explanation to my inquiry as to why the Report was not up to the date I mentioned to the House. I regret very much that it has not been presented, but the matter is not entirely in my personal control.
Cottages for Labourers
asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether offers to give or sell land at a cheap rate for sites for cottages for labourers in rural districts have been received by the Government from landowners; and, if so, will he say why no advantage has yet been taken of such offers, and why no such cottages have been or are being yet built, as promised recently by himself?
:I have received some offers of land to be used for the purpose mentioned in the question. The Board have no power to accept such offers, but I hoped that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests might be able to take advantage of them. I found, however, that in consequence of the peculiar constitutional positon of the Commissioners legal difficulties arose, and although in one case, with which I persevered as an experiment, I understand that the difficulties have at last been surmounted, it is clear that legislation is necessary before the Government can proceed on any considerable scale with the provision of cottages.
:Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ask the Government to introduce legislation to deal forthwith with this matter?
:Oh, yes, Sir. It will be dealt with in the Revenue Bill.
:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any chance of any building being done this year, or is the whole year to be wasted?
:We must have the Revenue Bill first?
Tuberculosis Order, 1913
asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is proposed, in pursuance of his promise made six months ago, to supersede the Tuberculosis Order of 1913 by another Order providing for one valuation only of cattle alleged to be tuberculosis and for alteration in the basis of compensation; and whether his negotiations with the Treasury on the latter question have reached a satisfactory issue?
:Yes, Sir, the new Order will be issued very shortly, providing that compensation shall be payable at the rate of three-quarters of the market frame in cases of non-advanced tuberculosis and one-quarter of the market value in cases of advanced tuberculosis, with a minimum of 30s. in each case.
:What does the right lion. Gentleman mean by "very shortly"?
:I cannot state the exact date. It is not possible to do these things "offhand"; but without delay, I hope.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that six months ago, in a statement made to the Cheshire farmers, he said that the new Order would be issued at a very early date?
:Yes, Sir, this is an early date; every month that has passed since then I have succeeded in getting better terms from the Treasury.
Argentine Cattle (Royal Agricultural Show)
asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has found it possible to persuade the Argentine Government to remove their embargo upon cattle exported from England and Wales prior to the Royal Agricultural Society's Show at Shrewsbury commencing on the 30th inst.; and, if not, whether, in view of the valuable business in pedigree cattle between the two countries usually transacted at the above show, and the abandonment of all restrictions upon importation by South Africa, Canada, and other countries, he will make further efforts during the next fortnight to secure the removal of such embargo?
:I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Boston yesterday.
Nairobi (Government School)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the accommodation at the Government school in Nairobi, and in particular to the absence of any proper playground and of any shelter to which the children can go out of school hours; and whether any steps are being taken to remedy these defects?
:No, Sir; but I will enquire into the matter.
Native Labour (East Africa)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the evidence of landowners before the Commission appointed by the acting Governor of East Africa to inquire into the native labour supply, and the various suggestions made for the reduction of the natives to a state of servitude; and if, in view of the agitation now being fomented to deprive the natives of their reserves, he will have such reserves vested in trustees in permanence for the benefit of the natives?
:I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Leeds on the 28th April.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter his further consideration before proceeding further?
:Yes, it is under my consideration at this moment.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman avoid the reduction of these reserves before the matter has been discussed in Parliament?
:There is no reason at present to assume that I have any intention of reducing the reserves.
Local and Imperial Taxation (Departmental Committee)
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Scotland was included within the terms of reference of the Departmental Committee on Local and Imperial Taxation?
:The terms of reference, which are printed at the opening of the final Report, were not expressly limited to England and Wales.
Motor Vehicles
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any estimate has been formed of the cost to the public of the police force which is devoted to the attempt to protect the public from the growing danger arising from the abuse of motor vehicles; and if he will suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the additional taxation of motorists in order to recoup the great majority of the population, whose use of the roads is contracted and whose lives are endangered, for the extra costs thrust upon them by a limited number of well-to-do persons?
:The enforcement of the law in regard to motor vehicles is part of the ordinary duties of the police employed in the streets, and no separate estimate of its-cost could be made.
:Did not the magistrates complain that they had not power to impose a higher penalty than £11 in the case of a man who, after knocking down the woman, abandoned her on the road?
:That arises on a following question of my hon. Friend.
asked: the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in cases of conviction of motorists for exceeding the speed limit or driving to the public danger, it is the common practice of magistrates to fine them in small sums, such as 40s. or £5; whether he is aware that such penalties do not act as a deterrent, being amongst the smallest expenses incurred by the motorists who commonly abuse the roads; and whether he will therefore propose legislation to this House providing for minimum penalties of such a character as shall make it inadvisable for motorists to drive to the public danger?
:The penalty to be imposed in any case is a matter within the discretion of the magistrates who hear the case; but I have recently issued a circular calling the attention of magistrates among other things to the importance of imposing an adequate punishment when offences under the Motor Car Act are of a serious character. There are strong objections to fixing minimum penalties by Statute, and Parliament has in recent years been opposed to limiting the discretion of the Courts in this direction.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on 8th June, Sergeant-Major F. C. Slater, of the Lancashire Fusiliers, while riding an ordinary bicycle between Meliden and Prestatyn, on a main road of a fairly wide character, being on the right side of the road and carrying a proper light, was run down, seriously injured, and abandoned by a motor cyclist; that on 30th May, Robert Harry Faulkner, a labourer, was found dying by the roadside at Paulerspury, Northamptonshire, having been knocked down and abandoned by an unknown motorist; and that on 27th May Mary Ann Loft was knocked down and seriously injured at Kingston by a motorist, who abandoned her to her fate; if he knows that such action on the part of motorists is now of frequent occurrence; and whether he will at once propose legislation to this House providing high minimum penalties, including sentences of imprisonment, for cases in which motorists are guilty of driving to the public danger?
:I have seen reports of the three cases to which my hon. Friend refers. I am happy to say that, so far as my information goes, such cases are of rare occurrence; but I agree that, when the offender can be traced, he ought to be severely punished, and I have no doubt that when an opportunity for legislation occurs this House will be disposed to increase the penalty under the Act.
:May I ask whether in another of these cases where the man was convicted of the threefold ground: of driving without a licence, of driving to the danger of the public, and of failing to stop when called, that the total penalty was only £39?
:It is for that reason that I hope the House on the first opportunity will agree to increase it.
King's Bench Division
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to introduce legislation to carry out any of the recommendations of the recent Royal Commission on the delay in the King's Bench Division?
:I doubt whether it will be possible to introduce legislation for this purpose this Session.
Civil Servants (Relations of State)
asked the Prime Minister if, before any committee or commission is set up to stand between this House and Civil servants in respect of their remuneration, he will give the House an opportunity of fully debating this subject?
asked the Prime Minister when he will give the House an opportunity of debating the management of Government telephones, the position of retrenched Civil servants from South Africa, and of the engineering staff of the Post Office, for which no time was available during the Debate on the Holt Report?
:I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the general aspect of the question. As my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General stated last week, the Government propose in the first instance to set up a body to inquire as to the future relations of the State with its employés, both as to remuneration and the conditions of labour. It will be upon the Report of this body that action, if any, will be taken, and I am certainly of opinion that, when the Report is issued, a full opportunity for discussing it should be given.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman yet state whether the body will be a Select Committee or a Royal Commission?
:No, Sir, that is still under consideration.
Post Office Estimates
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Debate on the Post Office Estimates has been entirely occupied by a discussion on the grievances of the Post Office servants arising out of the Holt Report, he will give a day for the discussion of telephones and other Post Office subjects; and, if so, which day he will give?
:As I stated yesterday, if there is a general desire for a further day I have no doubt it can be arranged through the usual channels.
:Does my right hon. Friend mean that this additional day will be used entirely for the discussion of the telephones?
:No.
:During the two days no occasion was given for the ordinary criticism?
:Of course that lies very much with the disposition of the Committee.
Great Eastern Railway (Lord Claud Hamilton)
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Noble Lord the Member for South Kensington spoke in favour of and told for the Great Eastern Railway Bill in this House on the 11th of June; whether he is aware that the Noble Lord is the salaried chairman of that railway; whether he is aware that the Noble Lord is the holder of stock in that railway and, in the capacity of a paid servant of the company and a shareholder therein, has a direct pecuniary interest in the passing of the Bill; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, which appear to be fully in accord with precedent, he will introduce legislation which will prevent Members of this House from taking any -part in the proceedings on any Bill which affects their personal financial interest?
:I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of my hon. Friend's statement, but I do not think that matters of this kind are most suitably dealt with by legislation. In my opinion they should be left to the discretion and judgment of hon. Members concerned.
British Army
Imperial Yeomanary Cyclists
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the bounty of £1 for every Infantry Territorial who attends camp for fifteen days, as announced in the special Army Order of the 8th April, will be granted to dismounted men and motor cyclists of the Imperial Yeomanry?
:Dismounted men and motor cyclists of the Imperial Yeomanry who attend camp for fifteen days can earn a bounty of 30s. if they qualify in equitation under the new rules. If they do not qualify in equitation they will be eligible for the bounty of £l given to Infantry and other arms.
Territorial Force (Cyclists)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether motor cyclists not belonging to the Territorial Force have been paid at the rate of 16s. per day during recent Army manœuvres, whereas those motor cyclists members of Territorial units who volunteered for manœuvres received only 9s. 2d. per day and rations; and, if so, whether he will take steps to remove this discouragement to the recruiting of motor cyclists for the Territorial Force?
:I do not think the comparison as stated in the question is accurate. It leaves out of sight the fact that the motor cyclist members of the Territorial Force units received clothing, messing allowance and camp accommodation in addition to pay and rations, and also the fact that they are engaged to serve at certain fixed rates, whereas the motor cyclists who do not belong to the Territorial Force are specially engaged for the short job. The Army Council are not aware that the emoluments offered to motor cyclist Territorials are any discouragement to recruiting.
:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fixed rate applies to the annual training of fifteen days and is not in any way a condition of attending manœuvres, and that the payment which has been given to the Territorial Force has been barely enough to cover the cost of the wear and tear of their machines and the fuel1? And does he not consider it advisable to induce those Territorial cyclists not only to attend training but also to go on manœuvres, and will he not give the same payment to other cyclists?
:It is impossible to give exactly the same terms' to cyclists in employment continuously and to others not so engaged.
Army Canteen Case
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recent canteen disclosures, he will institute an inquiry into the methods used by other contractors as well as Messrs. Lipton, with a view to discover how far the practice of corruption exists, and to arrange precautions against its revival?
:It has been decided to institute an inquiry into the whole system of supplying garrison and regimental institutes.
Special Reserve (Officers)
asked the Secretary of State for War why service in the Militia does not count in qualifying officers of the Special Reserve for promotion; and whether there is any difference in the annual training, except change of name, to warrant such distinction?
:Commissioned service in the Militia during embodiment or in the field counts for the purpose of time promotion in the Special Reserve. The difference between service in the Special Reserve and in the Militia consists in the fact that the former carries with it a liability to foreign service.
:Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the training is exactly the same, and if an officer is qualified by a certain number of years' training in the Special Reserve, surely he is no more capable than an officer qualified by the same amount of training in the Militia?
:Training in the Militia hardly counts now, it is so long ago since there was such training. I am quite aware of the distinction between foreign service and service at home.
Royal Navy
Royal Marines (Deferred Pension)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if William Raffles, who was invalided some years ago from the Royal Marines, has been awarded a pension of 3s. 6d. a week; the date when Raffles became entitled to such pension; if there was any dispute as to his right to a pension; if he will receive arrears; and, if so, the amount of same?
:William Raffles was invalided from the Royal Marines in September, 1877, and under an old regulation, applicable to his case but now obsolete, he became entitled to a Marine Deferred Pension of 6d. a day as from the 28th June, 1892, the date on which he reached the age of 50. There was no dispute as to his rights to this pension, but the Admiralty had no information as to his whereabouts nor even that he was still alive. An application for assistance was made on his behalf in April last, and on his being identified steps were taken at once to award the pension. He will receive arrears amounting approximately to £200.
Painting of Oil-Fuel Tanks
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a complaint with regard to the painting of oil-fuel tanks at Portland by labourers; whether he is aware that this work was formerly done by painters, labourers only being allowed to clean down the ironwork; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter and put a stop to painting work being done by labourers at less than the proper rate?
:A complaint has been received respecting the painting of oil-fuel tanks at Portland by skilled labourers. In accordance with the usual Admiralty procedure, the covering of large surfaces, where no finish or appearance is necessary, is executed by skilled labourers.
Royal Marines (Junior Officers' Pay)
asked whether the Board of Admiralty have yet decided to grant the same rates of increase of pay to the junior officers of Royal Marines serving both ashore and afloat as have been made to officers in the Navy and Army?
:A decision in this matter has not yet been arrived at.
:When will the Board of Admiralty come to a decision in this matter? I received the same answer about twelve months ago.
:No. The answer I gave was on the 4th of March this year.
:No. I mean the one before that.
:I was not aware of the earlier answer. The matter was promulgated by the War Office on the 14th of January this year. We took the new Order into consideration and we are now considering it with another Department.
:It is twelve months ago.
Questions
Suffragist Prisoners (Forcible Feeding)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what prisons and on what occasions forcible feeding has been performed on suffrage prisoners by a doctor or doctors other than the official prison doctors; and will he, in each case, state the reason why an outside doctor or doctors were called in?
:In seven of the prisons in which only one medical officer is employed an outside doctor has on several occasions been called in to assist the prison medical officer. In most cases the doctor called in was the doctor who ordinarily acts as deputy when the medical officer is on leave. On two occasions a specialist has been present and assisted at Holloway.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department ment how many prisoners have been forcibly fed while on remand since October, 1913; and how many such remand prisoners are being forcibly fed at present?
:Since October, 1913, five prisoners under remand and five committed for trial have been forcibly fed by tube, and three under remand and one for trial have been fed by cup. At present no prisoners under remand are being forcibly fed, but four of those mentioned above are still awaiting trial in prison and are being fed by tube.
asked the Home Secretary if he has obtained the opinion of the Law Officers on the question of the responsibility or liability, if any, of the governors, doctors, or other officials of prisons, in the event of the suicide of any prisoners whilst undergoing their sentences; and if he can lay any Papers on the subject upon the Table of the House?
:I presume the hon. Member refers to prisoners who may commit suicide by refusing their food. I have obtained the Law Officers' advice as to the duty and liability of prison officials in such cases, and, although it would be contrary to practice to publish their opinion, I may say that it follows the statement of the law laid down by the late Lord Chief Justice in the case of Leigh versus Gladstone.
Regent's Canal (Fatal Accidents)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been drowned in the Regent's Park Canal during the last five years; and why no proper means have been taken to prevent these accidents occurring?
:The information as to the number of fatalities was given by me on the 18th May in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Luton. As I have previously stated, it rests with the canal company to make secure the approaches to the canal and to deal with trespassers, and I am in communication with them on the subject.
:Cannot the right hon. Gentleman compel the canal company to make greater provision to safeguard the lives of those children?
:All we can do we do. My powers are extremely limited.
Women and Girls (Disappearance from London)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newton [showing the number of women and girls that were reported to the London police as having disappeared during every year of the last ten years; and how many of these in each year were traced]?
:I regret that for the reasons given in my reply to a question by the Noble Lord on the 14th April last the Return cannot be granted. I have already given the figures for one year.
:Does the right hon. Gentleman think the number of women and girls who annually disappear in London is a question of such small importance that it is not worth the while of his Department to collect the figures so that Members of this House may be aware of the very great number of women and girls who have disappeared in recent years?
:The Noble Lord must remember I have given him the figures for the last year, and from these figures he will see that although a very large number disappear in the course of the year almost the whole of them were traced.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statement is not quite accurate, and owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I will raise this question on the Adjournment.
Established Church (Wales) Bill
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Clause 8 of the Established? Church (Wales) Bill, which provides that all property transferred to the Disestablished Church is to be held subject to vested interests, applies to parish churches; and, if so, whether the Disestablished Church will be allowed to hold a parish church, and at the same time to refuse to administer the sacraments to parishioners who belong to other religious denominations or who refuse to observe the discipline of the Church?
:The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
Shot-Firing (Accidents in Coal Mines and Quarries)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, which could reasonably be ascribed to mistakes or accidents in shot-firing, that occurred in coal mines and quarries during each year from 1903 to 1913, inclusive, and the total amount of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act paid in each year?
:I will circulate with the Votes a table showing for the years 1903 to 1913 the total number of reported accidents, fatal and non-fatal, resulting from shot-firing in coal mines and in quarries, and the number of persons killed and injured by those accidents. I am unable to give the total amount of compensation paid in respect of these accidents, as the returns under the Workmen's Compensation Act do not show separately the amount of compensation paid in respect. of the different classes of accident; but I may say that in 1912 the average compensation paid in cases of fatal accidents generally in mines was about £162.—[ See Written Answers this date. ]
Factories (Report of Chief Inspector)
asked the Home Secretary when the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories will be ready?
:The chief inspector informs me that he expects to have the Report ready for publication by the first week in July.
Post Office
Week-End Telegrams
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has noted the readiness expressed by the chairman of the Eastern Telegraph. Company to deliver week-end telegrams on Monday mornings instead of Tuesday mornings as at present; and whether any hope can be given that this advance will be made shortly?
:I have noted the Eastern Telegraph Company's readiness to agree to the delivery of week-end telegrams on Mondays instead of Tuesdays; but it is very desirable that there should be uniformity in this respect, and the Pacific Cable Board, which is concerned in the service to Australasia, does not at present see its way to agree to the alteration. The matter is rather one for the Board (which comprises representatives of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, as well as of Great Britain) than for the British Post Office.
:Is it not a fact that this cable to Australia was provided by public money, and why should the Cable Board be allowed to oppose this necessary reform?
:That is a matter for the Cable Board, which comprises representatives of Australia, Australasia, Canada, and New Zealand.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Cable Board and point out to them that if they were to relax their opposition then this reform would go through?
:It is quite clear that if they took that course that would be the result.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman use pressure with this Board?
:Will the right hon. Gentleman send a memorandum to the Cable Companies concerned pointing out that other companies are delivering these telegrams?
:The Cable Board is a body entirely independent of me. They have taken all these considerations into account and they have not agreed to the alteration suggested. I have no objection to communicating to them the views which have been expressed on this point.
:Is the chairman of the Cable Board not a public official under the control of this House?
:Yes.
Postage Rates (United Kingdom and Continent)
asked the Postmaster-General whether any efforts have been made since his speech of 24th April, 1913, to secure a reduction of postage rates between the United Kingdom and the Continent?
:The speech to which the hon. Member refers was made by my predecessor. Various proposals for general reductions in the international postage rates have been made by different administrations, and they will form the subject of discussion at the Congress to be held at Madrid in September, next.
:What are the views of thi3 country in regard to this question?
:I have not yet consulted the delegates, and before I have done so I do not think it would be well to make any statement to the House. If there is another Debate on the Post Office Estimates I will take that opportunity.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Members of this House are in favour of these reductions?
:That may be so, but they entail very great cost, and hon. Members will perhaps take note of that fact.
Parcels Post (Insurance)
asked the Postmaster-General if he is in a position to state whether the post offices of Canada and of the Union of South Africa have agreed to adopt a system of insurance for parcels sent by post to and from the United Kingdom similar to that which is in operation between the United Kingdom and nearly all other parts of the British Empire?
:I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member by my predecessor, on the 7th of August last.
Daily Cable-Letter Service
asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the recent findings of the Dominions Royal Commission in its second interim Report, he can say whether any steps have been taken to obtain a daily cable-letter service, with telegraphic delivery throughout, between the United Kingdom and Australasia?
:I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Central Finsbury on the 21st April last.
Telephone Service
asked if the necessary legislative authority has yet been received from the French telegraph administration in order to institute reduced rates for telephonic communication between London and Paris?
:The legislative authority was duly obtained, and the re- duced rates have been in operation since the 1st November last.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to announce the revised scale of charges for the telephone service?
:I hope to receive the decision of the Treasury at an early date.
Housing Accommodation (Postmen)
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain postmen employed at Coulsdon, Surrey, had to pay travelling expenses owing to the lack of housing accommodation at that place, and that payment of these expenses has been refused by the local postal officials; and whether he will reconsider the matter and issue instructions that payment be made?
:It is the rule of the Civil Service that officers must themselves defray the expenses of travelling between their homes and their headquarters. I cannot make any exception to this practice in favour of the postmen at Coulsdon.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week the Assistant Postmaster-General, in his absence on holiday, stated that the travelling expenses to which these men had been put owing to the lack of housing accommodation would be paid, and why has it not been done in this case?
:My recollection is that it referred to removals from place to place and not merely to residences within the area or within a given area near a particular post office.
:What is the difference in principle? In both cases, owing to the lack of housing accommodation, these men are put to certain expenses and why should they not be refunded in each case?
:I think that matter is one for debate.
School Attendance
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the average attendance at the Farrington Gurney elementary school in Somerset exceeds the recognised number of accommodation; and what action he proposes to take?
:The accommodation of the school referred to was reassessed in 1912 and reduced from 148 to 119 places. The average attendance for the school year ended in June, 1913, was four in excess of the recognised accommodation and the Grant was suspended. The managers and the local education authority have pointed out that the average attendance is falling in consequence of the decrease of the mining population in the district. The Board have informed the authority that the requirements of the Code must be observed.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has received a petition signed by the parents of the children who have been withdrawn from attendance at the school at Burston, Diss, and a majority of electors resident in the parish, praying that a public inquiry be instituted into the reasons for the dismissal of the teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Higdon; and whether he is now in a position to state the nature of the reply he proposes to make thereto?
:I have received such a petition as that referred to by the hon. Member in the question which he put to me on 11th May. I have nothing to add to the answer I then gave.
asked if the parents of children of school age at Burston, Diss, are still, refusing to send their children to the provided school on account of what they allege to be the unfair dismissal of the teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Higdon; whether these children are now receiving instruction m an improvised school; and whether, as Mr. and Mrs. Higdon are acknowledged to be fully qualified teachers, it will be competent for his Board to make Grants in respect thereof?
:With regard to the first two parts of the question, I have no information beyond what has appeared in the petition referred to in my last reply and in the public Press, but I am making inquiries. With regard to the last part of the question, the school has not received Grants from the Board as public notice of the intention to provide the school has not been given as required by Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902. The Board have not yet been satisfied that the school is necessary, or that the conditions of Grant contained in the Education Acts and the Code are fulfilled.
Agreements in Restraint of Trade
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the multiplication of agreements in restraint of trade made between combinations of manufacturers and combinations of retailers, devised to maintain artificial prices against the public, the Board of Trade are collecting details of such agreements; and, if so, whether he can publish them as a Parliamentary Paper?
:The Board of Trade have not undertaken any systematic collection of such particulars as my hon. Friend refers to. They have, of course, a certain amount of information on the subject in their possession, but this information is not sufficiently complete, and without statutory powers could probably not be made sufficiently complete to justify publication, especially in view of the frequent changes both in the combinations themselves and in the terms of the agreements by which they are bound.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the fact that, in the " Motor Trader" of 3rd June, the Motor Trade Association, in pursuance of its policy of conserving the minimum resale prices scheduled in its lists, publishes the names of forty-two firms from whom their members must withhold all goods manufactured by them; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent such commercial abuses?
:I have made inquiries, and am informed that the members of the association are not under an obligation to withhold all their goods from the firms named in the list, but only such of their goods as they themselves desire to protect, and have for that purpose included in the protected list of the association. I understand that any member of the association can regain his liberty to supply any of his goods so included to these or other firms by withdrawing such goods from the protected list. In these circumstances the last part of my hon. Friend's question does not appear to arise.
Milk and Dairies Bill
asked the President of the Local Government Board when it is proposed to proceed with the Committee stage of the Milk and Dairies Bill; and by which of the Grand Committees will it be considered?
:The Bill has been referred to Standing Committee B, and has been put down for consideration on Thursday next.
Lessor's Legal Expenses
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the custom obtaining in certain counties whereby, in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, a lessee is liable for the lessor's legal expenses; and, if so, whether the Government intends to legislate in order to terminate any such arrangement?
:I do not think legislation is necessary. In cases where the contract between lessor and lessee is silent as to the adjustment of the costs of the lease, the custom in certain counties is to place such burden on the lessee. But this custom is well known, and its effect can always be negatived by the terms of the bargain.
:Is it a fact that this custom obtains universally or is it merely a local custom? Has it the force of law?
:I think the hon. Member's question was correctly framed. He asked whether the custom obtained in certain counties and he is right. It does so obtain, but it is not the universal custom.
:Where it does obtain has it the force of law?
:It has the force of law, unless the parties make a bargain to the contrary. That is the common law.
Law Courts (Arrears)
asked the Attorney-General whether the arrears in the Court of Appeal are as bad as ever; and what steps he proposes to take to establish a third or even a fourth Court to enable these arrears to be cleared off before the commencement of the Long Vacation?
:The condition of arrears in the Court of Appeal is receiving the careful attention of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Bolls, and it is hoped that arrangements may be made to overtake them as soon as possible.
:Will that be done soon?
:I cannot say.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many arrears in the Divorce Court causing inconvenience to many people?
asked the Attorney-General whether there are now 238 undefended divorce suits waiting for trial, seventy-eight defended suits, twenty-four special jury actions; and also a reserve list in that division; and whether one of the judges is ill; and, if so, what steps are to be taken to deal with this accumulation of arrears before the commencement of the Long Vacation?
:The figures in the hon. Member's question are approximately correct. One of the judges (Mr. Justice Deane) is temporarily indisposed, but hopes to be sitting again this week.
:May I ask who will make representations so that further judges of the King's Bench may be borrowed to enable these cases to be cleared off before the Long Vacation?
:The hon. Gentleman may take it that the best arrangements will be made with the existing staff.
:I am sorry to press the question, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman from where he will get further judges?
:It is not for me to get them.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Lord Chancellor that the figures show a very grave list of cases waiting, and will he also represent to him the importance of getting further judges of the King's Bench for this purpose?
:If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is necessary, I will ask whether the Lord Chancellor has had his attention drawn to the fact; but I think that he knows it quite well.
Government of Ireland Bill
Ulster
asked the Prime Minister whether and, if so, when he was informed of the intentions of the Irish Nationalist Party, if no agreement should be come to in regard to the Government of Ireland Bill, in reference to any proposals which may be made failing agreement); and whether any assurance has been given as to the extent to which the Government is prepared to make concession to Ulster to avoid civil war?
:The answer to both branches of the question is in the negative.
Volunteer Forces
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken corresponding to those adopted in Ulster to prevent the landing of arms in other parts of Ireland for the use of the National Volunteer Force?
:I do not think it desirable, for obvious reasons, to make any statement as to the steps which have been taken to enforce the Proclamation as to the importation of arms and ammunition, which applies to Ireland generally.
:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Volunteers of the Nationalist party have been dealt with in the same way as the loyalists in Ulster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"]— with regard to seeing that care is exercised as to the number of arms that are admitted?
:I think more effective steps have been taken to prevent the importation of arms where they might be used by the Nationalist Vounteers than in Ulster. We are now taking steps which I hope will be effective everywhere.
:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the House and the country are to understand that arms in the hands of the loyalists in Ulster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?'']—would be much safer than in the hands of the Nationalists?
:Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of his reply to the Leader of the Opposition?
:No, Sir.
Motion for Adjournment
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any information as to the numbers of the Nationalist Volunteer Force; whether any of the Volunteers are armed with rifles; if so, to what extent; what is the object for which the force has been brought into existence; and whether, in view of the statement by the Lord Chancellor that both this force and that of the Ulster Volunteers are illegalities and unconstitutional, he will say what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
:With regard to the first part of the question, I refer the Noble Lord to my answer to his similar question on Thursday last. I may add that the National Volunteer Force appears, however, to be increasing at the rate of about 15,000 a week. I have no precise information, however, as to the number of rifles. With regard to the last paragraph, I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the question put on this subject.
:May I ask to what reply of the Prime Minister's the right hon. Gentleman refers? I am not aware of any reply that the Prime Minister gave yesterday upon the final part of this question.
:If the Noble Lord reads the printed Papers circulated, he will find among them an answer of the Prime Minister to an hon. Member as follows:—
"I have seen the statement of the Lord Chancellor referred to, and I assume that it was an accurate statement of the law. My Noble and learned Friend went on to point out the reasons which, in his opinion, had justified the Government in taking no action in the matter. I hope that in the near future the activities of these forces may be directed to the common good of Ireland."
:Am I to understand that the Government intend to take no steps whatever to prevent the very serious danger which must threaten the peace of Ireland?
:The Noble Lord is mistaken in supposing that the Government is not paying the most scrupulous and close attention to this matter.
:I did not ask whether they were paying attention to the matter, but whether they were going to do anything?
:I am not in a position to give any further answer than that I have already given.
:Can the right hon Gentleman say whether it is true that the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) have raided rifles belonging to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College?
:No, Sir, that is not true.
rose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely: "The growing danger caused by the existence of the Volunteer Forces in Ireland and the failure of the Government to deal with that matter," and, the pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight this evening.
Selection (Standing Committees)
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill and the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II. Amendment) Bill): Mr. Charles Roberts; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bills): Mr. Robertson.
Private Bills
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 16) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Message from the Lords
That they have agreed to,—
Commons Regulation (Gosford Green) Provisional Order Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to:—
Nottingham Mechanics Institution (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ],
Cleckheaton Urban District Council Bill [ Lords ],
Mablethorpe Urban District Council Bill { Lords ], without Amendment.
Commons Regulation (Gosford Green) Provisional Order Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Bill Presented
Health Resorts and Watering Places (Scotland) Bill
"To empower local authorities in Scotland to impose a rate for advertising Health Resorts and Watering Places." Presented by Sir George Younger; supported by Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Harry Hope, and Captain Waring; to be read a second time upon Monday, 29th June and to be printed. [No. 286.]
Orders of the Day
Supply.—[Tenth Allotted Day.]
Civil Services and Revenue Department Estimates, 1914–15
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE FISHERIES— (Class II.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding£144,027, 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 on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid." [Note—£200,000 has been voted on account.]
:In rising to commend to the Committee the largest Estimates which the Board of Agriculture has ever had to present to Parliament, I fear I must make some intrusion upon the time of the House and deal first of all with the troublesome topics which have been dealt with from time to time by the Department of the Board which deals with animals' diseases. Only last week-end the anxiety of stock-owners, both in England and in Ireland, were excited by events in the North of Ireland in no way concerned with political movements, but having a greater influence in the industrial development of the North and centre of Ireland than any political movement of our time. When we were informed on Saturday morning that there were suspicions of fresh outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Ulster, both the Irish Department and ourselves acted with great promptitude and closed the ports which had been sending over cattle, both for store and slaughter purposes, during the last two months. I am glad to say that the news we have from Ireland is much more reassuring than it was, and we now only wait a final message from the Irish Department's chief veterinary officer for the traffic in the North of Ireland as well as in the centre and South to be resumed, but until we have the assurance that can be done with safety we thought it better to wait. If that information comes from Ireland in the course of the Debate, I shall ask leave to announce the decision arrived at between the Irish Department and ourselves. I refer to foot-and-mouth first of all, because.it has affected, not only a large number of animals in Ireland, but has also upset our export trade from England throughout the whole of the last five or six months. This is a matter of great moment, not only to stock-breeders who sell their animals in South America, South Africa, and elsewhere, but also to the whole of the cattle-breeders, and, I think I may say, the stock-owners of the United Kingdom.
Our export trade is really the one great source of encouragement which induces our best stock-breeders, year by year, to make repeated efforts to raise the standard of live stock. For something like six months the export trade from Great Britain to Argentina has been completely at a standstill. Scotland, however, has secured immunity from this disability, and throughout the whole of that time Scottish animals have been going out, especially from the Clyde. I am glad to think that the concession made to us by the Argentine Government has been of great benefit to the farmers and breeders of Scotland. At the present time we are negotiating with the Argentine Government to arrive at some arrangement with them which will enable us in future to export our cattle to the Argentine at an earlier date than is at present fixed. The six months' interval from the time the Board declares the country to be free from disease until cattle are allowed to enter the Argentine appears to us to be far longer than is necessary, and the view of the Argentine Government on the same question is now altered to some extent. We have during the last few weeks been enabled to make some advance in the negotiations we are conducting with them, and I need hardly assure the Committee that, while we are anxious to come to the best possible terms with the Argentine Government in order that our live stock may be sold there, it is impossible for us to take any risks that arise from disease which may originate there, and find its way back to the United Kingdom. It is on that basis that we have conducted our conversations with the representatives of the Argentine Government throughout the whole of these proceedings. We have had the active assistance of Sir Reginald Tower, who is on leave in England at the present time, and who has been of great assistance to us in conducting several conferences with representatives of the Board and myself.
I had hoped we might have had to report more than a year's immunity from disease, but in November, 1913, we had outbreaks, the origin of which was entirely unexplained, and, I fear, is unexplainable. All sorts of theories have been propounded to us by ingenious persons. It has been suggested that the disease came to England on the wheels of motor cars; that it was brought by foreign sea birds, and that it might have, been introduced by mischievous persons desirous of stopping our export trade. But we have been unable to trace the origin of any of these sources. We can only conjecture that, by some means unexplained, there were these sporadic outbreaks. We know they might have had their origin in Ireland. We had one outbreak in Birkenhead and another in Worcestershire, and these two, I think there is very little to doubt, were closely connected with the outbreaks which occurred in the centre of Ireland. The outbreak at Birkenhead, which was one of the most serious which we have had to contend with, proved the best justification the Board has yet had for adopting its method of inspection; it showed that the period of detention is just long enough to enable us to deal with such cases as we had to meet in February of this year. We succeeded in setting our machinery in motion in such a way as to prevent the disease from spreading as it did several years ago. It was restricted to one area, and with the solitary exception in which the infection escaped somehow into Worcestershire, we succeeded by our organisation in preventing what might have proved a bad epidemic. We have only had these outbreaks at five places, and it is well that outside purchasers of stock should realise what a healthy state the animals of the United Kingdom are now in.
In Ireland, the position is far from reassuring. In the county of Cork outbreaks appear to have continued over a comparatively long period. The drastic action which has been taken by the authorities in Ireland was the only means we have had of bringing to an end what at one time was a very serious situation. There have been 73 outbreaks since the 31st of January, and the latest was confirmed on the 2nd of June. That has prohibited our opening all our ports to animals which have come from every district in Ireland. We have, however, while acting with great caution, done our best to admit animals from healthy districts under, of course, restrictions which are necessary, and which have only been imposed on stock-owners in Ireland to enable them to satisfy, to some extent, their customers in England. The suggestion has been made that in choking off the whole Irish trade as we do under our present policy, we are taking action too drastic; but I must remind the Committee that in cases of outbreaks in Great Britain until quite recently the Irish authorities took exactly the same action against us, and for six months refused to allow any animal crossing St. George's Channel to enter Ireland. We have not adopted that line. I think it can be inferred from the events of two years ago, and the events of this year, that although we have relaxed that restriction in many directions for a very long period of time, we have taken no risk, and no single case of infection has come into Great Britain because of the relaxations we have granted.
4.0 P.M.
I am sorry to say at the present time there are many local authorities who have taken much more alarmist views of the situation than I myself thought necessary. If I had held the same view as thirty counties in England and seventeen in Scotland who have entirely prohibited all Irish stock, I could not certainly have opened the ports of Glasgow, Birkenhead, and Holyhead to animals which came from any one of the four provinces of Ireland. The action that we took, we took cautiously and on safe advice, and we certainly have not failed in one single instance to prevent disease finding its way into Great Britain. These counties took action on less information than we had to our hands, and, so far as I am concerned, I can only say they would be well advised, and in the opinion of the Board, would be acting quite safely if they now relaxed the prohibition which they have imposed. These counties, however, are not going to be overridden by the Board of Agriculture. They have seen fit within their own judgment to give this protection, which I think is unnecessary protection, to their own areas, and I cannot see fit to override what is a quite proper function of local government. I trust, however, they will accept the information given by the Board of Agriculture and will act upon it, and will no longer refuse perfectly healthy stock from Ireland, especially as summer progresses. All these arrangements of necessity have caused a great upheaval in the cattle trade in Ireland, and every time there is an outbreak in Ireland this is a necessary outcome. I understand there is a very strong feeling in Ireland, and many representations have been made to me on the subject, that the Board of Agriculture over here should, in the first place, take a more generous view of the information which is given to us from Ireland; and, in the second place, should so recast its Regulations as to allow animals to come in with much greater freedom from areas in Ireland which are unaffected in the case of any outbreak. I have more than once explained to the House that the conditions of cross-Channel traffic makes that quite impossible. I believe the restrictions are necessary, especially remembering that under them Ireland, through a period of thirty years, secured an immunity from disease which was the envy of all Europe.I do not think that we can be blamed if we take action which protects our live stock in the same degree. I am anxious, however, if there is any more reasonable or sensible way of arriving at exactly the same result, to consider any suggestions which are made from whatever quarter. I hope that the line which will be followed, not only by the Board over which I have the honour to preside, but by my successors when someone else takes my place, will be to maintain, first of all, that any action which we take shall be absolutely prompt. I believe that can only be secured by leaving it in the hands of the executive officers themselves to issue Orders at a moment's notice. Promptitude is of the very essence of the case in dealing with this very difficult and infectious disease. In the second place, it must not only be prompt, but it must be effectual. It will be very little use our saying we will not accept animals from, say, one infected farm, or from one infected area in Ireland, if the carriers of the disease are allowed to come freely into this country. Traffic itself must be arrested in cases of this kind, but, at the same time, I am sure that no one is anxious that the whole traffic should be interrupted. The views taken largely by stock-owners on both sides of the St. George's Channel are rather different from the views held by the merchants concerned. To begin with, the difficulties of the stock-owners are very much larger than those of the merchants, and they last longer. It is true that the amount of money which the merchant has at risk may be larger, and his margin may disappear very quickly, but the considerations which weigh most with the stock-owners are the considerations which, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture in England and the Department in Ireland, are of greater importance than those which weigh in the minds of the merchants. I need hardly say that merchants as a whole must forgive us if we regard as our first consideration the farmers of the two countries rather than those who act as merchants between them.
If that be the case, we must take such steps, whether now or at a future time, as will prevent, first of all, English farmers running the risk of having their stock infected; and, in the second place, Irish farmers running the risk of having their stock so suspected in England as to make it impossible for English buyers to think of going into the market to buy Irish animals. I think many of our Irish farmers have overlooked the fact that the suspicion of the disease in Ireland does almost as much harm, probably more, to their own trade than the restrictions imposed by the Board of Agriculture. I am informed that there are many English farmers now who will not go to free English markets to buy Irish stock, for they say they think it is better to err on the side of safety, and they have been so disturbed by events in Ireland during the last six months that they would rather dispense with Irish stock altogether this season than take any risks. Surely it is in the interests of the Irish Department, of the Irish farmers, and of Irish representatives in every part of Ireland, to allay these suspicions by every means in their power! So far as the Irish Department are concerned, I must say they appear to have acted with accuracy and energy which is beyond praise. I would especially single out for praise Mr. Prentice, the chief veterinary officer, who has throughout the whole of this very trying time never spared his energies to organise the forces at his command. So far as the future is concerned, I cannot say that I think that in this, as in any other matter, we have reached perfection. I repeat that I am anxious, if necessary, to get assistance from any quarter and suggestions for better methods of dealing with the disease in the case of future outbreaks. If any assistance can come from representatives of Irish stock-owners or English stock-owners, or local authorities in England or in Ireland, I think there might be some good in our holding some Conference of that kind or setting up a Committee which would sit with that object. It must rest ultimately with the Departments concerned as to whether or not they will take the advice of the Committee so constituted and so improve the situation. The ultimate responsibility must of necessity lie with the Departments. If a Committee of that description will do any good, I for my part will welcome any suggestions they have to make and examine them with full feelings of sympathy.
I can say nothing more on that un-savoury topic at the present moment, because I have to turn to one a little less savoury, namely, swine fever. Foot-and-mouth disease has involved us in losses nothing like as large as those which have come from swine fever. Throughout the last generation it has been the most persistent and most intractable of animal diseases. Long before we came into office, the troubles of dealing with swine fever constantly concerned the Board of Agriculture. The pig population shows signs of the swaying up and down of this- disease, but the pig population of Great Britain does not depend absolutely upon the prevalence or the reverse of the disease, for other elements must of necessity come in to influence swine owners and pig-breeders in the number of animals which they retain and those which they are prepared to sell. I have looked through the pig population for the period 1894 up to the present time, and I find the most curious fluctuations in that population. In 1894 it was very low, being just a little over 2,250,000. In 1895 it jumped up to nearly 2,900,000; it dropped again in 1897 and went up again in 1899; it was at its lowest in 1901, arid it rose to the highest figure, I think, about 1904, and it has gone up and down from year to year since then. I fear that no inferences can be drawn from the census of pigs in Great Britain. All that we do know is, that during the last few years apparently we have not been able to diminish the area over which the disease has spread, or to seriously reduce the number of outbreaks which have occurred. Of these the most serious have been in practically two counties, the West Biding and Wiltshire. In the West Eiding and Wiltshire, the conditions of which are well known to some of my hon. Friends and to hon. Gentlemen opposite, the raising of pigs is an important source of revenue, not only to the large farmers, but also to the smaller men. We can only regret that in those two areas in particular the disease should have been so prevalent, and that, of necessity, the Regulations imposed should have interfered so much with the sale and circulation of these animals.
In 1912 there appeared to be something like a marked reduction in the number of outbreaks. In 1913 the progress also appeared to be good. During the last five months I regret to say that the number of outbreaks has been greater than it was during the corresponding period of last year. Indeed, the burden which has fallen upon the Board of Agriculture Estimates gives some indication, although only an indirect indication, of the amount of loss which must of necessity have fallen upon the pig-breeders of Great Britain. We have paid something likes£82,000 in compensation in the year 1913–s14, and the administration of the Board, which is directly concerned, or nearly directly concerned with swine fever, has cost us nearly£65,000 in the course of the year. It is true that the salaries cost£27,000, but even then the net expenditure on swine fever in the course of twelve months has come to no less that£128,000. That has been expended over something like 2,900 cases. I regret that these figures should be so unfavourable. It is as well to examine, first of all, the means by which we hope to restrict the area of the disease, and, in particular, the means by which we hope ultimately to eradicate it. No one administrator, and I will go further and say, no one scientist has ever been able to suggest a means of dealing with this highly prevalent and infectious disease which has been satisfactory. It is an experience common not only to this country but to every country on the Continent and even the United States of America, where, I am informed on high authority, the loss in the year 1912–13 through swine fever alone came to something between twelve millions sterling and twenty millions sterling. Some authorities place it at twelve millions, and some as high as twenty millions. That is in a country where they have adopted methods different from our own. I may point out also, while we are making national comparisons, that in the one European country where they have adopted exactly the same methods as we have adopted, restriction, slaughter and compensation, namely, in Denmark, they have a smaller amount of swine fever than is to be found in any other European country, so that if anything can be drawn from national experience, I think we are better advised to follow the example of Denmark than the example of the United States of America.
It is quite clear, on the state of our knowledge on this subject, that we cannot regard our present arrangements as satisfactory. That is a view held not only by Members of this House, but by pig-breeders outside. It is the view held by the Department, and I know it is the view held by the Departmental Committee which is sitting on this subject. We are constantly receiving information from many quarters which is more or less reliable, and sometimes more or less unreliable. Suggestions are being made of the wildest kind, that by adopting the serum treatment we could get rid of the vexatious restrictions which now afflict swine-owners in Great Britain. One of the most prominent of these protagonists is the owner of a large bacon factory who has his headquarters in Wiltshire. A year ago he came back from Holland and told us that recent experience there had shown that the serum treatment had got rid of many of the difficulties from which pig-breeders suffered in Holland, and that we were not justified in ignoring these facts in the English Department. We had heard something of the serum treatment long before this gentleman went to Holland. It had been examined critically by the Departmental Committee years ago, and by our chief veterinary officer, who was in touch with the scientists on the Continent, as well as those who knew something about this disease at home; but we were assured on many hands that no new information had come to light. Immediately we received this information, on what appeared to be reliable authority, I sent off to the Continent two of our best representatives, and they came back with a greater store of information, it is true, but all tending to exactly the same conclusion as was arrived at by the Departmental Committee some time ago, namely, that no progress had been made in Holland, and that the area over which the experiments had been made was so small in compariosn with the pig population in Holland, that no inference could be drawn from them. This information was given at once to the Departmental Committee, and we have already circulated the Interim Report of this Committee, in which they say that in Holland, where some 6,000 inoculations have been reported, swine fever is still very prevalent, and precise information is not available, as the disease is not scheduled and outbreaks are not officially reported, and they consider that they are not able to draw any accurate scientific conclusion. They also examined the evidence which came to them from Hungarian sources. It was no more satisfactory. The official reports, they went on to say, from the United States of America show that it has been employed there much more extensively and for a longer period than in either Holland or Hungary without effecting any reduction in the prevalence of the disease.
This was not encouraging information, either for the Departmental Committee or for the House, but we were not prepared to allow the matter to rest there, and I suggested to the Departmental Committee that they might take into consideration the further use of field experiments. Good work can undoubtedly be done in the laboratory, but I was anxious that in the field we should attempt to gather more than we knew at present about this disease and we have arranged that swine fever ex- periments are to be conducted in the field on eighteen premises belonging to ten different owners, and in counties so far distant as Suffolk, Kent, Lancashire, Wiltshire, Middlesex, and so on—I think eight counties in all. The Departmental Committee made strong representations to us on this subject. We have succeeded in acquiring the right to use some of the premises which I have mentioned, and in one or two cases we are able to carry on our field experiments under such perfect conditions of isolation, as, for instance, in the grounds of a large lunatic asylum, that we hope to be able to arrive at results which will be of greater value because we can take greater risks on those premises. They are under the direct control of the Board's chief veterinary officer, and they are being watched with the greatest possible care by the Board's staff as well as by others whom we have called in to our assistance. I have called in the assistance of more than one gentleman from outside, not only because I wished to have the assistance of more than one mind on the subject, but because if we were pursuing a more versatile policy, it was necessary that we should have versatility of mind. I am glad to think that concurrent research is likely to be possible with the assistance that is given from the Development Commission in the provision of funds. It has been suggested that those who are conducting our laboratory work are likely to be predisposed towards the present policy of the Board, and that, for instance, the Board's chief veterinary officer, who has done good service to stock-breeders on this subject, was likely to be so predisposed towards our administrative methods at the Board that it would colour the work which he did as a scientist. No more ridiculous charge could be made against a well-known scientific man. I am quite prepared to receive assistance from outside, and we are now making arrangements in which the Development Commissioners are playing a part, for they fully sympathise with our object, for concurrent research to be conducted not only by our own officers on these selected field premises, but also by representatives of outside bodies, and I hope before very long I may be able to announce the names of those who will do this work for us. In no way did I believe that this was a censure on the Board's officers, who have been doing admirable work throughout the last few years, and particularly I should very much resent any suggestion that it reflected upon the Board's chief veterinary officer, Sir Stewart Stockman, who is the first authority in Europe on this subject.
I know that in the public Press it has become common to suggest that we must not only have new scientists to work on this problem, but a new Committee to deal with it. I must say a word on that because this Committee is not able to say a word for itself except by the issuing of its Reports. This is not a Committee composed of the Board's servants. It contains only two representatives of the Board. All the other gentlemen are men of independent mind and large and wide experience, and I need only mention the name first of all of the hon. Member (Mr. Courthope), who is chairman; Sir Charles Longmore, well known in local government, one of the best of our county council servants, the hon. Member (Sir Luke White), who is certainly a man of independent mind; Mr. Locke Blake, who is another man well known in local government; Mr. Charles Douglas, this year's chairman of the Highland Agricultural Society; Mr. Frank Garnett, the well-known veterinary surgeon; and Professor Penberthy. Any aspersions cast upon that Committee are not justified by its constitution or its work, but I am sure that they, along with the Board, will welcome any assistance which may be given to them by outside scientists. Who are to be the outside gentlemen who will give us this assistance? It has been suggested that they should be gentlemen whose experience has been restricted to scientific questions appertaining to human beings, or who, if they have touched animals' diseases at all, have only dipped slightly into them. It is only fair to point out that we must not hope for too much in that direction. We all have the greatest respect for distinguished physicians. Bacteriologists who have dealt only with human diseases have had great successes to put to their credit. But if we are to make any comparison at all between them and veterinary surgeons, the latter have been more successful in eradicating disease than those who are concerned with human beings. Had it not been for the knowledge obtained of diseases like pleuropneumonia and rabies and cattle plague, it would have been impossible for us, even by administration, to stamp them out.
We have had investigations in the past, and it is only fair to the Committee to tell them what is the result. I take, first of all, the case of scarlatina in cows. Dr. Klein, who was well known in the 'nineties, spent some time in experimenting on cows and investigating the whole subject of scarlatina in cows. He traced scarlet fever to a disease in cows, and within a very short time he was proved to be entirely wrong by veterinary surgeons. Dr. Klein did a good deal of work on foot-and-mouth disease, and he added practically nothing to human knowledge. Dr. Smart, of Edinburgh, who was also very well known and a first-class scientist in his time, conducted investigations into cattle plague, and the result of his investigations was to leave the matter exactly where he found it, and cattle plague was finally exterminated by the administrators of the Board and under administrative arrangements which were so perfect that cattle plague has entirely disappeared from this country. Dr. Hamilton, of Aberdeen, not so very long ago undertook investigations on louping-ill, I am sorry to say we have got no report on the work done by him. Reports have never been forthcoming. Dr. Evans, who conducted investigations for two years, at the request of the Board, on swine fever, gave us no report at all, although we spent something like£2,000 on the experiments and research which he made. Dr. Evans was a bacteriologist of standing, and I believe the Board at that time employed him because they thought it was necessary that new minds should be brought to bear on this problem. I therefore suggest to the Committee that we should not be too hopeful in supplementing the work which is done by the veterinary surgeons by bacteriologists who are not themselves veterinary surgeons—that we shall arrive at one jump at a solution of what is a very intricate and troublesome business.
The preventive measures which have been suggested have nearly all been suggested outside with the object of getting rid altogether of our present restrictions. That is, apparently, the one fact which lies at the back of nearly all these suggestions. If preventive inoculation, for instance, is to be used for the purpose of getting rid of swine fever, I am sure it is suggested from outside with the object of getting rid now of restrictions which are said to be irritating, and which do undoubtedly interfere with pig-breeding and pig- selling. But if by preventive measures you mean that apparently healthy carriers of disease—that is, recovered animals who have already been inoculated—are to be allowed to pass freely about in our markets every stock-owner will be bound, in order to protect himself, to embark on these very same protective measures provided they are likely to be effective. That is a very serious undertaking, and it would prove just as costly, and possibly more costly, to the pig-breeder than the restrictions under which they at present labour. A serious undertaking of this kind ought not to be forced on stock-owners without their knowing perfectly clearly what it means and how far it is likely to affect the fattening of the animals, on whose size they depend for their business, and I believe we should not embark on great changes of this kind without having behind us the full concurrence of the stock-owners. The campaign which has been conducted in the public Press has certainly had for its object either the removal or the modification of these restrictions. Let me turn for a moment to the suggestion of their modification. These restrictions certainly now depend upon conditions which are purely political—I do not mean in the party sense, but in the sense of depending upon artificial county boundaries—and in so far as they do that they are often hurtful to those who wish to sell their pigs over a wide area or have a large variety of markets open to them, and in some cases they have been so, hurtful as to almost interfere with the profitable conduct of the business on any scale. Last year when I was in Gloucestershire I saw the representatives of the county councils in that area. The three county councils of Gloucestershire and the two counties which lie immediately to the north of it were anxious to get rid of the artificial county boundary. I took the matter into consideration, and in a short time we had got rid of the disabilities there. That is an example of the way in which we can modify our restrictions so as to make it possible for the pig-owners of those areas to conduct their business—it is true, under restrictions, but restrictions which involve them in less loss than if they have the markets closed to them on an artificial and possibly an unnecessary basis.
The only practical suggestion which has ever been made with regard to the areas over which these restrictions are at present in force has, I believe, come from the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst), and he suggested that the areas at present adopted are much too large. I have read carefully through the evidence which he gave before the Departmental Committee. I do not know whether he has had any reason to change his view since he gave that evidence—he is like the rest of us, he is living and learning. If he has not, I can only say that the Departmental Committee disagreed with him to a man; they would have nothing of the suggestion which he made, and although I have the greatest possible respect for the opinions of the hon. Member, I fear I cannot accept his opinion in the balance as against that of the Departmental Committee. One of the duties which is thrown on this Committee is to advise the Board deliberately and after careful consideration, and examining every suggestion which is made to them, whether or not we can safely alter our present administrative arrangements. At present they have made no suggestion to us whatever of any change being necessary. Where suggestions have come from outside with regard to the areas I have been only too ready to listen to them, but I need hardly say that any county council which cares to approach me on the subject will find that we are prepared at the Board of Agriculture to enter into their local conditions and, if possible, relieve them of the disability under which they suffer. It is possible that the scientific work in the next few years may enable us to take a broader line in regard to swine fever. We are now about to get the assistance of bacteriologists who have already been at work on the subject—both veterinary and human bacteriologists, the latter being men whose experience has not been that of veterinary surgeons. I have discounted to some extent the very large expectations, and I think unfounded expectations, which have been held out as to the results of the work which is likely to be done by the bacteriologists who have had no experience of animal diseases; but, while I have done that, I am not prepared to discard any services they may be able to render, and, on the contrary, I am prepared to give the fullest consideration to the work of any bacteriologists who have been engaged on other topics, and who are now prepared to devote their minds to these matters. We shall be glad to take advantage of their knowledge, and we shall be very glad if their investigations should prove beneficial, not only here, but all over the world, for the troubles from which stock-owners suffer in other coun- tries are exactly the same as in this country, where you find the losses in proportion to the population are less, with the exception perhaps of Denmark.
indicated dissent.
:If the hon. Gentleman has further information on that I wish he would let us have it, but, so far, I can only depend on the evidence which has been brought to our knowledge. I have mentioned bacteriological work in connection with swine fever, but that is not the only example of the Board's researches. Similar steps have been taken by the Board and the Board's representatives in regard to other diseases. I do not know why any hon. Gentleman opposite should be prepared to sneer at that statement, or prepared to deprecate the work done by the Board on these subjects. The representatives of the Board have an excellent record on which to build, and I am glad to say that the work they are doing at the present time is proving of advantage to stock-owners. I would refer to the work which has been done in regard to red-water fever. A very great improvement which has been carried out is that scarcely any animal goes out from this country to South America without passing through the Board's station in order to be immunised. Immunisation is not restricted to red-water fever; but good work has been done also by our representatives in regard to epizootic abortion, and already experiments have been extended over such a large number of animals that I think we are almost reaching the time when some definite conclusions can be announced. At all events, a number of animals immunised have so far been exempt from the troubles of contagious abortion, which, I would suggest to the Committee, is one of the most costly, if not the most costly, of all the diseases stock-owners have to suffer from.
The work done in regard to scrapie in sheep has taken the form of experiments, and we are conducting our investigations in conjunction with the Royal Veterinary College. The immunisation of all pedigree cattle is work that will constantly have our attention at the new station at Pir-bright. The Royal Veterinary College is at work on the problems associated with tuberculosis, and the work which is being done there is being admirably supplemented under the auspices of the Royal Agricultural Society with respect to scrapie in sheep, and the methods of diagnosing contagious abortion. The Birmingham University is helping us in regard to parasitic diseases in animals. We are not restricting these inquiries to the Board's own officers, but we are taking full advantage of the veterinary colleges of the United Kingdom. I am quite conscious of the fact that the supply of really first-class veterinary scientists is by no means as large as it should be. We have made representations to the Treasury and the Development Commission with regard to the training of men who have previously been concerned mainly with natural science, but who have not specialised in veterinary science. The Commission have agreed to two research scholarships of the annual value of£150 being offered in October next. These are tenable for a period of three years each. They will be restricted to those who have taken an honours degree in science at any British university, and who propose to study at an approved veterinary college. I hope this will tend to bring into this work men who, having taken a scientific degree, are now becoming conscious of the fact that for first-class scientists as regards animals the demand is greater than it ever has been in this country.
This is only the beginning of what we intend to do. We intend to follow it up at the close of the present year, when we shall be offering three scholarships of£100 each, also tenable for three years. This will, I trust, enable us to break the ice and induce scientific men who are more interested in other topics to turn their attention to those which most concern the Department. The steps taken in this direction are, I think, all to the good. They are not very costly, but I think they will, at all events, make a start. It is by no means an easy matter to get men who have a general scientific training to turn to the veterinary profession. Many of them think that motors have entirely done away with the profitable posts which in the past were attached to this profession. They think that the plums of the profession have disappeared. The necessity for veterinary surgeons is as great as ever it was, and if the Department will only make full use of the scientific advice of this kind and attend more to the advice given by the veterinary advisers, good work may be done. We shall have to have a larger staff of men who have received a better scientific training.
I turn from swine fever to tuberculosis. I would refer to the new Tuberculosis Order, which we hope to issue in the next week or two. The old Order, as I informed the Committee a year ago, was issued largely on an experimental basis, and was entirely a new departure in administration. We had no hard and fast love of the terms of the Order, but we were obliged to make a start. We were anxious to base any new statement made on the experience gained in the administration of the old Order, which was issued in the beginning of May, 1913. I hope that by the beginning of July we shall have got the new Order out.
The Committee may be interested to know the main changes we propose to make. In the first place, the principal complaint made against the old Order was that we had two valuations. One valuation was supposed to be the value of the animal with disease; and the other the value of the animal without disease; secondly, the compensation was said to be inadequate in either case; and thirdly, the amount refunded to the local authorities was said to be much too small, and that was certainly one of the reasons why the local authorities were not administering the Order. Finally, complaints came from stock-owners that the period of restriction during which an animal might be held up under the Order might be so long as seriously to damage the business of the cow-keeper concerned. Every one of these complaints has now been met. The new Order will provide for one valuation, and that value is to be the market value of the animal at the time the valuation is taken. As to compensation, we shall give three-fourths of the market value in a non-advanced case and one-fourth in an advanced case of tuberculosis, and a minimum of 30s. in the latter case. We shall refund to the local authorities three-fourths of the gross compensation, and we shall also leave with them the right to the full salvage value, which in many cases has come to quite a substantial figure. Finally, we shall provide that where an animal has been held up for three days without the local authority's officer coming to any decision on the subject, it shall be set free. Three days we think long enough for the representative of the local authority to give his decision on the matter. That will greatly relieve stock-owners from the restrictions which have been placed upon them in the past, not from any intention on our part, but through a too generous reading of the Order. The new conditions will certainly do something towards relieving the owners of suspicious animals.
:Will the new Order provide compensation for tuberculous swine?
:No, Sir, it is entirely concerned with cattle.
:What will be the test of an advanced case?
:We shall follow substantially the same test as in the past. There is no serious difficulty about that. The difficulty that arises is about the dual valuation. We get over that by providing for one valuation only, and making that the market value at the time the valuation is taken.
With respect to small holdings I can only say that the movement for small holdings apparently shows no sign of the great diminution which was at one time prophesied. There are now 11,000 small holders, and in addition 1,400 holders who hold land let by associations. Over 193,000 acres of land have been acquired or was being negotiated for, for the provision of small holdings up to 13th June, 1914. I think£4,000,000 has been invested in small holdings, and I believe that£65,000 a year is paid in rent to local authorities who hire land for the purpose. This is a very substantial advance on the small progress made in past years. But there are still at the present time over 6,000 approved applicants who have not yet been satisfied, and the only comment I would make on that is that at the end of 1912 there were 8,500 unsatisfied applicants. The time that has elapsed has led to hope being deferred, and some of the applicants with hope deferred have taken their names off the list, and they have probably obtained work elsewhere. But 6,000 is a substantial number, and it will require 90,000 acres to satisfy their demand. There are very few or comparatively few labourers among those who applied for and obtained these small holdings, and the explanation of that is not very difficult to see. It simply amounts to this that agricultural labourers in rural England receive such small remuneration that they cannot be expected to accumulate savings on which to start small holdings, for the smallest of which some capital is required. That is the view held, not by politicians, who are supposed to have distorted views on this matter, but by all British inquirers who know anything about rural England. It is suggested that the subject of wages is closely connected with small holdings, I am more than positive, after investigation of my own, now covering a period of three years, that there is no doubt small holdings are least taken advantage of in those districts where the labourers themselves have not sufficient capital to rent, stock and work land of even the small area of a small holding. It is the object of the Board, as I hope it is the object of all progressive agriculturists, that greater opportunity should be given to those men of the labouring classes to step into the class of small holders. Already wages appear to be rising in some parts of England. In Norfolk and Suffolk, at the Dorchester hirings, the East Riding hirings, in Somersetshire and Worcestershire—in all these districts farmers themselves have been giving an advance in wages. I would hesitate to say that any advance made by them is a confession that the wages previously were too low. It is always a suggestion, I know, in this House when any concession is made that the previous position held by the concessor was untenable. I would suggest that an advance having been made in these directions, it may very well be followed in others, and that if only with the object of retaining for our farmers a larger and better supply of labour—
:On a point of Order. May I ask for a ruling as to whether we shall be entitled to discuss in this Debate the whole question of the wages paid to the agricultural labourers? It is a very big question on which some Members have a great deal to say, and if we are allowed to discuss this question I venture to say that it will overshadow the question of disease of cattle and the question of small holdings. I would like, therefore, to have your ruling as to whether we are entitled to discuss it or not?
:I do not think that there is any item in the Vote which relates to the wages of agricultural labourers. I think that that topic is rather remote from the subject under discussion.
:I should hesitate to widen the discussion which already, I fear, has covered a great deal of ground. My sole object in mentioning the wages is to say that there is a direct connection between the wages paid and the small holdings, and I was about to express the hope that with the increase of wages which has been granted, it might be possible for labourers, in future, to make accumulations which will enable them to step into the class of small holders, a thing which they cannot do unless they have some capital with which to start. On the subject of small holders, I would like to add that the work of the Agricultural Organisation Society already has been of great benefit. The number of co-operative agricultural societies in this country is far greater than most people imagine. There are something like 478 societies in Great Britain on a co-operative basis, whose principal and only business is concerned with agriculture. It is true that a large number of these are very small, doing a very restricted trade. But just as in Ireland many of the societies started on a very small scale, so in England, I think, starting as we do in many directions on a small scale, there would be openings for wider and wider work for these co-operative societies. They can be of special use to the small holder. In addition to the co-operative societies it is necessary, and it is becoming more and more necessary, that guidance should be given by the county councils to the small holders who are their tenants. We are attempting, at the present time, to organise a large number of small holders' advisers who will be able to give guidance to small holders in the management of their little farms. Too many small holders, unfortunately, attempt to run their small farms on exactly the same principle as large farms. In that way they are not likely to achieve success in every part of England. It is possible for some men in some parts of England, with a small holding, to make a good livelihood by working the holding as an ordinary farm, but our experience is that it is almost impossible for a small holder to make a success of a small holding unless he specialises. Wherever he specialises and adapts his business to the size of his holding, there it is found that he can get a good livelihood. An interesting feature in connection with small holdings is the extraordinarily small amount of bad debts incurred by the county council in connection with these holdings. Unpaid rent is one of the smallest items in all their accounts. Only yesterday I saw the representatives of the Norfolk County Council, and they told me that on their last rent day their arrears were only £100 for an estate of over 13,000 acres in small holdings. That is all hopeful, but without advice being given small holders sometimes may find hard times somewhat difficult to weather. These small-holding advisers would be mainly concerned with suggestions as to the best crops which can be grown by the small hloder, the best method of preparing produce for sale, which in market garden districts is a matter of great importance, and the best means of marketing.
:Will these advisers be honorary?
:No, they are paid. We have provided for them in the Board's Estimate, so that the local authorities will not have any further burden thrown on them. They will themselves, by the Board's assistance, be able to give advice to their own tenants. I will now say something about our live-stock branch and the amount of money spent on education. Our live-stock schemes now cover a great deal of ground, and they have passed the purely theoretical stage. Last year I was not able to announce to the Committee that our whole scheme had gone through. Indeed, it was not until very late in the season that we were able to get our Regulations out. But already the local authorities and the Board's officials have done their work so efficiently that we are now paying premiums or Grants for no fewer than 337 bulls, 60 boars, and 70 heavy horse stallions, and we are making Grants to eight milk-recording societies. In every case it is being done on a business basis. The purchase of bulls has been done by local authorities under the advice of live-stock advisers. In some cases they have gone to rather high figures for their bulls, and it has been interesting to find that some of the best schemes, certainly some covering the most ground, are those which were originally in Wales. The average cost of the bulls purchased under the scheme works out at over£36. In one case an animal was purchased for as much as£90; in three others the cost was over£60; in fourteen the cost was over£50, and in thirty-nine the cost was over£40.
I am informed from many parts of the country that the bull scheme is having another indirect but beneficial effect. It is inducing the large farmers, who are in many cases seeing their smaller brethren through the bull clubs using a high-class of animal, to discard the lower class of bulls in order to come up to the high standard of their smaller neighbours. The indirect effect in England is likely to be the same as in Ireland, and to lead to a general raising of the standard of our live stock. The price of the boars has run up to as much as£13. Though in none of these cases, either of the bulls or the boars, can you say that they are getting a first-class animal, yet they are getting a far higher class of animal than ever was available for these men in the past, and in every direction the members of these societies are themselves showing the Board's representatives and the representatives of the local authority that they think that any expense which they are put to is very well worth their while. For the heavy horse there has been a great demand in some parts of the country. The average hiring fee paid by societies under the scheme is£225. All the stallions are required to be registered. They are all required to hold the Board's certificate of soundness, and the hiring system under which we have worked, though it has been the subject of criticism, has certainly tended to a larger number of these animals being available than was anticipated when the scheme was first started. Of milk-recording societies there are eight, and there will soon be many more, and from many parts of the country we find enquiries and demands from those who are responsible for dairying, especially among the larger farmers, to come within this scheme. The total expense of a farmer, by being a member of the local society, cannot run to more than 3s. per cow, and the benefit which he is likely to receive, both in the quantity of milk and the quality of the milk, and the cost of production, all of which can be obtained from a good local scheme, will return him that profit many times over. He will save as much in pounds as he sends out in shillings, and there is the additional advantage that the certificates which are given will enable those who have been keeping careful records to sell at a better price cows of which a record has been kept because of the certificate which is given.
Everyone who has any experience of the Ayrshire cattle will recognise that their scheme, though rather different from ours, has really been the making of this breed. Indeed, in some directions, I have no doubt that we shall find in England that the keeping of those records will not only tend to raise the standard of milk production, but will also tend to certificates being regarded as essential for the purpose of sale, as the tuberculosis certificate is now regarded in the case of nearly all sales of animals from abroad. That covers some of the practical work done by the Board's officers. But I would leave it very incomplete if I did not take some account of the research work which is being conducted in many of our great institutions, on a great variety of topics. I will read to the Committee a short list of some of the topics which are now under consideration in various institutions, almost the whole expense, if not the whole expense, of which is being borne by the Board itself. We are aiding at Rothamsted investigations in reference to the sterilisation of soils, the action of lime on soil, and the effect of poison on plants. We have already succeeded in getting from the Development Fund large Grants for new laboratories at Rothamsted and the further Gilbert memorial laboratory which is to be put up will be substantially aided also from the Development Fund. Experiments on the subject of plant breeding have been conducted with our assistance at Cambridge, and work is being done at Reading with regard to the discolouration of cheese, for instance, the discolouration of Stilton cheese, and experiments have been made with pasteurised milk, and I believe they have now succeeded in making an excellent Cheddar from milk which has been pasteurised. Experiments have also been made at Bristol in reference to the bacteriological diseases of pear blossoms, and good work has been done on this subject, which is of importance to fruit growers. They have also been dealing with the question of cider, for instance, the effect of water, and various problems concerned with fermentation and the bacillus of cider sickness. All this work has been made available not only for future generations of agriculturists, and has been used by agriculturists largely through the advisers who are now paid under the Board.
5.0 P.M.
I would like now to pass to the Committee set up to attend to advisory work, which is meeting the necessities of agriculturists in every part of the country to a very remarkable degree. For instance, in the area covered by the Armstrong College, no fewer than 600 inquiries were dealt with up to the end of February of this year. Down at Reading, I believe, they have dealt with no fewer than 1,300 in- quiries, at Leeds over 300, at Cambridge over 200, and in the Cheshire area about 200, and in many hundreds of cases besides advice has been given on the spot to agriculturists as to the cultivation, the feeding of live stock, and questions concerned with manures, as well as in reference to feeding stuffs and seeds, and questions with regard to milk production and the best food to be given, and such things as the pests of fruit, such as strawberry disease, which in some localities is a matter of great importance. Lest there may be a difficulty in securing good men, we here fall back on the scholarship system. We have twelve research scholars during the last three years, each of whom has received£150 a year. They attend the school for three years, and are now becoming available for work, and I hope that in the near future we shall be able to dispense with these very large scholarships for the provision of a sufficient number of men to perform all these local duties. In connection with the advice which is given, excellent work is done by the Board's agricultural branch. With regard to potatoes, about which there is great anxiety in Scotland at the present time, and with regard to nursery stock, certainly the advice of the Board is of the greatest moment. The work already done by the authorities in the counties, through their officers, under the destructive Insects and Pests Act, from 1877 till 1907, will in future be done by the Board's own officers, and we have made arrangements to relieve the local authorities from the expense of having their own inspectors. Our own staff of inspectors are much more mobile and therefore much more effective, and they will cover the whole country, not leaving certain parts of it entirely uninspected. These officers will be of great help to the fruit-growers and market gardeners everywhere. They will be able to give, as they now give, certificates to them, and they have already given no less than 5,000 certificates in respect of the produce of eighty nurseries, which enabled that produce to enter the United States. The education work conducted by the Board is closely allied to this, and I should not like the organisation which has been created in the country to in any degree separate the two.
It is necessary that it should be clearly understood that those who are engaged in this work of giving instruction should be in the closest touch with those who are employed in research and with the colleges, and that there should be the closest possible touch between the counties by those who are giving advice. In many country districts farmers travel eight or nine miles to attend a course of instruction, and in many cases, we are informed, the applications to attend the courses are filled up months ahead. The best instance of that is at the Madryn Farm School in Wales, where the first three courses were packed out, the number of applicants being more than double the accommodation. I find that in no less than six counties schemes are going forward in connection with farm institutes—I mean not only the actual institute working, but farm institute buildings. Each farm has from 200 to 250 acres, and we have given very large assistance out of the Development Fund for the provision of those farms. The practical work which they have done is already appreciated by the farmers, and, so far from begrudging local expenditure, they are urging the local authorities to proceed with greater rapidity. We are most hopeful of the experiment at Toys Hill Farm, in Kent, where a school has been established through the generosity of a number of landlords, who have subscribed £3 apiece, for lads to spend about four weeks at the school. The lads practice hedging, forge work, and simple practical work, besides which they spend the whole of the forenoon in the work of the school, receiving instruction with regard to the growth of plants. It is one of the most remarkable developments of educational work in recent years the demand for instruction, and the students show great keenness and ability in receiving the instruction which is given them, and certainly this experiment would justify its being put on a permanent basis.
In many other directions work has been done under the farm institute scheme, and the colleges and universities are keeping in close touch with it. In every direction there is much more anxiety to acquire knowledge of a scientific character than ever there was before. The colleges and universities are giving larger local services, and have the recompense of having a much larger number of students. For the last four years the number of students in those schools has gone up from 1,200 to over 1,800, and, possibly, in this present year, the number of students will reach something like 2,000. All that has not been done without heavy expenditure of money, and the total amount of the Board's Vote reaches, I believe, a record figure. I do not regret a single penny of the expenditure, in so far as it is applied to education and research. I believe that every penny of it will be returned a hundredfold. But it is well worthy of notice that other sources of expenditure have of necessity become more extensive. The amount of money we spent on education and research of various kinds in 1909–10 came to about £13,000—a figure which I venture to say was no credit to Great Britain. We were then starving agricultural instruction and agricultural science. In every direction, in every other great agricultural country, excellent work is done by institutions and by scientific instruction, but in England what has been done has been done mainly on a voluntary basis, and that with very meagre funds. The total amounts spent on agricultural education in 1909–10 was only about £11,000. We have provided in this Estimate £101,000 for agricultural education. Taking the whole of these services, which are likely to fully recoup us—research, education, and I am adding the improvement of live stock, which is of very large educational value —the cost in 1909–10 was over £13,400; it is now over £271,000.
Of that £271,000 the sum of £231,000 comes from the Development Fund, and I think we are well justified in saying that the Development Fund, so far as agriculture is concerned, has been an unmixed blessing to us. Under the well-known Budget of 1909 agriculturists were supposed to have had imposed upon them very heavy burdens. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] We are now paying back, through national channels, some of the money which has been taken from them. I hope that we are putting it to good use. Local authorities certainly are of that opinion, if I may judge from the information which I have received from farmers, and up and down the country work is being done on scientific and educational lines that meets with general approval. That is a change for the better, and I am glad to think that, now the agricultural mind is widening and the younger generation are showing a greater desire for knowledge, they are receiving fuller benefit from national organisation. In regard to the live stock scheme and other Votes, I commend them to the support of the Committee.
:I beg to move, "That a sum, not. exceeding £143,927, be granted for the said service."
The Committee have heard a very long and interesting speech from the right hon. Gentleman that has covered a very wide field, but it is quite impossible to criticise the right hon. Gentleman's Department and all that is going on in every branch of it. I am not going to deny that the scheme for the improvement of live stock has undoubted merits, and may, in due time, give some advantages to the agricultural community, particularly that section which deals with the establishment of milk records. As to education and research, I am not going to be tempted to say more than this, that although the amount previously allocated by the Government to agricultural education and research was miserably small four years ago, it still seems miserably small compared with what is devoted to those purposes in other leading countries of Europe. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the sum to be devoted to this work is something like £270,000, but that is a meagre sum, which France, Germany, Denmark, and even Belgium, would be heartily ashamed of as the Government contribution to such an important matter. The right hon. Gentleman, I think perhaps rather unfortunately, referred at the end of his speech to the great advantages that we derive from one branch, at any rate, of the financial proposals of 1909. I will only say in this connection that whatever advantages may have been derived from the Development Fund—and I, for my part, am not going to minimise them— I am quite sure of this, that those financial proposals, taken as a whole, have dealt a blow to the agricultural industry from which it will take it many years to recover.
This is best illustrated by the disappearance of capital from various branches of agricultural enterprise. From the official returns of the right hon. Gentleman's Department we learn that 100,000 acres have gone out of arable cultivation in each of the eight years prior to last year, and that no less than 277,000 acres have gone out of arable cultivation during last year. We further learn that during the same year—that is, last year—the agricultural horse population was reduced by no less than 8½ per cent.; the cattle population by no less than 2 per cent.; the sheep population by no less than 5 per cent.; and pigs by no less than 16 per cent. That represents a very large withdrawal of capital from the agricultural industry, resulting, as I believe, from the serious feeling of insecurity which followed upon the financial methods of the Government. I move the reduction of the Vote by £100 in order to call attention to the Board's policy with regard to the contagious diseases of animals, and especially with regard to swine fever. The Board's chief weapons for combating disease are the knife, the pole-axe, and a meticulous network of harassing Government restrictions. And there is insufficient discrimination on the part of the Department between serious diseases which generally end fatally, and which are in some cases highly infectious—such as foot-and-mouth disease—and diseases of less importance, which are not anything like so infectious, such as swine fever.
It does not necessarily follow that a policy which is right as regards anthrax and glanders, which are seriously fatal diseases, or even foot-and-mouth disease, are necessarily right as regards tuberculous disease and swine fever. This policy of wholesale slaughter is the effect of Departmental ignorance and Departmental failure. I cannot help being reminded of a very good story which was told me about two years ago by a certain parent, who asked his son, a young man about to choose his profession, whether he would prefer to be a lawyer or a doctor. His answer was, "I should not care to be a lawyer, because he always hears afterwards of the mistakes which he makes. I should prefer to be a doctor, because he buries his mistakes." If I may venture to say so, that applies admirably to the policy of the Board in respect of such a disease as swine fever. The right hon. Gentleman began by congratulating himself and the Irish Department upon the promptness and efficacy of their methods for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. I am quite prepared to endorse everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said upon that subject, but I should like particularly to emphasise the desirability of Irishmen obtaining a feeling of confidence and maintaining that feeling of confidence in the minds of British stock-owners. I am not quite sure, if I may venture with all respect to say so, that that feeling of confidence is always promoted by questions asked across the floor of this House.
There is one fact which does not establish a feeling of confidence in the minds of British stock-owners, and that is the occasional divergence of policy and lack of co-operation between the heads of the British Department and of the Irish Department of Agriculture. What took place in connection with the serious Birkenhead outbreak, and the inquiry which followed it, is not an edifying spectacle either in this House or to the stock-owning world whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland. Surely, if it is not possible to put the control of these contagious diseases under one authority, as indeed they ought to be when they apply to a common trade, at least let the two Departments do what they can to follow a common policy, and appear to the outside world to be in full agreement so as to develop a feeling of confidence amongst the stock-owners on both sides of the Channel. The right hon. Gentleman referred, and properly referred, to the unreasonable embargo placed by the Argentine Government upon stock exported from this country. He very rightly said that it is impossible to justify a six months' embargo after the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country, and he said that the negotiations which he was still conducting with the Argentine Government were advancing. Those negotiations to my certain knowledge have been advancing, according to the right hon. Gentleman, for the last three years, during which he has occupied the position of President of the Board of Agriculture. Surely it is high time for those negotiations to fructify in some result that is a little less harassing to the owners of British live stock! We have made a very strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should by negotiations with the Argentine Government secure a relaxation of this quite indefensible embargo prior to the Royal Agricultural Society's Show at Shrewsbury, at which a very large trade in British live stock is done when the ports are open with the Argentine Republic. I do not know what efforts the right hon. Gentleman has made in this particular connection, but it is a serious disappointment to British stock-owners generally that those Argentine ports will still be closed when that show is held. Surely, if Canada and South Africa find it possible to relax their restrictions, which they have already done since the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, the same applies to the Argentine, and it ought to be impressed on them that they ought to follow suit!
The right hon. Gentleman suggested the setting up of a further Committee of Inquiry into foot-and-mouth disease, or the Departmental administration of the two Boards, with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain and Ireland. I venture to hope that such a Committee will be formed, because, speaking as a member of the last Departmental Committee, I can say with some assurance that there is yet, in the light of information which has now come to hand since that Committee sat, a very large amount of matter which it would be useful to bring before another Committee, and upon which, I think, such a Committee might have very useful advice to give to the Departments concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted more than once that it is impossible to adopt any other measures than those at present adopted with regard to foot-and-mouth disease until there is some more specific knowledge of the nature of the pathology and of the means of transmission of that disease. Our knowledge to-day as regards the means of transmission of foot-and-mouth disease is a blank sheet of paper, and it is the business of both Departments to do what lies in their power to obtain, through an immediate and thorough and searching investigation, more precise scientific knowledge with regard to this disease. What has happened 2 The Departmental Committee that was set up three years ago was estopped from any research work in connection with the disease because they were informed that research work was about to be carried out in India. We are told that that Indian investigation has taken place, and, if so, we are entitled to know the result. India was chosen as the venue for this purpose, because, owing to the extremely infectious character of the disease, it would not be safe to conduct such an investigation in this country or on the islands around the shores of this country, and we were also told that that Indian investigation would be thorough and would be prompt. It certainly has been prompt, but I doubt whether it has been thorough. The gentlemen who went out to conduct it returned, I think, within something like nine months, or it may be less, from the time they went out there, and apparently no useful information has been given to the Board as the result of their investigation. The right hon. Gentleman promised the Report of this body of investigators at least six months ago, and he has promised it re- peatedly since, but we have not yet got it, and I should like to ask him when that Report is going to be forthcoming.
With regard to the Tuberculosis Order, the right hon. Gentleman promised, I think in January last, addressing a very important body of Cheshire stock-owners, that he proposed to supersede the present Order at once, I think his words were, "The time will be very short before the Order is amended." He tells us now that the Order will be amended about July. In the meantime the owners of cattle have had to put up with the provisions of this Order of 1913. In spite of the fair promises which the right hon. Gentleman made when he first mentioned this Order to the House, and announced that £60,000 per year was going to be forthcoming from the Exchequer in order to provide compensation to stock-owners in connection with tuberculosis. Stock-owners are still suffering from the unfair operation of an Order which provides little or no real compensation for the cattle which are slaughtered, and which involves an enormous expense in its administration—anything from twice to five times the amount that is obtainable as compensation, and which involves a basis of valuation which the right hon. Gentleman now admits is most unfair to such owners of stock. He has promised some improvement—he has told us that there is to be one valuation, and that that is to be the market value. I am very glad to hear that, but he goes on to say that three-fourths of that valuation will be given in non-advanced cases, and one-fourth will be given in advanced cases. In answer to an hon. Friend of mine who interrupted him, he stated that the basis of consideration of what is an advanced or non-advanced case will be just the same as it is at present. There is probably nothing which agriculturists have criticised so severely in this Order as the fact that the definition of advanced tuberculosis is such that in 90 per cent, of the cases that come before the local authorities, only one-fourth of the value of the animal will be obtainable by way of compensation. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to alter that part of the Order which contains so unfair a definition. It is early yet to criticise this Tuberculosis Order, but unless it works far more smoothly than the Order now in operation, I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that he will not get any very large measure of co-operation from stock-owners in his efforts to suppress what is regarded now as a serious cause of disease to human beings as well as to cattle.
Let me turn now, and I am going to devote my remarks chiefly to this subject, to the lamentable and expensive failure of the existing Swine Fever Orders. I should like at once to refer to the figures which the right hon. Gentleman, wisely from his point of view, glossed over in connection with this disease. These are his own figures given in answer to questions in this House about three months ago. It appears that during the five years prior to the issue of the present Order the number of outbreaks as officially reported was 7,107. During the five years that have elapsed since, the number of outbreaks has been 11,207, an increase of 4,000. The actual number of swine slaughtered as diseased, or exposed to infection, during the first five years, that is before the issue of the present Orders, was 36,046, and during the last five years no less than 131,980. Just consider what the bill has been that the public have had to pay in this connection, both by way of compensation and administration. For the first year, which, by the way, was not a complete year, the financial year 1908–9, when the Order first came into operation, the compensation, after taking the proceeds of sales of carcasses of slaughtered animals into account, amounted to £17,000, in the following year to £18,000, in the following year 1910–11 to £28,000, and in the year 1911–12 to £51,000, and in the year 1912–13 to £47,000. The cost of administration similarly rose from £39,000 in 1908–9 to £44,000 in 1909–10, to £48,000 in 1910–11, to £62,000 in 1911–12, and to £66,000 in 1912–13. The total for compensation during those five years was over £162,000, and for administration over £260,000, or an aggregate amount of £423,000; that is, nearly half a million of public money was expended in connection with swine fever, for which money, if I may venture to say so, no satisfactory results can be shown either by the right hon. Gentleman or by any one connected with his Department.
:Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that if the restrictions had not been enforced the disease would not have been more widespread?
:I certainly suggest that if these very intricate and elaborate restrictions, which are so harassing to pig-owners generally, had not been enforced, there could hardly have been a more serious spread of disease during the last five years than these figures disclose. At any rate, I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is no country in Europe where the present restrictions are so harassing and intricate as those for which his Department is responsible; nor is there any country in Europe where the increase of swine fever has been so continuous and so progressive during the last five years as it has been in this country.
was understood to dissent.
:The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity of citing figures to rebut my statement. I am quite prepared to defend what I have stated.
:I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman more than is necessary. Does he really assert that there is more swine fever in this country than in Continental countries?
:The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I said nothing of the sort.
:If the hon. Gentleman is only referring to the increase, he is making a comparison which is very unfair. The only thing he can compare is the state of the herds in this country and in Continental countries.
:The right hon. Gentleman is most unfair in his interruption. What I stated was, and I will repeat the exact words, that there has been a more continuous and progressive increase in this country than in any other European country, about which we have official information, in spite of the fact that our restrictions are more harassing and vexatious, particularly to the small pig-owner, than, as far as I can ascertain, those which exist in any other country in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman told us just now that there were great fluctuations in the pig population. I quite agree. But can he cite any other country in Europe where, in a single year, there has been a sudden drop in the pig population of no less than 16 per cent, or one-sixth of the whole? The existing restrictions are hard enough on the ordinary farmer, but they are particularly hard on the smallholder and the cottager. The right hon. Gentleman's official figures do not take into account the variation in the pig population in the cottage sties of this country. It is the cottager's pig which the right hon. Gentleman has disestablished. If the right hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to go through the purely agricultural areas of Wiltshire, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset, and, I venture to say, Norfolk, and probably Suffolk—I choose mainly agricultural counties—he would find that there is not one-third of the pigs to be found in cottage sties to-day that were to be found when these Orders first came into operation.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us to understand that he proposes to maintain the existing swine fever Orders without alteration, at any rate pending some further information with regard to serum or other treatment which the Departmental Committee may give hereafter. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in spite of his somewhat fulsome flattery of the veterinary profession as a whole, and of his own skilful advisers in particular—and I entirely endorse what he said as to the capacity and scientific attainments of the chief veterinary officer of the Board — it might sometimes be advisable to let his own common sense guide him rather than always the expert opinion of his scientific advisers I was speaking only about two months ago to the chief permanent official of the Agricultural Department of another European country, who said to me rather significantly, "We have been extremely successful in the matter both of tuberculosis and of swine fever, but our success dated from the time when we began to use our own common sense and declined to listen to everything that our 'vets.' had to say to us." I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not be wise to bring his own common sense to bear on the problem which is agitating the agricultural world more than any other agricultural problem at the present time, even including the question of labour remuneration which he is bringing so much to the front.
:To what country is the hon. Gentleman referring as having discarded the advice of experts?
:I am quite prepared to tell the right hon. Gentleman privately after the Debate. At any rate, I assume that he does not doubt my statement.
:No; I do not doubt anything the hon. Gentleman says; but I should be most interested to know what country has discarded expert veterinary advice and depended so successfully on amateur common sense.
:The right hon. Gentleman exaggerates in his interruption. I have not suggested discarding the opinion of veterinary experts, all I suggested was that he might occasionally bring his own common sense to bear in dealing with these questions, and not always feel himself bound to follow the suggestions of his scientific experts. The right hon. Gentleman has, to my mind, in his endeavour to say something pleasant about the veterinary profession, gone out of his way to condemn by comparison the medical profession. He drew, as I thought, most invidious attention to the names of Dr. Klein, Dr. Smart, Dr. Hamilton, and Dr. Evans, pointing out that these gentlemen have been unsuccessful in dealing with scarlatina in cows, cattle plague, louping-ill, and swine fever respectively. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to bring these gentlemen's names at all before the public in the House on this occasion. At any rate, I wish to. refute the suggestion which he makes that veterinary surgeons have, as a profession, been more successful than the medical profession in the matter of contagious diseases Doctors have had the greater success for the best of reasons, because they have received, as I think he will be bound to admit after the confession he has made this afternoon in the matter of scientific knowledge, a much better preparation for the work which they have professionally to carry out, and the remuneration which they have received has been a far greater inducement for really good men to enter that branch of the profession. But if the right hon. Gentleman is going to make invidious comparisons I am bound to meet him on his own ground. I should like to remind him that his chief adviser outside the Board of Agriculture, namely, Sir John McFadyean, was the gentleman responsible for the statement in 1896, in a Departmental Committee's Report, that tuberculosis was a disease of a markedly hereditary character. Is there a single man, either scientist or layman, to-day who would be prepared to support, that expression of opinion, which this eminent veterinary surgeon made somewhat pre- maturely in the year 1896? I do not stop there; I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention—and I only do it because he has provoked it by what appears to me an unfair comparison between the two branches of the profession—to the Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Board made to the Board in the year 1896 with regard to swine fever. He says:— What I want to point out is that whatever the officers of the Board may have to say upon this matter the agricultural community will no longer tolerate the existing Orders. The right hon. Gentleman may fondly imagine that, in spite of the fact that the pig population is seriously decreasing, in spite of the fact that there are very few pigs now to be found in the smaller pig-owners' premises, he is going to be able to continue the existing restrictions. I can confidently assert to him that he will during the next twelve months find it extremely difficult to continue these Orders in force. In this connection half a million of public money has been expended. It is surprising to me that Members in this House, representing the general public, have not found fault with this appalling waste of public money. Surely it is impossible to justify such an expenditure or such restrictions as are now imposed unless there are tangible and beneficial results being derived! So far from that being the case, the right hon. Gentleman himself has to confess that the figures are most unsatisfactory.
The figures are really far more serious than the official returns disclose, because the bulk of the outbreaks now are on premises where large herds are kept. Therefore they involve a very much larger number of pigs than was formerly the case, when the bulk of these outbreaks occurred upon small premises and affected a very small number of pigs. But the right hon. Gentleman has made no reference to two serious outbreaks—I am not quite sure whether I am quite right in talking about outbreaks—of two serious occasions of interference on the part of the Board during the last twelve months. One was in connection with the herd of Lord Rosebery at Dalmeny. In this case the local veterinary surgeons satisfied themselves that it was not swine fever at all. I have little doubt "that the veterinary adviser of the Board himself now confesses that he made a mistake in that matter. The other similar case of interference was with the herd of Lord Ellesmere. In both cases, as I am informed, the valuable portion of the herd was entirely wiped out. As we know, the class of animals that are slaughtered are the breeding stock—that is, the sows and the boars, and the litter of pigs. As a rule the store pigs are isolated, sometimes for a most inconvenient length of time, and are spared. That system of ruthless destruction has gradually destroyed a very considerable portion of the agricultural wealth of this country, and cannot go on as it is going on at the present time.
The main complaint is the nature of the restrictions. The right hon. Gentleman has in his Order four different kinds of swine-fever area. He has the infected place, he has the infected area, he has scheduled area, and he has the special procedure area. This most elaborate and intricate system was evolved from the ingenious mind of some lay official in the Board of Agriculture, and was in 1908 intended to have the effect eventually of removing from the map of England every black spot, so far as swine fever is concerned. So far from that being the case, swine fever is now dotted all over the country. I am going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the time has come when all these areas might usefully be dispensed with, and all the restrictions imposed in connection with them, except the infected place and a certain margin immediately around it—that is to say, all the actually affected pigs on the "infected place"—the expression being more liberally defined—being slaughtered, and the lives spared of the pigs which are not actually affected with the disease. This would' give the opportunity either to the owners or the officials of the Board either to cure these incontact pigs, or by serum or other treatment render them either temporarily or permanently immune, so that they may not be a source of the carriage of the disease to other animals. The right hon. Gentleman has not justified, and has not sought to justify, this very elaborate system of these various kinds of areas and various periods during which isolation is insisted upon.
I have pointed out before in this House that the period of twenty-eight days cannot be defended unless it has some relation either to the period of incubation, or to the period of the latency of the disease. It is now admitted by expert advisers of the right hon. Gentleman that swine fever may remain latent in an apparently healthy pig for something like three months, and it may even eventually infect other healthy pigs, which may develop the disease in a more obvious form. If that is so, how utterly impossible it is to stamp out this disease by having all this variety of areas and by all this variety of restrictive periods. The unfortunate man who lives upon the border of one of these infected or scheduled areas is placed at a very serious disadvantage in disposing of his pigs. It is a common cause of complaint all over the country today that when the poor man sends his pigs to the market across the border he is at the mercy of the local dealer, because the local dealer knows perfectly well that the pig-owner cannot afford, or manage, to keep his pigs for twenty-eight days in or near the market, and he cannot take them home, and therefore he will have to sell the pigs at such a price as the dealer is prepared to give him for them. The right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have apparently formed no very favourable impression of what is called the serum treatment, or alternatively, the process of vaccination of the animal with anti-toxic serum concurrently with the virus of the disease. All I can say is that I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to consult a very valuable publication which has lately been issued by the Lister Institute at the suggestion of the National Pig-breeders' Association. In this publication it is pointed out that the authorities in other countries do not share the views to which the officials of the Board have already committed themselves, either in regard to the serum treatment or to the system of vaccination. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to refer him to one or two quotations from this Report Speaking of the evidence given before the Departmental Committee by the chief veterinary officers of the Board the Lister Institute Report says:— The head of the Animals Department of the Board, Sir Edward Clarke, after visiting the Continent himself, gave evidence before the Departmental Committee. In. his evidence he said that—
This is in reference to Hungary. Surely we might usefully adopt the same measures. I will not trouble the Committee with further quotations. They are to this effect, that we might with advantage do what Hungary has done, namely, modify our severe restrictions, carry out the slaughter of the actually infected pigs, and treat with serum those which are in contact with them. Speaking as a layman, in my opinion we are laying far too much emphasis upon what is called the bacillus of this disease and not nearly enough upon the conditions in which this bacillus or germs of this disease may develop. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can deny that the bulk of the outbreaks of swine fever have occurred upon premises where the pigs are kept in a dirty condition or else have occurred upon premises to which a pig from dirty premises has been removed. I venture to think that the swine-fever disease germ is to be found in every pig, just as the germs of tuberculosis are to be found in nearly every Member of this House. [An HON. Member: "Oh!"] The question whether the disease actually develops depends upon the conditions of life in which the host which entertains this parasite carries on his existence. If the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind that the pig is the cleanest of domestic animals—if only he is allowed to be so—and bearing in mind that he is treated as if he were the filthiest —and fed accordingly—if, bearing that in' mind, the right hon. Gentleman were to direct his mind to treat styes in the same way as the cattle-sheds under the Milk and Dairies Bill, and the Tuberculosis Order, I venture to think there would be far less swine fever in the country in the future than there has been in the past. Moreover, any sort of filthy food is considered good enough for the pig. The swill-tub is probably the source of half the swine fever in the country. You generally find in lunatic asylums and other institutions, where everything is thrown into the swill-tub, that the animals suffer a great deal more from swine fever than those of private individuals. This swine-fever policy has been a miserable failure, and it is time that the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the agricultural community, should admit it. I venture to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen not merely to his technical advisers, but to those who are suffering such serious loss and inconvenience in connection with this disease.
I have been asked to say a word in connection with the remuneration of the employés at Kew Gardens. I raised the question last year, but I understand nothing has been done since. It appears that the ordinary labourer there, who is by no means an unskilled labourer, receives 24s. a week, and, after five years' service, his wages are increased to 25s. He has to work in the summer from six in the morning to six in 'the evening. The rent he pays and the cost of living are probably higher than those of outworkers in London itself. At any rate, I find that no workman in Richmond or Kew can obtain any accommodation whatever at a less rate than 7s. 6d. per week, and accommodation at that rate is only to be found in corporation premises, which are fully occupied. In all other premises in that district the rent amounts to 8s. 6d. a week, which is a very large portion of the whole wage of 24s. During the last seven years, as was pointed out in an official reply yesterday, the cost of commodities has risen by no less than 9 per cent, in the last six years, and I am told in Richmond the rise is greater than that. If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to dictate to agricultural employers as to what should be the wages of their workpeople, bearing in mind that agriculture is a highly competitive industry, and that it is much more difficult to vary wages on the ordinary farm than at Kew Gardens, where there is no outside competition, and where the hours apparently are longer and rent higher than in rural districts, I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the least he can do before he dictates to the agricultural employer is to put his own house in order and set a good example by dealing more favourably with his own employés than he is doing at the present time.
:I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into the question of swine fever. I do not profess to be an expert, but I must say that in the county of Norfolk things seem to go from bad to worse, judging by the number of cases we have had. I remember very well, when I first went to the county council in 1889, twenty-five years ago, we were allowed to manage our own affairs with regard to swine fever for some years. We set up a contagious diseases committee, and we did manage things a great deal better than they seem to be managed now. During that period of seven or eight years in which we managed our own affairs we had certain regulations, although not so restricted as the regulations now. We gave no compensation, and farmers, pig-owners, and others, were exceedingly careful, because they knew it would be considerable loss to them if swine fever broke out on their premises, and I remember in Norfolk and Lincolnshire we suffered less from swine fever then; but as I said before, I am not an expert.
I want to be allowed to say a few words with regard to small holdings. During the year 1913 we have not made quite such rapid progress with regard to the development of small holdings as in previous years. It is true, as the President of the Board of Agriculture has stated, and I think it is highly satisfactory, that we have secured something like 200,000 acres of land under this Act of Parliament since it came into operation in January, 1908, but this last year we have gone back as compared with previous years. The reason, to a large extent, no doubt, is that the demand has been satisfied up to a certain point, and also that there is, owing to agricultural prosperity, a growing difficulty in getting land at prices which the different county councils could pay in order to secure an economic rent. I mentioned the county of Norfolk. We have secured over 12,000 acres there and we have not gone back during the year. We have secured during the last year our quota of 2,048 acres, and I feel incline: I to ask the question if Norfolk can keep up this output with regard to small holdings, why other counties cannot do so. In the last year we secured in the county of Norfolk one-twelfth of the small holdings in England and Wales, and Norfolk is not pre-eminently the best county for small holdings. We have a great deal of poor land in the centre of Norfolk, and it is only in the Fen districts where the land is especially adapted for small holdings. I am very glad to say that the Board of Agriculture has assisted the county councils by setting up these two Departmental Committees—one with regard to the period for loans, and the other with regard to economical buildings. Both these Parliamentary Committees have done excellent service and helped small holdings very much, and I do hope as a result of their Report, that the right hon. Gentleman will at the earliest possible opportunity press that the period of the loans for housing and building should be increased from fifty to sixty years. At the present moment the maximum time for which money can be borrowed for erecting houses and buildings is fifty years. I notice that the Board of Agriculture say in their Report, page 8:— body to sell his land for small holdings, and we shall not, therefore, use the compulsory Clauses." This happened with regard to land which was wanted for small holdings. The land belonged to an hospital at Stamford. What was the result? The result was that the Board hesitated for about a year and a half before they gave us notice that they were going to put the compulsory Clauses into force, and within a week of our county council getting notice—I may say, in parenthesis, that the Small Holdings Committee had reported in favour of putting the compulsory Clauses into force, and it was only when it came before the county council that we were beaten—but, at any rate, within a week of getting notice from the Board of Agriculture that they were going to act, the trustees of the hospital came down and offered to sell the farm by voluntary means, and so we got our farm at the price at which it was valued, and I am glad to say now we have a number of successful tenants upon it. That is what happened in our case. I think, therefore, while there is still such a large unsatisfied demand that the President of the Board of Agriculture will have to consider very seriously whether he will not have to put this machinery into force with regard to other county councils. I take the Holland Division of Lincoln shire. There we have many demands for small holdings. I take the Report, and on page 10 I find it stated:— into operation, those men have been applying for small holdings. They have applied through the parish council, and they have sent frequent applications to the county council, and yet nothing has been done. In the very parish to which I allude the largest landowners are the Guy's Hospital Estate, and they have adopted a policy of late years of adding farm to farm. They find a successful farmer, and when their farms become vacant they let him even a second and a third farm, and the consequence is that you will find men there farming 2,000 or even 3,000 acres of the best land in the country. I have nothing against them as farmers, and I believe, they are excellent, but they ought not to be permitted to stand in the way of a reasonable amount of small holdings being found in that parish. Some five years have now elapsed and not a single small holding has been obtained there under the provision of this Act. What is true of the Holland Division of Lincolnshire is also true of the county of Huntingdon and the Isle of Ely. In the county of Huntingdon practically the Small Holdings Committee have made up their mind to mark time and not to look out for any further land at the present time, and yet the Board of Agriculture at the present moment have from Ramsey in North Hunts applications for 800 or 900 acres of land. I maintain that the Board of Agriculture should put into operation the powers given to it by Parliament and prepare schemes for those districts, and if the county council will not put those schemes into operation, then the Commissioners themselves should obtain the land.
I want to say a word or two with regard to the arbitrators' awards. I fear that in several cases we have failed to get land because of the awards of the arbitrators. I pointed out this fact two or three years ago when I spoke in the House, and I said then that in my judgment the Board of Agriculture would have been well advised to have had an official valuer of their own—a well-paid man who would be quite independent either of the landowning class or the tenant class or of any county council committee. Instead of that, when the compulsory powers are put into operation a valuer is appointed who is not always a local valuer, but some man who is supposed to know the land in that district and he values on behalf of the Government. The result is that in several cases the valuations have been so high that the county council has not been able to go on with the scheme. On page 13 of the Report there is one such case in Bedfordshire, at Eaton Bray. In this case an area of 40 acres of land was to be acquired by compulsory purchase. We know that these county council committees. are made up of business men who know7 the value of land. The council offered for this particular area of 40 acres £964, that is, £25 per acre. Now the arbitrator who was appointed by the Board of Agriculture awarded no less than £1,719 for that area of 40 acres or, in other words, he awarded £43 an acre for land for which the county council only offered £25 an acre. I have no doubt the county council committee were much nearer the mark. In Huntingdon at a place called Somersham the county council offered for 209 acres the sum of £7,272, or £35 an acre; but the arbitrator was called in and he awarded £8,500, or £41 an acre. The result was that in both cases the county council were not able to take up the land at that price because they knew that they would have had to charge so high a rent that the tenants could not afford to pay it. These arbitrators have to be paid pretty heavy fees for their awards, and I think it would be far better if the Board of Agriculture had its own valuer.
I want to refer to the difficulty parish councils have in moving the county councils to get land for allotment purposes. The present position is that if a parish council wishes to buy land for allotment purposes they have to get the consent of the county council, because they have no-compulsory powers themselves. Therefore, if land has to be obtained compulsorily, it must be with the consent of the county council The result is that in many parts of the country the men who are applicants for allotments fall between these two stools. The parish council say that they cannot hire land and they cannot get the consent of the county council to buy land. Very largely the difficulty arises because of the difference between the county council buying and the parish council buying the land. The parish council can only borrow their money to buy the land over a period of fifty years, whereas the county council can get it spread over a period of eighty years. That is a very important item. It means that if the parish council buys land for allotment purposes and goes to the Local Government Board for power to borrow the money, they are granted permission, but they have to create a sinking fund for fifty years for a loan. On the other hand, if the county council were to buy that same land under the Small Holdings Act it could borrow money over a period of eighty years. That seems an absurdity, which seems incapable of explanation, but, at any rate, it is an absurdity that ought to be wiped out, for it means that the difference between borrowing money for fifty years and eighty years is a difference of ¾ per cent., and that means that if land costs £50 an acre the tenant has to pay 7s. 6d. per acre more when the sinking fund is spread over fifty years than what he pays when it is spread over eighty years. I believe that many parish councils would not only buy land, but would also build houses upon the allotments if they had better terms, and it must not be for gotten that there are very few houses indeed at the present time on the allotments.
:I would like to ask if the hon. Member is entitled to discuss the question of the sinking fund which it is not within the competence of the Minister for Agriculture to deal with by a Departmental Order, and which is a matter which would require legislation to deal with?
:Xo subject which requires legislation is in order in Committee of Supply.
:I have said all I desire to say on that particular point. I am very glad that the Board of Agriculture are appointing these horticultural inspectors. I had the pleasure of meeting one of them the other day on one of our fruit farms at Walpole, and I was very much impressed with this gentleman, who is a Scotsman, for he was able to point out to our manager some blight in our fruit trees, and he told us how to treat it. We had dressed our trees in the ordinary way, but this germ only seems to respond to nicotine. We got this information from the inspector, and we are going to look into it next year. He was able to point out to us the importance of polination in regard to fruit trees. In the Wisbech district he said that a great many fruitgrowers had made a mistake in planting in one orchard only Grey Friars pears, because with these pears it is necessary that there should be cross fertilisation. They did not get this cross fertilisation, and the result is that they have not had any fruit. The owner was wondering what was the reason why, and this horticultural inspector was able to furnish him with the reason. I hope the number of these inspectors will be considerably increased. It seems that at the present time we have only one of these inspectors throughout the country, and I do; not think it is reasonable to expect one man to visit the Evesham and Wisbech districts as well as the Blairgowrie district in Scotland. I hope that we shall have two or three of these inspectors instead of one. I should also like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what he is going to do with regard to the potato blight in America. At the present time our potatoes are being shut out from the American markets, although they are perfectly healthy. The American markets are closed to our potatoes in the Eastern counties, and I think it is time the President of the Board of Agriculture took up that question and made some determined effort to open the American markets to our potato growers.
:It applies only to the black-wart disease.
:We have not got that disease in our potatoes, but the American markets are being closed against us, and this is a very serious matter for our growers. With regard to credit banks, I must say that I am very disappointed with the small progress we have made. I notice that on page 20 of the report of the Board of Agriculture you have a record of the work that has been done in regard to credit banks. At the end of 1912 there were forty-nine agricultural credit societies in England and Wales with a membership of 863. Seeing that we have got, at the present time, no less than 12,000 small holders under the county councils alone, to say nothing of those in private occupation, I think it is a very small number to have only 863 members in forty-nine agricultural credit societies. I cannot help feeling that we want further assistance in this direction. I venture to say that the most practical way is for us to adopt the Irish method, and for the Government itself to be responsible for the loans which are made to these credit societies. They will lose nothing by it. It is only their taking the responsibility. I do not believe that the Irish Board of Agriculture have lost a halfpenny by the way in which they have stood at the back of the various small credit societies up and down Ireland. They say to the Bank of Ireland, "If you lend this credit society £100, we will be responsible for it."
:That is not the Irish practice. The Credit Committee, which has just reported, has advised the Department of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board to withdraw the loans from these credit banks. We advance the money, not through a bank or anything else, but upon good security, and, although we have lost very little as. a Department, the money has had to be called up upon the security in a very large number of cases.
:I rather thought that we might perhaps copy Ireland, but we have in this country now a Development Fund, about which we have heard a good deal, and in my judgment the Development Commissioners might Wisely set aside, say, £50,000 to finance these credit societies. I do not believe that they would lose anything, and if we could get loans at a reasonable rate of interest, we could certainly get the credit banks system started on a satisfactory footing. There are only forty-five societies in England to serve something like 12,000 small holders, and I venture to think that is not making as much progress as we might expect to make.
:I desire to support the appeal of the hon. Member who has just sat down for an extension of time for the repayment of loans incurred for the purpose of providing dwellings on small holdings. One of the defects of the present system is that there are comparatively so few small holders residing on their holdings. We all want to see more people living in the rural districts and on their holdings, but the expense of providing houses, especially now the price of building material is so high, very seriously handicaps the county councils. It makes the payment for the small holding as a whole so great that the man can hardly afford it. I press this aspect of the question upon the right hon. Gentleman because the policy of his Department in withholding from the county council the cost of aquiring loans for the land for the erection of buildings makes it more difficult for them to provide the buildings.
:The hon. Member is now dealing with a topic which is out of order, because it would require legislation.
:Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I respectfully submit that it is within the powers of the right hon. Gentleman to grant to county councils part of the expense of acquiring loans for land, but he withholds from these bodies any contribution for acquiring the house upon that land. With all respect, I venture to say that it is part of the right hon. Gentleman's province to award to county councils the cost of acquiring loans for the land, but he withholds any contribution towards the cost of building the house upon that land. He separates the house from the land, and I am desirous of pointing out that it militates very much against county councils providing buildings on small holdings. I wanted even yet further to press upon the Committee the seriousness of the loss to the country resulting from swine fever. The proposition is to reduce the salary of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know that I am very anxious to do that, because in some of his Departments I am bound to say that he has served the agriculture interests well; but surely in this question of swine fever he has failed very seriously to deal with the problem. I would ask the Committee to consider again the figures which have been brought forward as to the terrible progress of this disease. In 1905–6 the number of cases reported was 7,882. The outbreaks confirmed were 897, and the compensation paid was £7,306, while the administration cost £36,976. In 1913–14, only eight years afterwards, the number of cases reported was 15,281, and the number of outbreaks confirmed 2,901. The compensation paid was £82,000 odd, and the administration expenses amounted to £64,000.
The right hon. Gentleman stated in his speech that at the present time the total cost consequent upon swine fever was £120,178, and we regret to notice that with this increase there have been fluctuations in. the extension of the disease during those years. It is unfortunate that during the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office the increase should have been very considerable, and that the disease should be still further spreading, until we find that for twenty-two weeks of the present year the outbreaks number 1,770, and the slaughtered 17,926, while last year the outbreaks numbered only 991 cases and the slaughtered 14,493. That reveals a very serious state of things, and we find, as a consequence, a great scarcity of pigs, and high price of bacon, which makes it very difficult for the poorer classes to procure animal food. We find that there has been an alarming decline in the number of pigs. While in 1912 there were 2,496,670 pigs in this country, in 1913 there were only 2,102,102, a decrease of 394,568. That is a serious condition of things. It is a great loss to the consuming public, and if, as the result of this Debate, the right hon. Gentleman should be able to suggest and put into force a more effective method of dealing with this disease we shall be indebted to my hon. Friend for having raised the question. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) has dealt very carefully with the matter, and everyone must realise what a loss it is to the country. The decline in the number of pigs is all the more serious because the high price of pig products in recent years should have encouraged a very considerable increase in the number. We have, however, in face of the high price of bacon, pork, and so on, to-day a decline in the number of pigs of nearly 400,000.
The right hon. Gentleman does not seem very much alarmed at this state of affairs, but I hope, on reflection, he will realise that something has to be done. I quite agree with the hon. Member for the Wilton Division that the scheduled areas should be more limited than they are at the present time. The inconvenience of having the areas too large interferes with the pig business and prevents people from obtaining other pigs to replenish their stock. I would venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he should not make some alteration in his method of administering the Order. Surely every case of illness or death, unless the cause is apparent, should be investigated. I should really like the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for a moment. He has invited expressions of opinions from hon. Members, and I speak with a practical knowledge of these things. I am sure he must realise the seriousness of the problem, and I do think that every case of illness or death of pigs, unless the cause is apparent, should be investigated. We are leaning too much on lay inspectors. I am not prepared to say that we should do away with the lay assistance we obtain. I believe the police have done their work well as far as their lack of technical knowledge of the disease will enable them to do it; but, while utilising a certain amount of lay assistance, we must rely more than we have done on the veterinary surgeons practising in the district. At present, when a pig dies, the owner notifies the fact to the nearest policeman. The owner probably believes that the pig died from inflammation, and he says so. The policeman, not having a technical knowledge, agrees with this opinion and reports accordingly to the superintendent, who promptly orders the pig to be buried; and, should another case occur, the owner probably buries it on his own responsibility.
There are many cases of swine fever not dealt with at all because of this system, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be wise, at least, to examine-the suggestion I have put before him. I think that no layman, and, in fact, no man without a post-mortem examination, can be absolutely sure that it is a case of swine fever. I was appalled at my hon. Friend's suggestion that the seeds of swine fever are in all pigs. I rather differ from him. I think that it is a contagious or infectious disease, and I believe that it can be overcome by proper restrictions. The police have done their part of the work well, but, lacking the technical knowledge, they cannot be effective instruments for dealing with this terrible disease in the way in which it ought to be dealt with, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point. The employment of an increased number of veterinary surgeons would increase the expense, no doubt, but I feel that it is better to smart once than ache always, and I believe that if we made this supreme effort to stamp out this disease it would prove far more economical for the country in the long run.
I now come to the question of epizootic abortion. I suggest that the counties generally should adopt the policy which has been put in force in Devon of notification and segregation of animals suffering from this disease. I believe Devon is the only county where that policy has been adopted. It entails considerable self-denial and inconvenience on the owner of the stock to segregate his animals, but so long as Devon farmers are prepared to do it we think that in the case of a disease which causes more loss to the agricultural community than all the other diseases put together our neighbouring counties should subject themselves to the same self-denial. Where we succeed in checking the disease and greatly reducing it, cattle may come in from Somerset or Cornwall, where they have not the segregation, and may undo all the good work we have done. I know the right hon. Gentleman has taken some steps to get other counties to follow the example of Devon in this matter, and I am not without hope that, as a result, we shall at least greatly reduce this terrible source of loss to British farmers. If the right hon. Gentleman can secure cooperation with Devon on the part of other counties he will be rendering a considerable service to the agricultural classes as a whole.
With reference to the new Tuberculosis Order, the right hon. Gentleman has done something to mitigate, I was going to call it the meanness, but perhaps I should say the ineffectiveness of the previous Order. But he has not gone nearly far enough now. His proposal is merely to allow a quarter of the value in what is termed an advanced case of tuberculosis. It is altogether inadequate. Something like 90 per cent, are notified as advanced cases, but many of these do not show tuberculosis at all to the eye of the owner, and it is only on examination that it is realised that the animals were tuberculous. I think that compensation to the extent of only one-fourth of the value is altogether insufficient, and, although I hope that agriculturists are anxious to co-operate with the authorities in dealing with this disease, one can hardly expect a man to give active co-operation in trying to stamp out the disease when he has to accept compensation so small in amount as that which, even in the amended Order, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give. This is one of the most important questions that can occupy the attention of Parliament. If we can stamp out tuberculosis in the herds of the country, we shall have no need for a Pure Milk Bill. We shall get at the fountain head of the difficulty, and if we are really desirous of securing pure and good milk for general purposes it would be well for us to begin at the beginning and stamp out tuberculosis in the herds. I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman is not at all generous, or indeed just, in limiting the compensation to one-fourth of the value, and I feel that the Tuberculosis Order cannot prove very successful unless more generous terms are granted.
I come to another point, which I am not quite sure falls within the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and that is the compensation given for pigs killed under the Swine Order. If a man kills a pig which he believes to be thoroughly sound and it is proved to be diseased, he gets no compensation whatsoever. I think it is an injustice to a man that in such a case he should lose the whole value of the pig. With regard to the housing question, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his policy with regard to the loans to county councils for the purchase of land. The right hon. Gentleman, not so very long ago, led the agricultural labourer to believe he was going to do something with regard to the housing question, and there was talk of houses being built at a cost of £150 and let at 3s. a week. But months have elapsed, and nothing has yet come of it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not hinder county councils in providing houses if he himself cannot do anything to carry out the aspirations and hopes aroused in the minds of agricultural labourers that he would do something for the better housing of working classes. I think it was a little bit unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman just now, when, speaking of the advance in the wages of agricultural labourers, he said the fact that they had given the advance proved that farmers knew that they were underpaying their men before. Having regard to the depression that rested upon agriculture until five or six years ago, the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the average British farmer had the greatest difficulty in the world in carrying on his industry, and it was only by co-operation between landlord, tenant and labourer that the farmer held his head above water. Now that he is experiencing better times, he will, of his own free will, gladly pay the labourer a wage which he could not possibly afford previously. I think the right hon. Gentleman need not have cast a slur upon the farmers in that respect. I can assure him that we who are engaged in agriculture—
:I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make a general reference to this point, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture has done so, but I will ask him now to pass from the subject.
:I willingly, of course, obey your ruling, but it was the importance of the question and the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that made me anxious to show him that we farmers realise the worth of our men and intend to pay them as they ought to be paid. We hope the Government will not keep> piling on taxes so as to cripple us and prevent us so doing.
:We are discussing a Motion to reduce the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture. I do not rise to support such a Motion. There are other Members of the Cabinet whose salaries I would much rather see reduced than that of the President of the Board. I believe at last there is a great awakening in this Department, and we may very well offer such encouragement to the right hon. Gentleman as lay in our power. We have had a number of very interesting speeches this afternoon, especially one from the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst). It is generally acknowledged that the improvement which has taken place in the Board of Agriculture is of very recent, growth, and, therefore, much of the responsibility must rest on the shortcomings of the party opposite, considering the long tenure of office which they enjoyed. I do not know whether I ought to be ambitious enough to hope to occupy a seat in this House when the hon. Member for the Wilton Division may have an opportunity of criticising his own party's administration on this Department, and when I may have the pleasure of supporting him.
:I thought you were independent.
:And in criticising the Department I hope I am showing my independence. The question of swine fever entails great difficulty in handling. I lack the technical knowledge possessed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and therefore I shall not speak at any length on that subject. I am aware of the fact that there has been a very serious diminution in the pig population of our country. Figures have been constantly quoted this afternoon showing the very marked reduction which characterised last year—a reduction of some 15 per cent.—which should give us great cause for consideration of this question. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division cited Norfolk as an agricultural county, and suggested that the restrictions of which he complained had had the effect of reducing the number of pigs raised in that county. The hon. Gentleman has directed my attention to the seriousness of this problem in private conversation, and I have, as a result, sought information in the county itself. I find that there is not so much a question of the restrictions as of the very high prices of feeding stuffs, "which is mainly responsible for the serious -diminution in the figures, although un- doubtedly the restrictions are a contributory factor. I am not going to claim that the inquiries I have prosecuted have entirely covered the ground, but those I have been able to make have brought me the reply that the prohibitive cost of feeding stuffs is the chief cause for the great diminution in the number of pigs in our county.
:May I remind the hon. Member that during the past year feeding stuffs have declined in price to a certain extent, whereas previously they had an upward tendency?
7.0 P.M.
:It is quite true that prices during the past year have shown a slight decline, and that previously they had an upward tendency, but I do not think that the time during which there has been a decline has been sufficiently long to convince the pig-breeder that it is a real diminution, and that the lower prices are likely to endure. Until they have been lower for some time, I do not think the pig-breeder will be convinced that he can safely resume the industry. I am not competent to follow the technical and scientific aspects of this matter, but I was keenly interested in what the President told us. Evidently his officers are following this matter very closely. I was very glad to hear one statement he made, because a gentleman of some authority, with whom I was recently conversing, said that the policy of the Board of Agriculture was to rely too much on laboratory experiments. I confess I was unable to judge whether that criticism was well founded or not, but when the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that the experiments are to be pursued in the field as well as in the laboratory, I "was content to believe that at last the right spirit is animating the Department, and that everything will be done to stamp out this terrible curse. I desire to make one or two observations respecting the restrictions on the importation of cattle from Ireland. The Constituency I have the honour to represent is one of the chief cattle markets of the country, therefore, we are always keenly interested in any restrictions placed upon the free passage of cattle. I am aware of the fact that the business of our market has considerably suffered owing to the existence of the disease among Irish cattle, and I associate myself with the views of those who desire that everything shall be done in Ireland and that every encouragement shall be offered by the respective Departments of Agriculture to restore confidence, and so set up again the ordinary flow of that trade between Ireland and this country.
As the time is limited, there are only two questions to which I propose to address myself, and I presume everybody will anticipate that one of them is the question of small holdings, which is a matter I generally introduce to the notice of the Committee every year. Apparently, the President of the Board of Agriculture feels very satisfied with the administration of the Small Holdings Act. For my own part, I am prepared to acknowledge that a great deal has been done. We have 11,000 tenants installed and some 190,000 acres have been acquired under the Act. That is satisfactory so far as it goes, but a great deal more requires to be done. There is a number of county councils who have not yet acquired any land. I appreciate the difficulties of some of them and acknowledge that where cases have been rapidly disposed of it may have been due to the greater facilities for acquiring land, but I am afraid that some of the county councils have not been animated by the correct spirit, therefore, it is the duty of the Board of Agriculture to stimulate, through their Commissioners, these county councils, so that they shall proceed effectively in this matter. One very significant fact emerges from the Report this year, as in previous years, namely, the very small desire on the part of applicants for small holdings to purchase land. I believe that for some years only 2 per cent, of the applicants had expressed the desire to buy land. That fact emerges again this year and seems to prove that the people require facilities for hiring and a reasonable tenure of land, and that they recognise the difficulties of purchase and locking up what little capital they possess.
The question of the unfairness and hardship of compelling the tenants to pay the sinking fund charges in the rent payable for small holdings has been referred to. It seems to be suggested that it is a matter for legislation. I am in doubt whether it requires legislation, and I do not think it has ever yet been determined whether legislation is required to enable the Board of Agriculture to bear the sinking fund charges. Nevertheless, I allude to the matter because I understand it is the intention of the Government to relieve small holders of this obligation in the very near future. Slight as that concession may be, it will have the effect of stimulating the demand and thereby placing a larger responsibility upon the Board of Agriculture in regard to the provision of small holdings. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Sir Richard Winfrey) suggested that the price payable for land has also been a deterrent factor in this matter. I quite acknowledge that that is the case, and I cannot help hoping that some of the much-maligned legislation of the past year or two is going to be helpful in this matter. If we are enabled to purchase land for public purposes at the valuation now being placed upon it by the public valuers, we shall greatly assist this movement. I desire the movement to progress. It has an undoubted effect on the class whom we specially desired to benefit by this legislation which has not so far got the full benefit of it. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate in saying that those who originally supported the legislation had got hopes for the agricultural labourer as such in the matter. Experience has proved that the agricultural labourer has as yet been able to avail himself fully of it, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the lowness of wages among the agricultural population in the country is the main cause of the inability of that class to enter into the possession of these allotments or small holdings. I am not accustomed to saying harsh things about, employers, nevertheless I am convinced that farmers years ago might have paid better wages than they did.
:I think the hon. Member was present when I gave two rulings on that point. Perhaps he will pass from that subject.
:If I had thought that I was transgressing your ruling I should not have done so.
:On the point of Order, I think there were two distinct points raised. One was on the question of the inability of the labourer to take a small holding, which I should submit is germane to this Vote, and the other was the question as to the insufficiency of the wages of the agricultural labourer. I think that you ruled that the two things are distinct?
:I ruled that the line the hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts) was pursuing was opening up the general question, which would require legislation.
:I shall not dispute your ruling, Sir, but I was not going to deal with the question of wages from the point of view of any legislative requirements. I simply alluded to it as a factor making for the inability of the agricultural labourer to take advantage of legislation which was specially designed to benefit him. I do not wish to pursue the point any further, and I will leave it there. I desire to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a question which is equally important as that of wages. Two years ago it seemed to be the policy of the "Board to discourage the building of cottages on allotments or small holdings. In fact, I can recall a deputation that waited upon Lord Lucas, who told them most emphatically that the Small Holdings Act was not available for increasing the number of cottages in the country. He certainly gave the impression then that the policy of the Board, and necessarily that of the Government, was to discourage the building of cottages under the Small Holdings Act.
:May I correct my hon. Friend? The proposal that was made was that the Small Holdings Act should be used for housing purposes, and that housing schemes should be made under the Act. What was pointed out at that time was that that would be an infringement of the Act, and that the object of the Act was to provide small holdings and allotments. We have always favoured, where it has been practically possible, the putting of houses on small holdings.
:If it was desired to use the Small Holdings Act for the purpose of getting through a housing scheme, however desirable that scheme might be, I quite agree it was outside the intention and scope of the Small Holdings Act. Nevertheless, it is significant that during the past year only 149 houses have been built in this way, and that in the full six years the Act has been in operation only 609 houses have been built. I need not impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the urgency of the housing problem in the rural districts. I had hoped that he would have been able to give us some indication this afternoon of the intentions of the Government. It is a question on which I feel very strongly. It has come directly into my own life, and affects living relatives of my own, therefore I feel that I should lose no opportunity of insisting upon the Government declaring its plans and policy in respect to this question, particularly because of the fact that the Government has now destroyed again a Bill which emanated from the other side. I have given suport to those measures because I want to see something done. I agree it is a matter for legislation, and the right hon. Gentleman may turn round and seek the support of the Chair. I am not going to pursue it further, but I think it would have been quite within his competence to indicate this afternoon what the Government intended to do. I am hinging these observations upon the powers—
:The hon. Member must not pursue that question.
:I am not pursuing it, Sir; I am simply hinging these observations on the powers already possessed by the Board under the Small Holdings Act. In my opinion sufficient has not been done with the powers for erecting houses in connection with allotments and small holdings. If the Board had thoroughly carried out its powers they would have relieved the urgency of the question to the extent to which they exercised those powers. That was the only point I desired to make, which may have led you, Sir, to anticipate that I was going to enter into the legislative sphere. An hon. Member expressed regret that more had not been done in the matter of co-operation and credit banks. I recognise the difficulty of this problem, but still I am pleased to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that more has been accomplished than appears to be generally known to the public. I remember Lord Shaftesbury, who, I believe, is chairman of the Agricultural Organisation Society, giving a splendid illustration of the advantages of co-operation a short time since. He said a case was known to him where farmers had been compelled to sell their milk at 4d. per gallon. By the aid of co-operation—coming together and having an understanding—they had been able to advance the price to 8d. I think that is a testimony to the advantage of co-operation to the farmer, and what is an advantage to the farmer should, indirectly, be a benefit to the labourer. If the farmer is able to get a fair price for his produce, he is, necessarily, in a better position to pay fair wages to his labourers. Thus it is that the Board might very well pursue this work; in fact, I think we may contemplate that they will, because, after all, it is soundly conceived and calculated to be of benefit to all. With these few friendly criticisms—I hope they will be accepted in the spirit in which I have intended them—I press on the right hon. Gentleman the question of speeding up the provision of houses as far as practicable under the Small Holdings Act, as I can assure him that that, as far as I am able to ascertain, is one of the greatest hindrances in the rural parts to the success of this legislation. If he can do that I am sure he will be contributing to the success of agriculture in this country.
:Some references have been made to the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever, of which I have the honour, and undoubtedly the misfortune, to be chairman. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the complimentary remarks he made about our work, but I must follow that with a request that he would not quite so often shelter himself behind the Committee in reference to matters which are outside the scope of our reference. The work of that Departmental Committee is strictly limited by its reference to proposals for the speedy extirpation of swine fever, and yet, in his speech, he quite gave the impression to me that the reason why no alteration was proposed in the existing Regulations and the existing system, which I think everyone admits has failed to achieve its purpose, is that we had not recommended that those Regulations should be altered or removed. Although, of course, it does not come before the Departmental Committee as a whole, and could not do so, I have no hesitation in saying that not a member of that Committee would make himself responsible for the maintenance, in their present state, of the existing administrative system. I do not suggest for a moment that we could propose any satisfactory system in its place. I cannot see one in the light of existing scientific knowledge, though I very much hope that the experiments which have been going on with considerable success may, before long, so improve the existing state of scientific knowledge that recommendations may be made which will be effective.
I should like, expressing a purely personal opinion, to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, that until the scientific position has been improved it might be well worth his while, and that of his Department, to look upon swine fever, for the time being, as if it were a disease which cannot be extirpated, and regard it as an evil which is likely to be always with us, and to take such steps as they think most likely to reduce loss, reduce national cost, and limit the effects, direct and indirect, both of the disease and the methods taken to control it. I fancy a good deal of improvement might be effected as a temporary measure if some such line as that was followed by the Board of Agriculture. I will pass to some remarks which were made by my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bathurst) with reference to the Departmental Committee's attitude with regard to serum and inoculation in swine fever cases. He criticised the Report which we issued in January last, which stated that, in our opinion, the existing methods of inoculation or vaccination did not promise satisfactory results, and that further experiment was necessary. He quoted, in support of his view that our attitude was wrong, an excellent pamphlet which has been prepared by Major Greenwood. With that pamphlet I entirely agree, but I want to draw attention to the final quotation. It is this:—
:I did not criticise the findings of the Departmental Committee. I criticised what appeared to me to be the somewhat previous statement of Sir Stewart Stockman as to the value of serum treatment.
:I gladly accept my hon. Friend's correction, but I certainly understood him in the other sense, and I think the Report to which I have referred rather bears out than otherwise the opinion expressed by Sir Stewart Stockman. The field experiments to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and as to which I am not at liberty to give such details as are in my possession, seem to promise most exceptional results, and I confidently hope that at quite an early date we may have found, through these field experiments, that proper treatment for which for three years we have been looking which will give immunity to the inoculated pig without either risk to itself immediately after inoculation or infectivity to others. But I should like to warn hon. Members who are interested in this matter that I do not think it in the least likely that any system of inoculation which may be discovered is ever likely to justify the entire removal of restrictions on movement. I think a period of isolation following inoculation is bound to be necessary, and I hope, therefore, that no importance whatever will be attached to the wild statements of those who go about the country from time to time and suggest that if we did as they are doing in Holland and Hungary we might do away with restrictions on movement and regulations. In conclusion, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to proceed, at a very early date, with his long promised Hops Bill. I can assure him that agriculturists in the hope-growing districts are beginning to be almost persuaded that his promises in that respect are not to be relied on, and I hope he will prove to them that that is not the case.
:I offer no apology as an Irishman for intervening in what I feel to be more or less an English Debate. Through the unfortunate outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, from which we have suffered more or less in the last two years, we have felt, in the most direct way, that with regard to regulations we are more or less under the control of the President of the Board of Agriculture, and I rise, not to criticise what he has found it necessary to do, but chiefly to deal with two of the smaller points to which he has referred. First of all, I think he acknowledged that there has been a very strong expression, not only in Ireland, but in England, that the time has come when we should have a Commission or a Committee set up to consider the whole question of the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act throughout Great Britain. With regard to the part of Ireland which I represent there is a most united feeling on this subject, and I hope I have gathered correctly from the President of the Board of Agriculture that he is willing to concede this Commission if there is a generally expressed desire in that direction. Our hope is that it will be formed of men in the very highest position as experts in this matter who will take an impartial view, because we realise that the trouble through which we have passed and the losses which have ensued thereby have been aggravated through a want of unity as regards the series of restrictions which have been imposed from time to time. I may point out chiefly that in England, when disease breaks out, it is considered sufficient to impose restrictions over a fifteen miles radius. Ireland, unfortunately, has been treated as a whole up to quite recently. We have lately had the part of Ireland which is absolutely free from cattle disease getting a little more favoured terms. We do feel that the system is wrong under which Ireland is treated as a whole, and practically treated by the English Board as a foreign country. I trust that will not again be attempted, and I desire to press very strongly the question of setting up a Commission which will be above the suspicion of bias, and which will command the respect of agriculturists on both sides of the Channel.
The other point with which I wish to-deal very briefly is the unfortunate outbreak of disease which dislocated the-cattle trade of Ireland for several weeks. I was happy to hear the President of the Board of Agriculture express his admiration of the work, zeal and knowledge of Mr. Prentise, chief veterinary inspector in Ireland. In the course of his speech he seemed to leave the impression that there was at least the suspicion that the outbreak which took place at Birkenhead could be traced back to Ireland. May I remind him of the Report issued after the inquiry which took place into that outbreak. We have a definite and strong statement of one Member that, whatever doubt there might be in the minds of others in regard to that matter, he, at all events, was convinced that the outbreak had no connection with Ireland. As regards Birkenhead, the feeling is almost universal in Ireland that the outbreak is proved to have been caused by the insanitary conditions which prevailed there. That is proved, I think, by what happened in the case of a number of cattle detained there for a period of four days some weeks ago. In short, you are trying to do at Birkenhead more work than the port was intended to perform, with the result that the cleansing was imperfectly done. I believe when science has done its work, it will be found that there lies the explanation of the outbreak which was so disastrous to Ireland. All agriculturists are agreed that a period of detention of ninety-six hours on a concrete floor is an act of heinous cruelty to the animals themselves, and we have it on record that statements were sent to the President of the Board of Agriculture showing that cattle have suffered most severely by that detention under most inhuman conditions. To such an extent have the animals suffered that, when they have been relieved after 96 hours' detention, they were unable to move out of the pens themselves, and that they had to be removed. I hope we shall not return to that. I hope it will be possible to arrange that if such detention is considered necessary, the cattle will be sent to fields adjoining the lairages so that the losses to the farmers will not be so serious in future.
I listened to the President of the Board of Trade with the greatest interest on various other matters. There was one thing he did not refer to, and that was the suggestion recently foreshadowed by the Vice-President of the Irish Department, namely, that the President of the Board of Agriculture is not content with all the restrictions placed on Irish cattle in the past, and that he intends in the early future, to institute a system of redipping Irish sheep when once they are landed in England. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has departed from that intention, if he ever seriously intended it. I hope the result of the suspicion of such an intention will be to stiffen the action towards two or three county authorities in Ireland who have not hitherto enforced the Sheep-dipping Order. It will be a most serious thing to enforce a redipping Order on this side of the Channel on account of the action of two or three counties which have not carried out the Sheep-dipping Order in Ireland. I hope the result will be to cause the counties which are at present remiss to perform their obvious duty. I hope before the Debate closes the President of the Board of Agriculture will be able to announce that he has received more reassuring information with regard to the suspicion of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease last Friday. I hope also he will be able to announce that the Irish ports will be permitted again to send cattle to the markets on this side.
:I desire to express my appreciation of the sympathetic speech made by the President of the Board of Agriculture. The Irish cattle trade put forward a request for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, and the right hon. Gentleman has met that request in the most friendly manner by promising that a Committee will be appointed. I desire to put before this Committee the position taken up by those who asked for the appointment of a Committee. It is not a Committee intended merely to criticise the action of the Department, either in England or in Ireland. It is a Committee to strengthen, the hands, if possible, of the Departments in both countries. A few years ago my business brought me in many parts in. England in contact with many English buyers of Irish cattle, and I found that there existed at that time a great prejudice in their minds against Irish cattle,, because they were of opinion that disease existed in Ireland. Everyone acquainted with the facts knows that that is not the case, and we believe that a Committee of Inquiry, before which witnesses will be examined, will be the best means of inspiring confidence in English buyers that the law is administered in Ireland quite as rigidly as in England. The right hon. Gentleman paid a well-deserved tribute to the Irish Department and its chief officer. That tribute has been endorsed in a manner that would hardly have been expected by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Bathurst). If the confidence they have expressed in the administration of the Irish Department could be brought home to the men on county councils who are imposing what we-consider harsh restrictions on Irish cattle, we believe it would inspire in them the feeling that these restrictions should be relaxed. We think the office of the Committee of Inquiry should be educational. We think that by bringing home to the minds of the people of this country that the law is administered rigidly in Ireland, that would inspire greater confidence in them when importing Irish cattle. We also consider that an inquiry is the only effective means of dispelling some of the wild statements which have been made with respect to the prevalence of disease in Ireland. If this Committee of Inquiry is to be effective and to carry the confidence of the Irish people, I would suggest that the terms of reference must be wide. I would suggest, further, that in order to obtain the confidence of those entitled to speak for the cattle trade of Ireland we want the best and latest expert and scientific evidence, so that the Committee, with that evidence before them, and with a knowledge of the restrictions which have been enforced, may be able to come to a just decision as to whether the present Regulations can be relaxed without causing increased danger to English stock. It is also necessary that Ireland should be adequately represented on that Committee. I suggest that Ireland should be represented, not in proportion to her representatives in this House, but in proportion to the extent of the interests which are involved. I think also it is necessary that the Committee should have power to compel the attendance of witnesses. That is essential for the success of the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman complies with these suggestions, I believe the inquiry will have the effect of establishing better relations between the two countries, of proving to the people of this country that Irish stock-owners are as desirous of stamping out foot-and-mouth disease as anyone can be, and of showing that they are willing to take upon themselves the steps that may be necessary to attain that object, so that there will be no contagion whatever from stock coming from Ireland into this country. We desire that the biggest stock buyers in this country should be able to buy Irish cattle with the same freedom and confidence as in the past.
:I have been asked a question as to whether any further information has come to hand with respect to the suspected animals which were referred to earlier in the day. I have received a telegram this evening in which it is stated that the chief inspector and three of his assistants carefully examined four affected animals this morning, and that they have come to the conclusion definitely that the disease is not proved to be foot-and-mouth disease. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious about the resumption of the cattle trade. I cannot undertake—and my hon. Friend concurs with me—to open the ports in Ireland until I have received from the chief inspector—I hope I may have it to-morrow morning—a considered and definite report authorising that to be done, and stating that no danger will arise. I await that report. There will be no difficulty in getting to business at once after it arrives. I am very glad to be able to state now decisively that it is not foot and-mouth disease.
:I desire to support my hon. Friend in his Motion for a reduction of the Vote because of the unsatisfactory way in which the Board of Agriculture has dealt with the question of swine fever. It does seem ridiculous to spend these large sums of money every day and then to find the number of outbreaks increasing. An hon. Member has suggested that there ought to be a further investigation, as he understands that there are many cases of swine fever which occurred and are not reported at all. But it is also said by a great many people that there are very many cases reported at present which are not swine fever at all. That is the view in a good many parts of the country. I think that, undoubtedly, cases of that kind can occur, as it is very difficult to determine cases of swine fever. A great many gentlemen who are going over the country have been certifying cases as swine fever which in many cases are not much more than severe chill. It is not right that vast herds of pigs should be slaughtered wholesale when only one or two are affected. I do hope that something may be done to diminish in some way the vary harassing restrictions which are now imposed on the pig trade. My hon. Friend beside me, who is a great authority on the question, says that it is impossible to get rid of swine fever without having some restrictions, but a great many of the restrictions are unnecessarily harassing, and it would be far better to try other experiments as well to see if we cannot get rid of, or at least diminish, this disease by some other methods.
On the question of small holdings two hon. Members opposite have complained that it is impossible to get land for smallholdings at the price at which they would like to buy. That may be true. If they will refer to the Report of the Board of Agriculture they will find reasons. One is given at page 6. The price of land in this country is frequently greater than its value for purely agricultural purposes. The heavy expenditure which is necessary to adapt land for small holdings prevents county councils from competing on equal terms with large farmers, and men who have no need to expend money on any additional buildings. I do not think that any county council can expect to buy land for converting into small holdings at its agricultural value You Can that land happens to have a higher value than its agricultural value. You cannot expect owners to sell land for less than its real value to put it to some other use than that for, which the land is most suited, having regard to its general situation. Surely it is not right, either, to complain that you cannot get land when other agriculturists are prepared to give a higher price than you are, if the land is equipped with buildings necessary for large farms, and it pays a farmer to give a higher price than the county council. Surely, in that case, I do not see what cause of complaint the county council can have. One hon. Member, I think, suggested that there should be a Government valuer from the Board of Agriculture to go about the country, apparently to fix the value of land at a price which the county council is willing to give. That is a very nice way of buying land indeed. It might be very nice from the ratepayers' point of view. But why have any valuer at all? "Why not simply say, " I am going to give so much for this land, and you have got to let me have it at that price "? That is a much simpler process, and would do away with one more Government official.
I have one other remark about the small holdings officials. I remember that in 1911 small holdings Commissioners were appointed to deal with the great demand for small holdings. In the year 1910, before they were appointed, 33,000 acres were acquired for small holdings. In the year 1911, in which they were appointed, 36,000 acres were acquired; in the year 1912, 33,000 acres were acquired, and in the year 1913 the number dropped to 24,000 acres. If the amount of work which these small holdings Commissioners were appointed to do has diminished so much, surely it is about time that the Commissioners were diminished in numbers as well. I think that it is within the recollection of the Committee that these gentlemen were appointed in order to ginger up the county council; they gingered them up for a year or two. Apparently now they are very nearly satisfied that the real genuine demand, and the demand that can be met in a reasonable way, is satisfied, and I think that it is about time that some of these gentlemen were put to a more worthy occupation, and that a more economic use were made of them. Perhaps some of these gentlemen might be used to carry out the new policy which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed of advising the small holder. I understand that it is his intention to appoint a certain number of gentlemen to go about the country to advise the small holders as to the best and most economic way to manage their holdings.
:What I said was that we would enable the county council to do this work at the expense of the Board. We do not propose to appoint advisers ourselves.
:I thought you said that it was the intention to appoint people by the Board of Agriculture itself.
:No.
:I understand that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage county councils to appoint people from their own staff to do this work, and that the Board itself would pay for the services. I have no objection to raise to that, but I think it very important that people who are to go about to advise small holders in the country should have some knowledge of the requirements of agriculture in the districts in which they operate. It will not be much use appointing a man from the North of England to go down to advise people how to manage small holdings in the South of England. One point on which I would like information is as to whether the Board are prepared to make any investigation with regard to the ravages of the warblefly. An enormous amount of damage is done to the hides of cattle by the ravages of that fly. There is very great uncertainty in the minds of agriculturists as to how this insect actually gets into the skin of the cattle. Some say that it settles on its back and lays its eggs in the skins. Others say that it settles on the front of the cattle and gets licked off, and passes into the mouth and eventually finds its way out to the skin. I understand that there is a great deal of difference of opinion as to how the animal finds its way to the back of the cattle, and it would be a great advantage if some experiments could be made by the Board of Agriculture to let agriculturists know what really is the best way of dealing with this pest, which is doing a great deal of damage.
:We on this side of the House have been greatly disappointed at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. We considered that he should have been in a position to inform us that all restrictions in Great Britain were taken off by both the county council and by his Department. Instead of that I was sorry to hear him say that he would not override the county council. He has taken off some restrictions. He has allowed cattle to be shipped, but when they land they cannot, at any port in England or Scotland, get to their destination. Take the case of Scotland. They cannot get through some of the counties where these restrictions are imposed. That being so, if he does not like to use all the powers that are vested in him, he should at least use some persuasive powers, so that these bodies may take off some of the restrictions which they have imposed. As I am informed, the reason why the different county councils have imposed these restrictions is this: The farmers got frightened lest they should not get sufficient store cattle, and they went about buying them at enormous prices. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that when I tell him that they paid up to 57s. a cwt. live weight for stores, while they were selling their beef at something like 42s. a cwt., and they desire now to recoup themselves for the expenditure which they made in purchasing these cattle. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where did it occur?"] It occurred in Linlithgowshire. Then a great many of these stock producers, men who are in the habit of rearing those fine bred cattle, are complaining now of not being able to export to South America at the present time because of the six months' detention here.
8.0 P.M.
On the other hand a great many small farmers in this country are not able to procure the cattle for the farms, and they have to do without them, and the grass is growing almost wild at the present moment. There is not any market in Great Britain or Scotland open for the sale of cattle when you do permit them to come into this country. The disease which has appeared in Ireland has been produced by people coming from Birkenhead into Ireland. Birkenhead is the seat of the disease. That has been proved to be the case, and I say, therefore, that you should treat Ireland in a more becoming manner than you are doing at present, and allow the cattle to have free access into the markets of England and Scotland, and if necessary compel the county councils to take off the restriction. Again, in referring to fat stock, I think that there is no sense whatever in detaining fat Stock for four days, as has been done at Birkenhead and some of the other ports. I do not say that a ten hours' detention is unreasonable, but fat stock should be allowed to proceed to the market, where they will be detained and slaughtered in the abattoirs attached to those markets, so that there is no chance of disease being spread through this fat stock entering the market. In reference to the swine fever, which has been going on for many years, veterinary surgeons come and examine the pigs, and very quickly come to a conclusion and have them killed. It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman does not know that in a case of suspected swine fever the animal is slaughtered and its intestines sent to the laboratory to be examined. The veterinary surgeons examine the intestines and frequently the public authority in that particular part of the country never hears whether or not it was a case of swine fever. It is only after the slaughter of the animal, that it becomes known whether or not it is swine fever. Then there is the question of the twenty-eight days during which suspected pigs must remain at the man's place before its removal, and, supposing they were shipped from Ireland to Scotland, they would have to remain another twenty-eight days in the purchaser's place. I submit that these restrictions are not workable at all, and that the time of quarantine should be reduced to less than half of what it is—I think eight days would be quite sufficient. The man who cannot detect the disease during that time knows nothing about disease at all. I am glad to learn, as I suspected it was, that the present case of disease among cattle was what is called timber-tongue, or dirty mouth. While I do not wish to say anything in disparagement of the veterinary surgeons in the county of Fermanagh, I would point out that about eighteen months ago that county was placed under restrictions. I had my own views of what the cause of disease was, for I am acquainted with foot-and-mouth distemper, and it would not have taken me very long to diagnose it. I asked for permission to go into that district where the cattle were suffering, but the veterinary surgeons and the police would not give it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make an announcement to-night to the effect that he will remove the restrictions, which cause so much hardship, on the exportation of cattle from Ireland to this country.
:I only desire to say a very few words, for I am afraid the time of Debate is very much restricted to-night, in view of another discussion which is to take place. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like further opportunities of discussing this important Vote, and I hope the Government will bear that fact in mind when they are allocating time for Supply. I should like, on behalf of everyone connected with agriculture, to acknowledge the admirable work put in by many officers, in fact the Whole staff, of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. There is no doubt that they have devoted themselves whole-heartedly to their duties, and the work that they have done has been very valuable. Every agriculturist will read with pleasure, I am sure, the report of what the right hon. Gentleman was able to say about the work that has been done in research, both as regards animals and as regards cereal crops, as well as in regard to breeding schemes. I should have liked if more consideration had been given to the case of sheep. Money has been given in respect of horses and cattle, but so far the sheep industry has been unable to obtain any recognition. Sheep farmers who pay the same taxes as other people feel that they are entitled to some consideration, and they are a very important branch, perhaps one of the most important branches in this country, for reasons into which I need not enter here, but which I could make good. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that request in regard to the sheep farmers receiving some consideration, to which they feel themselves entitled. Education work, experimental farms, and all those objects are advancing, and I am quite sure that admirable work has been done. We felt quite happy at the right hon. Gentleman's recital when he told us that he was going to spend an extra quarter of a million of money. We really were beginning to think that we were getting something, but suddenly he reminded us of our sufferings under the Budget of 1909.
Probably he meant to score a point, but I am afraid he did exactly the opposite in our mind, because he himself set up a comparison between the quarter of a million he is giving us and which the Government are spending for the benefit of agriculture in these directions, and what we have paid under the Budget. He forced us to consider what otherwise we would not have thought of at that moment, the enormously greater sum of which we have been deprived by the legislation to which he then referred. The money he is going to spend is only a very little return indeed, and I would say something even stronger than that, namely, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that agriculture is not a party subject. I go further than that, and ask the right hon. Gentleman in that respect he should be passive, and not himself deal with this as a party subject. He certainly did not do so in his speech to-day, nor, so far as I am aware, has he done so in his administration; but I do venture to remind him that the most important part of his duty is to remember that as a Member of the Government, and having the interests of agriculture entrusted to him, he should treat these matters in the widest aspect, safeguarding the interests of the industry, while remembering that the chief and most important thing for that industry is security in the highest sense of the word, for no industry can flourish unless capital is freely invested in it, and feels that it has security for good management and a return. That should be the first duty of the right hon. Gentleman in his office. We heard the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, that the amount of corn grown and the amount of stock in this country is lower than it was. Why? Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that what the Government are trying to do in one direction is rendered more than nugatory because of the losses which take place in a much more important direction, namely, the investment of private capital on the security of land of this country? If he will bear that in mind I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the agricultural industry will be grateful to him.
I desire to say a few words on the question which has monopolised the larger part of the Debate—the question of swine fever. The restrictions which have been imposed have been most harassing and have caused very great loss, particularly to small people. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, and the House knows, that the pig is the small man's stock-in-trade—the small farmer's, the small holder's, or the cottage holder's. In one observation the right hon. Gentleman seemed to look upon it as a curious and rather unexplained fact that there was this constant fluctuation in what is called the pig population. It is simply a question of supply and demand, and the reason why the pig population changes so rapidly is that pigs breed very quickly, and therefore they change very quickly the market price. All the fluctuations simply amounted to this, that if the price of pigs, was good an enormous number of pigs would be bred, and down would go the prices again, so that when it became less remunerative to breed them the number was reduced. And so the see-saw went on. If you refer to the prices and numbers you will find that they explain themselves. We have now the very reverse of that. We have had two or three years of remark- ably high and remunerative prices; notwithstanding that, the pig population is being reduced, mainly by these restrictions. The only justification for those harassing restrictions is that they should show some record of success in effecting a reduction of disease, but the figures which have been issued by the right hon. Gentleman himself show that in the first twenty-two weeks of this year there was 1,770 outbreaks, as against only 991 in the first twenty-two weeks of the previous year, so that we are actually losing ground, at the same time that we are submitting ourselves to these restrictions. The agriculture industry is perfectly willing to submit to any harassing restrictions provided there is some reasonable hope that they will produce the desired effect.
They have now continued for five years, which is a long period, yet they have produced no result whatever. We, therefore, certainly have the right to ask whether it is desirable to continue them longer. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he had actually a recommendation from the Departmental Committee which considered this subject. That Committee in their first interim Report recommended that the infected area should be reduced. I think that is a most important point. It seems to me that it is essential that in a case of disease the pigs should be at once reported and dealt with. There should be most careful investigation of every case, and I do not think there is any justification for the large area over which these restrictions are imposed. I very much doubt if any good result is derived from them, and I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that he will find that the agricultural industry will greatly resist the continuance of the restrictions in their present form unless there is something which will really justify their retention. I support very strongly the remarks made by the hon. Member for the Brighton Division of Sussex (Captain Tryon), and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will very carefully consider them, for my hon. Friend speaks with great authority, having presided over a Committee. I have one minute in which to refer to the question of small holdings for agricultural labourers. The right hon. Gentleman said he was surprised that the agricultural labourers did not take up small holdings, and he added that because wages are high among agricultural labourers he thought they would have been more eager to take up small holdings. On the contrary, if wages are high a man is satisfied to stay where he is. I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that the small holding is not what the farm labourer wants; what he wants is a small farm, the cultivation of which he understands; he does not understand the cultivation of a small holding. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to go with me into Lincolnshire or into Yorkshire, and there I could show him that amongst the most successful and largest farmers are men who started in a small way. The agricultural labourer wants a small farm, and he hopes that it will lead him and his sons into a very much better occupation, and in that respect the small-holding policy of the Government is not one that will help the agricultural labourer.
It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.
Government of Ireland Bill
Volunteer Forces
:I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I do so for the purpose of calling attention to the growing danger caused in Ireland by the existence of the Volunteer Forces, and the failure of the Government to deal with the situation. The present state of affairs in Ireland is notorious to everybody, not only in this House, but throughout the country. There is, in the North-East of Ireland, a very large force, we are told, of some 110,000 men. I have not myself had the opportunity of going to Ulster, but from the accounts which are published in the Press by the parties, I understand that those men are of the highest physique, and that they are armed. I do not know whether they are completely armed. They have also a certain amount of ammunition— I do not know whether that is sufficient— and they are drilled. I understand that they are a force which military authorities regard as of a very formidable character. Their object is to resist the passage of the Home Rule Bill— at any rate, so far is it creates subordination for Ulster to a Dublin Parliament. In my opinion, that is in itself a very serious state of things and a grave reproach to civilisation, and upon the Government of this country; but the situation has been, in my judgment, enormously aggravated and increased by the growth in other parts of Ireland of another Volunteer Force. I understand, from answers given by the Chief Secretary, that there is in the other parts of Ireland a force already, I think he told me, of eighty or a hundred thousand men—[An HON. MEMBER: "More!"]—and that it is increasing at the rate, so he told us, of 15,000 per week. It is partially armed at present. I gather it is not completely armed because—[HoN. MEMBERS: " Hear,hear!" and "Order!"] I do not mind interruption from the Nationalist Benches; I am quite accustomed to it. It is at present partially armed. I understand that one of the objects which the leaders of that movement have in view is to procure the repeal of the Arms Proclamation, the legality of which, I understand, has recently been upheld by the Irish Courts, in order that they may procure for themselves more arms than they have at present. Their object is to insist on Home Rule, and, as appears from their organ, a paper called "The Irish Volunteer," particularly to prevent any further concession of any sort or kind to Ulster. That is a very important part of their propaganda, and they are prepared to enforce their views by fighting anybody as I understand,
:Why not?
:I understand that is their view. I am not for the moment discussing whether from their point of view they are right or wrong, but they are prepared to fight with anybody, and, if necessary, and particularly, with this country. I see a passage, for instance, and it is only one of several, in "The Irish Volunteer" of Saturday, 30th May, in which they are discussing the admirable results of their organisation, and in which they say this:—
"Indeed, the spirit in which the constitution (of the Irish National Volunteers) has been acted upon among the Irish volunteers, is due to the change of opinion in many quarters as to the imminence of civil war."
:Hear, hear!
:Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wrote this passage:—
"When civil war is mentioned now, it is meant to convey the old fiction that this country and England are one country."
It is perfectly obvious what that means, that war between the Irish Volunteers and this country would not be civil war. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that they are prepared to fight this country, and indeed are anxious—HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"]— if they get the chance, to fight this country. But that is not the only thing. They are there to secure Home Rule in its present form and to maintain it afterwards. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad indeed to hear those cheers, as they show that I am quite correctly interpreting their views. This force is to remain in being, and it is in the words of a very competent spokesman, to secure what is called the benefits of Home Rule. I see that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) put it in this way the other day at a place called Toome:—
"Once the Home Rule Bill is on the Statute Book, it is the duty of the people to see that it be kept there, and if any attempt were made to deprive them of the benefits of its provisions, those responsible would have to reckon, not only with the Irish party, but a united nation, and with an armed and disciplined force of probably 250,000 Irish National Volunteers."
I think that is a very instructive observation in itself; it makes absolute hay of the so called safeguards in the Home Rule Bill. The one thing which the Prime Minister and his colleagues on the Front Bench were telling us was that under the Home Rule Bill no armed force would be at the command of the Nationalist Government. That is obviously untrue. Clauses 2 and 3 provide that one of the subjects on which no legislation is to take place is to be the Navy, the Army, the Territorial Force, or any other naval or military force for the defence of the realm, or any other naval or military matter. The executive authority, as the House will remember, goes with the legislative authority, and the Irish Government is not to be able to deal administratively with any subject that is taken from them legislatively. What is the result of that? The result of that is supposed to be that they could not use their power to oppress their fellow countrymen or any section of them, because they would not have the military force to enable them to do so. That theory is absolutely blown to the winds by the statement of the hon. Member for West Belfast. But it is not only the hon. Member for West Belfast. There is an aide-de-camp of the Irish Viceroy, Captain Bellingham, who has been saying very much the same thing, namely, that it is the duty of the volunteers to ensure the triumph of Home Rule, and, when those rights have been achieved, to maintain what has been so nobly won. I am merely anxious that the House—I am not speaking to Irish Nationalists for the moment; I shall have something to say to them later —I am merely anxious that the House should understand what is the actual situation, what is going on in Ireland, and what is the result of eight years of Liberal Government. I asked the Prime Minister a question yesterday; I was not aware that it had been actually answered until the Chief Secretary courteously told me that it had been. I asked, and I think an hon. Friend of mine put a similar question:—
"Whether his attention has been called to the statement by the Lord Chancellor that the Ulster and Nationalist Volunteer Forces are both of them illegal and unconstitutional"—
The actual words used by the Lord Chancellor were grossly illegal and utterly unconstitutional—
"whether the Government concur in this view; and' if so, what steps they propose to take in the matter"?
The Prime Minister replied—
"I have seen the statement of the Lord Chancellor referred to, and I assume that it was an accurate statement of the law. My Noble and learned Friend went on to point out the reasons which, in his opinion, had justified the Government in taking no action in the matter. I hope that when the Government of Ireland Bill becomes law the activities of these forces may be diverted into constitutional channels."—[Official Report, 15th June, 1914, col. 763.]
That is the way in which the Prime Minister of this country thinks it right to deal with a crisis which, I think, is unsurpassed in seriousness. He says, quite simply, there are two gigantic forces, or very large forces, in being. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may regard it as a joke, but it is not a joke. It is a very serious matter. Here are two large forces in being, 100,000 Ulstermen, and it may be 250,000 Nationalists, armed, drilled and organised for military purposes. Does anyone doubt that statement? It is absolutely true.
:Armed?
:I do not know whether they are armed; the hon. Member may know better than I do. But I am not going to make the mistake that hon. Members opposite made of underrating the force. I am not going to talk about wooden guns. I believe that these men in the south and west—I have no reason to doubt it—are individually as brave as the men in the north-east. I have no doubt that they will fight as well—they have fought as well—as anybody in this country or in any other part of the United Kingdom. It is a very serious matter indeed. Do not let us treat it as a party joke. As far as I am concerned, I was never more serious in my life. I desire to call the attention of the House, and of the country, to the state of things in Ireland at the present moment. I believe that it is immensely serious. It is the possible precursor—I am anxious to use moderate language—of a very grave national catastrophe, and I think that the House of Commons would do well to treat it with the seriousness which it demands. What are the Government doing? They have absolutely no policy at all. The Prime Minister had nothing to suggest when he was asked yesterday. The Chief Secretary, courteous as he always is to everyone in this House, had no kind of reply to give, except that the Government were considering the matter very seriously. They have been considering it for months and years. It is time they made up their mind what to do in a situation of this kind. We have a right to point out the first result of their policy, which, in the words of the Home Rule Bill, is to hand over the peace, order, and good government of Ireland to a new form of legislature in that country. I am not going to occupy the time of the House at any length, but I want to ask how this state of affairs has come about.
:Who commenced it?
:It is natural that these questions should be asked. That is exactly what I expected. How has this come about? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Of course, I understand those ironical cheers. Everybody knows what hon. Members opposite mean. They mean that it is entirely due to the movement of which my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Irish Unionists, has been the head. They put it all down to what they call Carsonism. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend in his place. I would say now, before him, what I have said constantly on almost every platform on which, for my sins, I have had to speak on this question—that if the Government intended to put Home Rule through by force, their duty was months ago to put down the Ulster Volunteers by a strong hand. [Interruption.] I wish a photograph could be taken of hon. Members opposite. I wish the people of this country could know the engraven frivolity of the Radical party.
:What about " Satan rebuking sin"?
:I do not know whether the hon. Baronet means to class me as a frivolous person.
made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
:I submit that what I said was not only true, but an obvious fact. There were two courses open to the Government two years ago, when they were threatened with a very grave movement of popular opinion in the North-East of Ireland, caused by their policy of Home Rule. It was not a new threat. Any student of politics, any student of contemporary history, could have told them that such a state of things was bound to arise the moment they produced their Home Rule Bill. The moment it did arise, we on this side thought it our duty—I did my best to emphasise the warning—to point out the danger. The Government must have known, unless they were incredibly incompetent, the danger into which they were going, and it was their duty then and there to make up their mind what their policy was going to be. If they thought, as I think, that to coerce an homogeneous population of one million, or whatever it may be—[Hon. MEMBERS: "It is not homogeneous!" and "Rot!"] —a homogeneous population, I say, of so many hundred thousand men—whether it is 800,000 or a million matters not—to attempt to coerce them to submit to a form of government which they abhor and loathe, was an absolutely impossible thing to do. That is my view, and, which is more important, it is the view that my Leaders also formed—
:Why did you coerce the rest of Ireland?
:If that be true, it was the duty of the Government then and there to make such concessions or such alterations in their policy as to obviate this serious movement. If they were determined to the contrary, it was their duty to carry through their policy absolutely as it was. That would have been an intelligible view, though a view which personally I disagree from, as do also we on this side. On that intelligible view, it was the Government's duty then and there to take sufficient steps to procure the submission of the people they had determined to coerce. I have a certain sympathy with the "blood and thunder" brigade opposite—that strange alliance between the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) and the hon. Member for Wisbech (Mr. Primrose), whom, I suppose, agree in almost nothing else but in their desire to shoot down their fellow countrymen in Ulster. I think there is a great deal to be said for their view, though they ought to have said it two years ago. But what the Government did was to do neither one thing nor the other. They did not attempt to coerce Ulster. They would not make the necessary concession, because they were afraid of losing their places and position. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh"!"] They would not make the necessary concessions which would have averted the danger they now have to face. I say that that is the characteristic vice of the Radical Government. Whenever they are faced with a great administrative difficulty they always make the same mistake; they always halt between two opinions. There is always one party in a Cabinet which is for peace and another party in the Cabinet which is for war. It is the same with the subject we were discussing the other day, the suffrage question. There is the same history, the same failure to recognise the convictions of people who hold their views and opinions more strongly and more honestly than they do themselves; the same failure to deal seriously with the situation at a time when it could have been dealt with seriously; the same drift, drift, drift, until the situation has reached a point when, I quite admit, it is very difficult to say what it is that is really best to be done under the circumstances.
Even now what is the policy of the Government? Who can tell me? Can the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Murray Macdonald)? Can the hon. Member for Wisbech (Mr. Primrose)? What is their policy? I do not know really whether they are going to submit to the Irish National Volunteers or whether they are going to resist them. Are they going at the last moment to attempt to coerce Ulster with the assistance of the National Volunteers, or are they going to produce some really honest attempt at conciliation in their amending Bill? If so why have they not produced their Bill? What has happened to it? Weeks and weeks ago they told us they were going to produce some such scheme. Months ago the Prime Minister said that he regarded it as part of the duty of the Government to deal with the situation. The Government have not yet produced their Bill. I am told that in another place the spokesman of the Government said "it would not be produced until next week." What is the Government doing? Are they waiting till an actual collision has taken place between these two forces? Are they hoping for this bloodshed on an extensive scale which the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke about not so long ago? I do not know. But I do say this—and if I may say so, I would suggest it to the Nationalists as to any other part of the House— that this state of affairs is disastrous, not only to this country, but I believe disastrous to the whole of the Empire! I am sure it is disastrous to Ireland. If I were a Nationalist—which I am not—
:God forbid!
:Very well, I do not in the least mind that expression of the desire not to have my assistance; I do not quarrel with it in any way. But if I were a Nationalist, there is nothing I would not do to put an end to this state of affairs in Ireland. I do not pretend to think that in the interests of this country a united Ireland is the great object of political desire. I am quite sure of this, that if Ulster nationality does not already exist, it is coming into being day by day. Look at history. What is nationality produced by—common effort, common danger, common hardship? These are the real things that have bound people into communities. It is not race, or religion, or anything else. Look at the history of the world. Look at Switzerland, or any other country. These are the forces that are operating at the present moment. Every day that this state of things continue in Ulster a nation is more and more definitely coming into being. It will be perfectly futile to suppose that a united Ireland is possible in one or two or ten generations if this state of things is allowed to continue much longer. For myself I say quite frankly that that is not the aspect of the situation which moves me. I believe it is a scandal and a disgrace to our government and to civilisation. I could not have imagined, I would not have thought, that it was possible that a Government could have existed in this country that would have tolerated the existence of two military forces in Ireland, contending for mastery, or about to contend for mastery, and do nothing at all—unable to make the slightest suggestion as to how the matter is to be proceeded with. I say that that is the gravest reproach that a Government in modern times has incurred in this country, and it is for that reason I have thought it right to call attention to the subject this evening.
:The subject that seems to move the merriment of hon. Members opposite is nothing less than the abdication of government in Ireland by the Government which they profess to follow and support. That abdication has been pretty complete in regard to Ulster for a long time past. Not so many weeks ago the Ulster force mobilised 50,000 men and stopped all the means of Government communication, coerced the Government forces, and only did so without bloodshed because the Government forces were too impotent to meet them. They did this in order to provide themselves with the arms and equipment they considered necessary to defeat the policy of this Government. The Prime Minister, appealed to by his supporters, in his most pompous and dignified manner said, "This gross outrage will be dealt with speedily and in a manner requisite to vindicate the majesty of the law and of the Government." From that day to this we have heard nothing more of the appropriate steps that were to be taken to vindicate the majesty of the law. This moment, if peace is preserved in Ulster, if any sort of government is going on in Ulster, it is in virtue of the force maintained there and of the organisation carried on by the Ulstermen. Since then, as my noble Friend has reminded the House, another force has sprung into being, a force whose avowed object is to defeat and counteract the whole policy which has moved the Ulster people. That is perfectly true. Is it not inevitable that that must lead to a collision. The whole object of that force is to defeat the Ulster force and to force Home Rule upon Ireland, and to maintain the unity of Ireland. Is that denied? The object of that force is to prevent this Bill from being amended in any way that could possibly make it acceptable to the Ulster people. The hon. Member for Galway said that— And on behalf of that policy these men are being armed and drilled to-day with the avowed intention of meeting force by force. As Sir Roger Casement, one of their chief organisers, said:— this movement was first discussed the " Westminster Gazette " said:— realise that by their policy of drifting inaction they have allowed the whole policy contained in their Home Rule Bill to be defeated and made impossible. The action of the Ulster Volunteer Force has obviously made it impossible to apply their Bill to Ulster, and now the action of the National Volunteers has made it utterly impossible for any amending Bill to be arrived at. [Hon. MEMBERS "Why?"] Because the whole object of the National Volunteer Force is to maintain the unity of Ireland under a Dublin Executive, and to maintain Ireland, not as a subordinate Government, but as a nation. That is entirely incompatible with the claim put forward by the Ulster people. More than that, the existence of the National Volunteers, with the aim and objects which they avow, has entirely done away with the Home Rule Bill as it was presented to this House. That was a Bill for setting up in Ireland a subordinate executive and Legislature with which this House could interfere at any moment. We were continually being reminded that we always had the safeguard that this Parliament could legislate over the heads of the Irish Parliament, and protect any section of the community. We were also told that certain essential powers were maintained in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. Yesterday the Prime Minister admitted that the Irish Parliament would not be entitled to control or maintain an Irish National Volunteer Force. But, surely, if the Government cannot prevent that force being set up now under the Union, how is it going to prevent it remaining in being once Home Rule is established? My hon. Friend has quoted a passage from the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). Every single Nationalist Member who has spoken on this question of the Irish Volunteers during the last two weeks has laid stress on this point that the main object of the National Volunteers is to enable an Irish Government in Ireland to prevent any diminution ever taking place of the powers which the Home Rule Bill is going to confer. One speaker at West Cavan, who was described as the secretary of the United Irish League at West Cavan, said:—
I have here a number of other quotations from speeches precisely to the same effect, and they all endorse and confirm what my Noble Friend read out, namely, that the object of this National Volunteer Force is to maintain Ireland as a separate nation against any interference by this Parliament. That is not the policy of the Home Rule Bill as professed by those who explained it. That is not the policy of hon. Members opposite who profess to be federalists. The consciences of some hon. Members opposite must have been sorely stretched by the idea that the control of the Post Office and the Customs was to be given to the Irish Government. What are they going to say of an Irish Government maintaining a force of a quarter of a million armed men? Are they going to say that Scotland and Wales should maintain such a force? Is it not clear that the whole policy of the Government has long since broken down? They cannot now secure the enforcement of their Home Rule Bill, and if Ireland gets Home Rule it will be something utterly different from the Home Rule Bill which was brought forward. Because of what is happening in Ireland to-day our Debates have become entirely unreal. The issue is being settled in Ireland, and it is not this Bill or its amendment, but the old clear issue of union or separation. That is the issue which the Government have to face if it comes to trouble in Ireland. There is only one way out of this difficulty, and that is to go to the people and endeavour to get that moral and political authority by the absence of which they have brought the country to the present pass.
:I agree that the situation in Ireland at the present time is one of the utmost gravity, but I ask how in any possible way can good be the result of the speech to which we have just listened? I have sometimes heard it said that some Members of His Majesty's Government are filled with despair upon this question, but no Member of the Government can be nearly so full of despair as I am after listening to the speech of the hon. Member opposite. What earthly good can that speech contribute? With the Noble Lord who moved this Motion for the Adjournment I have no quarrel. I recognise with him the gravity of the situation, and I see no reason whatsoever, except from the unnecessarily provocative nature of some of his remarks, why they should not be listened to with the gravity they deserve. The Noble Lord opposite has based this Motion very much upon certain questions which he has during the last few days addressed both to the Prime Minister and to myself. The Noble Lord quotes with a great appearance of approval, which he does not always show, certain utterances of the Lord Chancellor, and he says that the Lord Chancellor has described both Ulster and the National Volunteers as illegal bodies. The Noble Lord wants to know why His Majesty's Government does not therefore at once proceed to suppress both those bodies.
I need not tell the Noble Lord that I am not likely to call in question expressions of opinion by the Lord Chancellor, particularly when they have the approval of the Noble Lord. I do not, however, need to remind the House, what every litigant knows to his sorrow, that whilst it is one thing to obtain a declaration of opinion as to what the law is extra judicially from high authorities, it is quite another thing to secure a declaration of that law in properly constituted legal proceedings. [An HON. MEMBER:You might try it!"] With regard to the drilling of the Ulster Volunteers and the National Volunteers, to which reference has been made, there is nothing illegal in them provided always that the parties take, as Irishmen invariably do take, necessary legal precautions, by securing under the provision of the Statute of King George III. the permission of two magistrates. That course has been adopted throughout by the Ulster Volunteers, and now by the National Volunteers. Therefore, drilling as such in those circumstances is not illegal, nor is the carriage of arms by itself illegal, provided that the persons have the necessary licence. Most of the drillings, at all events of the Ulster Volunteers, take place on private property, from which the police are excluded, though, no doubt, evidence could be forthcoming. I agree, once you were able to show that the predominant purpose of all these drillings was to substitute force for law, to upset the authority of the Crown, and of the Houses of Legislature, why then, no doubt, the precautionary measures of the signatures of two magistrates would be wholly immaterial and irrelevant^ But you have to establish this seditious purpose, and, however plain it may be to a Lord Chancellor that seditious purpose exists, I can well understand that it might not be so easy to bring it home to the mind of a Belfast or a Donegal jury, because, after all, there is a good deal of virtue, and I recognise it, in an "if." Contingent treason, hypothetical rebellion, something which is going to happen on the happening of something which has not yet happened, is a thing which, however plain to a legal mind, might be somewhat difficult to bring home to either a common or a special jury. I therefore do venture to say, whatever great authority is due to the expression of the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, that equal authority ought to be given to the subsequent portion of the same speech in which he pointed out, I think with great clearness, how unwise it would have been, not to say how difficult it would have been, to have proceeded to take the heroic measures which the Noble Lord says that it was our duty to take and to put down these drillings and this gradual growth of what is now, no doubt, a large and important body. Those reasons ought equally to weigh with the Noble Lord as they do with us. The thing is by no means so easy as he endeavours to make out.
What is the past history of Ireland with reference to attempted State prosecutions by an English or a British Government? When I come to lay down the office which I have held so long, I shall carry away with me one thing at all events, and that is an unusual degree of knowledge of the history of Ireland for the last two centuries, because, whatever leisure I have had during that period I have devoted to the reading and study of that history, and, if it teaches you one thing more than another, it is the vanity and the futility of any attempt by British State prosecution to suppress the opinions of any portion of the people of that country. The thing is not to be secured in that way, and I, for my own part, whatever else may be said of me, am quite content to be judged by the utterances which I make, and I say, non tali auxilio I will not seek, by any such means, to secure the end which the Noble Lord seeks, for purposes of his own, I doubt not honourable purposes, but still not without a little of the malice of the enemy. There is, and always has been, a rooted evil in British administration of Irish affairs which cannot be dislodged or mitigated, by calling to your aid judges, however eminent, and courts, however distinguished, for their impartiality. When these Ulster volunteers were started, the distinguished Irishmen who are mainly responsible for their organisation knew perfectly well, no one knew it better, that the word "volunteer" in Ireland is charged with emotion, not only in Ulster, but in all three of the other provinces of Ireland, charged with memories proud and bitter; and, when he and his friends called upon Irishmen to arm, said they were entitled to arm against the possibilities of a Dublin Parliament, and when he said that it was the right of Irishmen to carry arms, surely he could not suppose that words of that sort, which had been used before in Ireland by men of far greater influence than himself— such a man, for example, as John Mitchell —would not excite corresponding emotions, not only in the breasts of the Protestants of Ulster to whom he addressed them, but of the men in all other parts of Ireland. It was impossible to create or call into existence the one body of men without of necessity not only running the risk, but securing the certainty of another body of men coming into existence for an opposite purpose and a contrary intent.
Home Rule for Ireland is itself an Irish question. [Hon. MEMBER:No!" and "Why?"] Gentlemen in all parts of the House sometimes forget that. It is a question which appeals, in the first instance, to all Irishmen, it may be Protestants residing in certain portions of Ulster, although where you are to find that homogeneous portion of Ulster to which the Noble Lord so often referred I do not, as a matter of geography, exactly know. This I do know well, that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson) talks of Ulster, he does not refer merely to Antrim and Down, but he extends his view to the whole of that province, and includes in it places where the Catholics are 85 or 90 per cent, of the population. But, however that may be, and wherever these persons exist in any part of Ireland, they are deeply moved by this Home Rule question, and by this demand for the introduction or restoration, call it what name you will, of an Irish Parliament in Dublin, and of an Irish Executive responsible thereto, to which I attach at least as much importance. That feeling exists, and that emotion exists in every part of Ireland, and you could no more hope to confine this movement of Ulster Volunteers to Ulster alone than you could hope to confine a feeling existing in the whole of England to some limited portion of Wiltshire or Yorkshire. The thing could not be done. The feeling was there, and the responsibility, if any responsibility there is, rests upon those who have evoked for their own purposes— [Hon. MEMBERS: "The Government.] What are the objects of the Ulster Volunteers? It is undeniable that they have for their first object the destruction of the Home Rule Bill altogether.
:You do it for votes.
:That interruption simply means that I, for example, while speaking: in this House, care two straws for anybody's vote. I may, perhaps, be peculiar in that respect, but, as compared with my convictions as to the soundness of this cause,I have no hesitation in saying that I should express it were there not a single Member, were there not a single person on my side of the House, who gave me any support whatever. What are the objects of the Ulster Volunteers? They are, in the first instance, to destroy the Home Rule Bill altogether and to get rid of it. They are informed by their friends on this side of the water that they have reason to believe that if they maintain their force and their attitude and their enthusiasm they will get a General Election at an early date. They confidently assert the belief—though on this matter I do not think they are particularly well informed—that the result of that appeal to the country will be that the Government will disappear, and with it the Home Rule Bill. Therefore, their great object is to destroy the Home Rule Bill. Of that there can be no doubt. They have, other objects, which you will find, if you examine them carefully, in the speeches and the sermons—
:Especially the sermons.
:I am not going to quote any of the sermons or the speeches. Hopeful as I still am of a settlement, I am not going to introduce a note of religious bitterness. The motive power behind the Ulster Volunteers is admittedly a strong religious emotion. I will put it in as inoffensive a form as possible. I recognise its force. It is the most dangerous element in the whole thing, and I fully recognise it. But I am sure you cannot be surprised with a body springing into existence and having for its object the destruction of the Home Rule Bill altogether—a Bill which has gone so far on its way to the Statute Book—a body which excites deep religious passions and emotions—you cannot be surprised that there should arise another body in Ireland who are endeavouring to do their best to secure the passage of the Home Rule Bill, and to show that it is a measure which can properly be carried into effect. I do not agree—I cannot agree'—with the Noble Lord when he speaks of the motives and of the objects of the Irish National Volunteers. I agree to this extent—and no doubt he will agree with me—that it is exceedingly difficult to define, in black and white, the precise objects of associations of men, whether they call themselves Ulster or National Volunteers. They have no memorandum of association, and you cannot, therefore, put your finger precisely upon their particular objects; you can only find those objects out in the speeches and sermons to which I have referred. But so far as the National Volunteers are concerned, they have from the very first done their best, in speaking and writing, to affirm that their principles are entirely defensive and protective. The force is open to men of all creeds, all politics, and all social ranks, if such a word can be used in connection with this subject. Their declaration runs:—
"I,the undersigned, desire to be enrolled in the Irish Volunteer force, to secure and maintain the rights and liberties of all people in Ireland, without distinction of class, creed, or politics."
I am sure the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin is not surprised at the existence of this National Volunteer force.
:I am delighted at it.
:I have recently spent some days in Ulster—I have just got back —and I had opportunities of conversing with people of all kinds belonging to all the different walks in life, and one thing brought home to me very much indeed is the genius the Irish people have, not only for hating but for admiring each other. The recent gun-running expedition by Ulster Volunteers excited almost as much admiration amongst the Roman Catholic Nationalists as it did even in the highest councils of the Ulster Volunteers. There are a great many people, I find, strongly opposed to Home Rule who also entertain, I will not say a sneaking, but a really genuine feeling of pride in the fact that amongst the Irish National Volunteers are so many old soldiers ready for action, and so many of the very finest and best of the young men in the South and West of Ireland. I should not be surprised if some day the feeling of hope arose on both sides that once again we shall see in Ulster, as was seen once before, a united Ireland. Of necessity this movement adds to the Sanger of the situation. Discipline is an excellent thing. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are the last persons to decry it. I have always been told, and I think there is a great deal of truth in it, that it is not a bad thing for a grown-up man to be able to use firearms. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has been preaching in his own part of the world, and I do not see why he need be ashamed or afraid of the doctrines being applied all round. Discipline among men under proper leadership does not necessarily lead to the committal of offences against the law. At the present time—and this is one element in the case—there is less disturbance of the public peace—there is more regard paid to the ordinary operation of the law in those parts of the country where these forces exist than in other parts of Ireland. At the present moment I do not think it is a danger, but the discipline, which restrains for a time, makes a force all the more dangerous when fighting actually begins.
But I am full of hope, at the present time, that self-respect may spring even out of these somewhat strange methods, and that it may still be found possible—I hope and pray it may—to find a solution of our difficulties. I am quite sure we should not do well or wisely to travel the path which we are invited to enter upon by the Noble Lord, and which we are sometimes urged to travel by Friends of our own behind us. Our present course may be a difficult one—it exposes us to criticism. [An HON. MEMBER: "And ridicule!"] Yes, and ridicule. [An Hon. MEMBER "And to contempt!"] But who is it despises us? I agree we have adopted a course which exposes us to a criticism, which I am willing to admit in certain moods it is hard to bear. None the less, I believe we have adopted the wisest and most prudent course, and the only thing is, at the last moment, having had the courage in the beginning of our movement, to have courage to the end, and continue the path on which we have already travelled so far. Our object is to secure to the Irish people responsibility for the conduct of their own affairs, and in that I believe we shall find a solution of our difficulties.
:I think it would be difficult to imagine any subject which more completely deserves to be described as one of urgent importance than that which we are discussing on the Motion of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil). But if anything could make us feel more strongly than we did before how urgent it is, it is the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. My Noble Friend pointed out what is true, literally true, that in Ireland to-day the British Government does not govern, and that there is the beginning of anarchy which may break out at any moment, and the only contribution which the right hon. Gentleman makes is to admit the anarchy, and to give a long dissertation to show how difficult it is to meet so far as he is concerned, and how impossible it is to do anything in regard to it at all. I think that the members of Governments and the supporters of Governments claim for themselves many virtues, but I did not think that we should ever hear any Member of that bench claim for his Government the peculiar virtue to which the right hon. Gentleman referred at the close of his speech, the virtue of courage. If he had claimed for them the great merit of passive submission, if he had claimed for them the additional merit of great tenacity, especially when sick, those are virtues which one would readily accord to them. I must say that although the right hon. Gentleman occupies, what at this moment is next to that of the Head of the Government, The most important office in the Government, and although I believe, quite sincerely, that he does still hope for some outlet from all our troubles, I am convinced that he does not realise even yet how serious his troubles are, and that if any outlet comes it will be, thanks to some accident over which neither he nor his Government have any control.
A great deal has been said about the responsibility for what has occurred. I shall deal with that to some extent before I sit down, but I should have thought that anyone, even the most strong partisan, would realise that if it is admitted, and as he said, that when the right hon. Gentleman took office, Ireland was more peaceful and prosperous than she had been for six hundred years, and if now she is on the verge, if not actually in the midst, of anarchy—'[Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—one would have thought, whatever responsibility might rest upon other people, that the Government whose duty it is to govern must have the chief share in that responsibility. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why"] What is the position? As my Noble Friend has pointed out, there is in Ulster a great army, admittedly a powerful army, thoroughly organised and now completely armed—[An HON. MEMBER: "How?"]—and that that army has been formed—openly and avowedly formed—for the express purpose of resisting by arms submission to a Dublin Parliament, which has been, and, I suppose, is to a certain extent still, the professed policy of His Majesty's Government, and it therefore has been openly and avowedly formed for the express purpose of resisting by force the Government of the day in this country.
:With your acquiescence?
:With my acquiescence. And since the hon. Gentleman raises that point I will, perhaps, say a word about it later. That is one of the situations in Ireland. But another army has also arisen or is arising. I am certainly not going to imitate the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to Ulster. I agree with every word that was said by my Noble Friend. We have found that these men in the south and west, to the advantage of the Empire, make as good soldiers as are to be found anywhere in the world. I should be the last to under-estimate the seriousness of the creation of this new force. But what the right hon. Gentleman does not realise —he spoke as if it were almost an auxiliary of the Government and of assistance to the Government—is that that army is being created just as clearly, and almost as openly, for the express purpose of resisting the Government of the day in this country. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is undoubtedly their object. [Hon. MEMBERS:"No!"] Perhaps, if hon. Gentlemen will allow me to finish what I was going to say on the subject, they will agree with me. I have read all the speeches of those who are responsible for it which have appeared in the English newspapers, and admittedly the object of that army is to prevent some future Government from making any change in what they Can extract from the present Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] It is therefore being formed for the purpose of resisting a Government which will arise in this country. [Hon. MEMBERS: Following your example!"] I will deal with that. It is admitted that it is formed for the purpose of resisting the Government of this country in certain eventualities. That is not denied.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) himself, before the National Volunteers were created, said that should there be a change of Government as the result of an election after Home Rule had been given, they would make it utterly impossible for that Government to make any alteration in the situation which had been created. In other words, even without the Volunteers, he announced in advance that he would make the Government of Ireland intolerable, even if the people of this country clearly declared that it was against their will that the present state of things had been brought about. That is admitted. And it is to help that purpose that the National Volunteers have been created. There you have the fact of two armies in Ireland, both of them existing avowedly for the purpose of resisting the British Government. What are we to make of a situation like that? The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that my Noble Friend expressed any approval of what Lord Haldane said. I rather think he regarded it as almost worse than anything that has yet been done by any Leader of the Government, so far as words go. Lord Haldane said:— tinued for the last two years and more. They will drift, waiting on the course of events, with only one fixed principle—only one—that at all costs they will retain—[Interruption, and an HON. MEMBER: "The same old tale "]—it is the same old tale, but it is none the less true—that at all costs they will retain their majority in this House, and, as there is only one means of retaining their majority, that means that their one fixed principle is that whenever they have any policy of their own—and they occasionally have one— they will give it up the moment they find it is in conflict with the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Like my Noble Friend, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the men of blood and iron represented by the hon. Members opposite, of whom I think there are four—I think that was the number who rose this afternoon to support the opportunity of ventilating the views which they have been holding meetings in the country to support. What is the line that they have taken in their speeches? It is, so far as I can gather, that the Government in allowing grossly illegal things to go on without making any attempt to put them down, are creating a situation of anarchy and are showing themselves unable to conduct the Government of this country. That I should say was their real view. Surely, what they mean is that the Government are bound either to assert the law, or if they have not the power to do that, to take the one course which always excites laughter on the Benches opposite, which is to get from the people the moral authority which prevents them now from carrying out the plain duty to the country. The right hon. Gentleman dealt at great length with the legal difficulties of proving that something illegal had been done. Of all the trivial ideas which I have ever heard expressed by a responsible man, that seems to be the worst. Here my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) for two years has declared perfectly openly what his intention is, and more than that he has over and over again challenged the Government to test it and to put him down if they dared.
:Has he broken the law?
:Is it not perfectly obvious that any organisation which openly and avowedly is created with the intention of resisting the Government is a challenge to which no strong Government could for a moment submit? That is surely clear. Why have the Government not put them down? Everyone knows the reason. It is because they know that the people of this country are not behind them, because they know that they never received the authority for what they are doing, and that they dare not submit the issue to the judgment of the people. Does anyone doubt that? [Hon. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I have difficulty in believing it. If I am not right, why do they not put it to the test? Does anyone credit them with disliking elections if they are confident of the result? They had two of them in one year in 1910. [Cheers.] I never knew, and I doubt if the hon. Members who are cheering knew why they held the second unless it was for this reason, that they thought, and were mistaken, that their majority would be increased. If there was reason for two elections, then surely there is a much stronger reason for an election now! The Prime Minister himself has said in this House that this Bill of his, if it goes through as it is, will mean civil war in Ireland.
:should like my exact words quoted.
:The right hon. Gentleman will find them in the speech on the Address "would excite civil strife," if he prefers that to civil war. Surely he himself would be the first to admit that they have no right to pursue a course like this unless they are absolutely certain that they have the people behind them! If they have, they will lose nothing whatever by testing it. Then why do they not do it? It is because they know that the people are not behind them, because they know that their one chance of carrying this Bill and fulfilling the bargain with hon. Members below the Gangway was by the apathy of the people of this country. They did not dare, therefore, to interfere with the organisation in Ulster, because they knew that the moment they did it there would be a collision in Ulster. The people of this country would see that their message of peace meant something very much the reverse of peace in Ulster. There would then inevitably be an election, and that would be the end, both of the Home Rule Bill and of them. That is the reason, and the sole reason, in my belief, why they have not got the moral authority which would have justified them in enforcing the law. The hon. Gentle- man (Sir W. Byles) spoke of my supporting the Ulster Unionists. I admit it, and I have never denied that it was a very grave and serious thing to do. I have always said so. What has happened is not a surprise to any of us. You cannot in this or any other country find that a Government is deflected from their course by the knowledge that they will be resisted by force, after they have refused to listen to all appeals on the ground of reason—you cannot let that happen without shaking the very foundations on which our social system depends. There is no doubt about that. Whose is the responsibility? Hon. Members opposite imagine that because a Government is de facto a Government they have absolute power, that they can do anything they like, and have a right to demand the passive obedience of all citizens. They are mistaken. A Government has got power, but it has also responsibilities and limitations, and if it exceeds the powers which have been entrusted to it by the people, if they make themselves dictators and are prepared, as this Government has been prepared, to submit to any ignominy, to allow their country to run to the very verge at least of the greatest calamity rather than face the people—a Government of that kind has lost the right to the obedience of the citizens of this country.
Of course, hon. Members opposite all know that there have been occasions when Governments with at least as strong a legal right as this Government have been successfully resisted. It all depends on whether or not they are making a demand on the citizens which they have no right to make. Take the position of Ulster. I have always held that the wrong that was proposed to be inflicted upon them was far greater than that which caused the revolt of our American Colonies, and it has this difference, which I admit at once that, at all events in the case of the American War of Independence, the people of this country and the Parliament were behind the Government. Now I do not think there is anyone who will deny that the Ulster people have the right to Say, and with some justice at all events, that this wrong is being inflicted upon them, not by their fellow citizens, but by a Government which is afraid to appeal to their fellow citizens on the issue. More than that, the Government themselves have admitted that Ulster has secured by this means claims to which Ulster was entitled, and which she would never have received by any other means. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, they have. The First Lord of the Admiralty, who is not present, has told us—and so has the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—that his colleagues have the freest hand. I do not think he would have made this statement without some authority. He said that not only he but all his principal colleagues had always recognised that Ulster had claims to special treatment. They have always recognised it, and yet for two years, in this House and out of it, every time Ulster brought forward these claims they denied them. [An HON. MEMBER:"] There are safeguards, for the minority."] There are safeguards, but really I hope I have not been so confused as to justify that interruption. I do not deny that the Government have pretended that there would be safeguards for the minority. What they say is that Ulster, as Ulster, is entitled to special claims, and from the beginning to the end of the discussions on this Bill they have denied them. They admit these claims, they admit the justice of them now. They admit on every occasion that Ulster has claims which they now say are just, but which never have been given to them up to the present time.
As regards the Unionist party, what could we do? We really believe—it is not a question, I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite, of any doubt in our minds—we really believe that the Government were trying to enforce this injustice on Ulster against the will of the people of this country. That is our belief. We never said that we would support them if the people of this country decided against us. [An HON. MEMBER: "Carson did."] I was speaking of the British Unionist party. I quite admit that Ulster has a case of her own, and is entitled to take action of her own, but I am talking of the action of the British Unionist party, and I say that from the first I have declared that if the Government got the sanction of the people of this country—and I have been supported by Lord Lansdowne and other Leaders of the party—if they got the sanction of the people of this country, we would not support resistance in Ulster. Honestly believing that the Government were perpetrating this great wrong against the will of the people of this country, could we allow it to be done without doing anything in our power to put a stop to it? I think not. And I am sure of this, that when the opportunity is given it will be found that, in whatever else the British electors disagree with us, they do not disagree with us about the coercion of Ulster. Really, it is very strange that hon. Gentlemen opposite can honestly take a different view. Take the declarations of the Prime Minister himself. He said that they were not entitled to carry a Bill under the Parliament Act unless they had, not only the support of the majority in this House, but the stable support of the constituencies. Well, he is the judge of the stable support, very evidently, because I would challenge the right hon. Gentleman, or any one else who speaks in this House or out of it, to point to any period in our Parliamentary history where any Government has lost so many seats in so short a time. [Indications of dissent.] I challenge them to produce any other case where a Government has lost so many seats in so short a time. [An HON. MEMBER: " In 1904–5."] The hon. Gentleman says in 1904–5. I knew about it then, and I suffered by it. We lost in two years ten seats. In two years they have lost eleven seats. [An HON. MEMBER: " Not on Home Rule."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are welcome to any comfort they can get. At any rate, the successful candidates were opposed to the Government, and whatever the Liberal candidates may have thought of Home Rule, they did not say much about it. Really, that is not a matter to be argued about. What is the position of a Cabinet Minister now, whom we cannot find? He is a Cabinet Minister whose duties make it specially necessary that he should be in this House. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Question."]
:On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in referring, on the Motion before the House, to the question he is now discussing?
:It forms part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument to show that the Government has not the support of the country because the Cabinet Minister in question is not able to find a seat. I admit that I think that we are getting a little away from the question. The right hon. Gentleman should have full right of argument, and I do not think I am called upon to call him to order for irrelevance.
:You, Sir, have expressed my exact argument. The Government have not the support of the country, and they know it, because they cannot find a seat for one of their own colleagues. [Interruption.] Perhaps they [the Nationalists] might provide him with one. Of course, he would have to take the Nationalist pledge—
:What has this to do with the Volunteers?
:Of course, he would have to take the Nationalist pledge, but that should not be difficult for a Member of the Government who obeys the Nationalist bidding. The position is drifting. It is perfectly evident that the Government are doing nothing to meet it. As my Noble Friend said, they have allowed us to drift into such a situation that I confess I do not see much prospect of getting out of it without a disaster of some kind. What course do they mean to take? I am sure that I do not know, but I am told that to-day in another place—and this is a sample of their drifting—Lord Crewe said that during the Recess there had been communications between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend. If he made such a statement I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me that it ought not to have been made if he suggested that there had been some communication in regard to the situation, for there has been none. The Government are still drifting, and what they will do—
:I would like to say that there were communications which passed between my right hon. Friend and myself, but they were perfectly private, and they had nothing whatever to do with the matter which we are discussing.
:I was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would support my contention. Lord Crewe's remarks suggested that there had been some communication in regard to this matter, and there has been none. [An HON. MEMBER: " That is a good point! "] If the Government are really in earnest, their course, I think, ought to be plain. They have promised an amending Bill, which admits that some special terms must be given to Ulster. If they will produce a Bill "which meets the fair demands of Ulster, hen I think that we shall avoid the worst of the evils which lie in front of it. But, in any case, if they would have the courage to have a policy of their own, and to stick to that policy, and to put it before this House and the country, then in that way, and in that way alone, can they avoid the evil which they have brought upon the country.
10.0 P.M.
:The Noble Lord who moved the Adjournment is disturbed in mind and conscience by the phenomenon of the sudden rising of the Irish Volunteers. Is it not a strange thing, and must it not exercise the minds of his own colleagues on the benches above the Gangway, that for two years he and all his colleagues watched the growth, the much slower and forced growth, of the Ulster Volunteers without any compunction or any disturbance of mind? And not only did they watch without any disturbance of mind the growth of the Ulster Volunteers, but that in droves they went over to Ulster and subscribed their money generously to bring that force into existence. How can the Noble Lord or any Member on the benches here come forward and call upon the Government now to take vigorous action against the National Volunteers who have risen spontaneously, who have not come into existence by the stimulus of Conservative money from this country, but as the responsible leaders of this movement have frequently stated, have come into existence for purely defensive purposes and not for aggressive purposes, and with no intention of attacking the Volunteers of Ulster, unless the Ulster Volunteers take the initiative. And it has been stated at almost every meeting of the National Volunteers, that they do not entertain any spirit of aggression towards the Volunteers of Ulster, nor do they expect that the Volunteers of Ulster will attack them. And personally, I may say that I do not expect that there will be any collision between the forces.
The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition in his very eloquent speech, which was a Second Reading speech on the Home Rule Bill, as throughout the whole length of the speech there was no reference whatever to the Motion 0before the Chair, described the state of Ireland to-day as one of chaos. What a reproach to the Government of Ireland to this country for the last 114 years! Ireland is more peaceable and free from crime, disorder, and riot to-day than it has been at any period during the last 114 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I could tell hon. Members why. I do not think that the sense of discipline of both bodies of Volunteers, in the present condition of Ireland, does contribute to chaos. I think that it has had the opposite effect; and I am told that now bodies of National and Ulster Volunteers meet each other sometimes in Enniskillen, Omagh and different parts of the North, and salute each other when they are passing. In 1886, when the Home Rule Bill was defeated what was the result? There were no Volunteers in Ireland then, and there was no discipline on either side, and for three weeks the streets of Belfast literally ran red with blood during the Belfast riots to celebrate the victory of the Orange party.
I have noticed one other passage in the speech of the Noble Lord. In one respect he was generous and fair. He did not sneer at the personnel of the National Volunteers. In this one respect he had the generosity and the manliness to recognise that the material and personnel of the National Volunteers are fully as good as that of the Ulster Volunteers, or as that of any fighting man in any part of the world. That was a generous recognition. He then went on to say that the Irish Volunteers, as we call them, are not drilled and not organised or armed up to the standard of the Ulster Volunteers who have been at this work for two years, whereas the vast majority of our men have been at it for only six weeks, and it would not be reasonable to expect it. I say, from experience and observation, there are no men in the whole world to-day who are quicker to take up and accommodate themselves to military discipline than the Irish of the South of Ireland. Then the Noble Lord went on to say that the Volunteers of the South, and of Ulster too—because this talk of a homogeneous population in Ulster is nonsense, is the wildest nonsense; there is no corner of Ulster where there is a homogeneous population; Antrim and Down have their Volunteers, and I read the other day that 1,000 Nationalist Volunteers assembled in the very heart of Antrim—the Noble Lord said that the Volunteers of the South were very anxious to fight anybody, and particularly this country. No, that day has passed by, and those who have been denounced so long as the irreconcilable enemies of England can now enrol 150,000 Volunteers in Ireland who are prepared to maintain the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] That is received with ridicule on the Unionist Benches. The Irish Nationalists, who now seek to maintain the law, are an object of anathema, because the law, for the first time in the history of Ireland, is going to do justice to the liberties of the Irish people!
No; I say the Irish National Volunteers are not the armed body in Ireland who are anxious to fight this country. The men who are anxious to fight this country are the Ulster Volunteers. That they have proclaimed from the housetops for the last two years. They are anxious to be at your throats and to fight this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes; that is their own statement. On the contrary, the men of the South, who have enrolled themselves in this great body, are anxious to maintain the law. Some people—I am glad to say that I have little to complain of in the tone adopted towards the National Volunteers in the speeches to-night —have expressed doubt as to the extent of the discipline, arms and military efficiency which the Volunteers in the South have not yet been able to achieve. I frankly confess that I do not believe they are yet on a level in that respect with the Volunteers of Ulster. Look at the history of the two organisations. In Ulster the growth of the Volunteers was a very slow process; it grew up from above Down, and it was assisted by large financial subventions, and for a long time its growth was very slow. I admit now they are a very formidable body, and well armed; but the Volunteers in the South have sprung from the people. They had no incentive from outside of any sort. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about American dollars?"] I am not ashamed of American dollars, but in this case there were no American dollars. I consider it no reproach, not the slightest, to look for American dollars, but in this case there are no American dollars; it was a spontaneous movement which sprung from the people of Ireland, and what makes it still more striking is that it did not arise in response to any appeal from us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh?"] I know well the meaning of that laughter. I know that hon. Members above the Gangway have been nursed in the hope for the last week that the Irish Volunteers were going to turn upon this party and break our power, but as has often happened before, they have been very miserably disappointed. When the Irish Nationalists, following the example which had been so highly praised by great Statesmen in this country, enrol themselves in this great military body, and proceeded to drill, then the Noble Lord is disturbed. Why does he think that danger has only now arisen in Ireland? If there was danger before why did he not say so?
:I did.
:I would like very much to know, if the Noble Lord was so disturbed before, whether he ever remonstrated with his own Front Bench, whose money was in this movement, and who crossed ever to Ulster, nearly every man of them, to review the Ulster Volunteers, and to see the Ulstermen engaged in this movement? It is only now, when the Nationalists have entered upon this defensive movement, that we learn that the Noble Lord is disturbed. I do not know whether there is anything that I could say that will calm the Noble Lord's troubled soul, but in my opinion the action of the Nationalists, under great provocation, and after long restraint and patience, in engaging in this movement, has given great added security for peace in Ireland. I would be the last man in the world to say one single word implying that Ulstermen are cowards. I do not believe they are; I believe they are as good fighting men as are the men of the South, and I can pay them no higher tribute. But when they see a body of 250,000 Nationalists enrolled under arms, they would be much slower to break the peace. That is no reproach to them. That only goes to show that they are not only brave men, but that they are men of discretion.
I was greatly struck—and this is a thing which may be of interest to Members on both sides of the House—by reading in the "Times" newspaper the other day, an article by the famous war correspondent of that journal on this subject. He said that he had inspected or looked over the two bodies of rival forces in Ireland, and he was obliged to say that the Ulstermen were far better armed, better disciplined, and better led, because they had a good many officers trained in the British Army. I may tell you that we are getting lots of officers who have been in the British Army, and who are offering us their services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Of course, I mean ex-officers, and we have at this moment, I dare say, upwards of 1,000 first-rate non-commissioned officers actually engaged in drilling our men—officers who fought throughout the whole of the South African War, and of the Connaught Rangers and the Dublin Fusiliers, we have at least four or five hundred men, who have been in these regiments, enrolled as Volunteers in Dublin. What this correspondent further said was this, that while he must admit that the Ulster Volunteers were better drilled, better led, and better equipped, the Southern Volunteers were at least as good material, if not better; and then he went on to say that the real moral of the whole thing is that what the British Government after six years—or I think he said ten years—of effort, with all the resources of this vast Empire, had utterly failed to do in England, the Irish people, without money, and without Government, have done within six months. I must confess, that as an Irishman, I felt rather elated by that testimony of the military correspondent of the "Times."
What is the real moral to be drawn from this spectacle. For three years we have been assailed and we have almost sat silent, because it has been made a matter of reproach to these Benches that the Irish party has suddenly been paralysed and silenced. In fact, several times from those benches above the Gangway we were challenged to open our lips once more in the House. We have sat silent under the taunt that the Irish people had become indifferent to Home Rule, and all the professional politicians of Ireland, whose whole lives are proof of our sordid selfishness, according to the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, and who never came to this House for any other purpose but to serve our own pockets and earn salaries; we were told from those benches and from a hundred platforms in England that we were maintaining or endeavouring to maintain the flickering flame of Irish nationality in order to serve our sordid political careers. We made no appeal to the people of Ireland to repel those charges, and yet I say that in the whole history of nations in Europe there never has been a more splendid demonstration of national sentiment than the uprising of the Volunteers. Without the stimulus of large subscriptions, without the appeal of their own political leaders, without officers, it came from the heart of the people, and never again will it be possible for any man to hurl reproach at us that the Irish people are indifferent to their national ideal. This demonstration of national feeling has taken the Noble Lord and his colleagues somewhat by surprise. They are pained and they are disturbed. First of all, they thought, as they were told by the Press in London, and by the "Irish Times" in Dublin, that it really was a great national uprising against the leadership of the Member for Waterford and his party. That kept them quiet for about a week, and so long as that hope flickered in their hearts there was no adjournment of the House. Was it only yesterday that the National Volunteers sprang into existence, and why was not the adjournment of the House moved before the holidays or since the holidays. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not urgent!"] It was not urgent until Saturday's papers, and the "Times" of this morning said that there could be little doubt that the Member for Waterford would have his way. Then the National Volunteers, which had, mark you, been welcomed by the "Irish Times" in Dublin and been welcomed by the leaders of the Unionist party in Ulster and patted upon the back, had become a danger all of a sudden in a mysterious way which is perfectly inexplicable to anybody but an Irish Nationalist who knows his Ireland.
I know the history of my country, and the passions which lie hidden under the crust of Irish life. The National Volunteers and the Ulster Volunteers do create and have created a situation of the deepest and gravest character. I know well that it is a subject open to great controversy, and upon which great differences of opinion exist whether this Government ought not to have struck at the Ulster Volunteer movement in its infancy, and have put the hon. Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) on the plank bed as he put me. It would have been quite easy to do it. The Noble Lord wants it done. It would have been quite easy to do it by the instrument which he used against us—that is, the Crimes Act, which is still on the Statute Book, and can be brought into force by proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant. It could be done by packing juries, as was so often done against us. He put us on our trial before juries of our enemies; we could have done the same to him if we had not repealed the Arms Act of 1907———[An HON. MEMBER: "We?"] We asked for it; we called upon the Government to repeal it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I cannot understand those cheers. Was it ever denied? Hon. Members above the Gangway all denounced us for asking for the repeal of the Arms Act, and they denounced the Government for granting it. There is not an Orangeman in Ulster to-day who could carry a rifle if we had not repealed that Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "We would have done it!"] You would have been put in gaol, and very properly. I would address this observation to some hon. Members opposite who take a different view. While the question is open to the gravest possible doubt, as I fully admit, I have held the view from the beginning that it would not have been wise policy for a Government engaged in the great work of the political emancipation of a nation to embark on this career of coercion. I know and knew well all the difficulties and all the reproaches that the Government would have to face if they abstained from coercion. It is a difficult, and almost an unprecedented, course for a Government to take, and it is, as the Chief Secretary said, a courageous one. But with all its difficulties and dangers, it is the right course. We who have been through the mill know what the effect of coercion is. We know that you do not put down Irishmen by coercion. You simply embitter them and stiffen their backs.
While it would have been an easy thing at the beginning to seize the right hon. Gentleman, who broke the law, according to his own statement—though I am sorry sure that he, being a very skilful old criminal lawyer, did it very astutely— while it would have been easy, using the machinery that he used so often, for the Government to put him, Lord Londonderry, and the rest of his accomplices into prison, it would not have conduced to the settlement of Ireland. I believe, in spite of all that has been said to-night, that the situation which has now arisen, and which will give cause for thought to many men above the Gangway who think of something wider than this mere dispute in Ulster, will conduce to the peaceful settlement of the Irish question. The existence of these armed forces in Ireland, which have arisen under the stimulus of the right hon. Gentleman and his confederates—for we did everything in our power and faced a good deal to carry this movement through to the end on strictly peaceful and constitutional lines until he made it impossible—I say that that situation will cause people in Ireland and in this country to think. It has already shaken this Empire to its foundations. The state of things in Ireland is not confined to Ireland. Do hon. Members imagine for a single moment that the lessons which they have been teaching Ireland have been lost upon the people of India, and Egypt, and other possessions of the Crown? It will take many a long day to wipe them out; in fact, the lessons that have been taught from the Front Bench on this side, never will be wiped out of the minds of the people of India. I say that the condition of things that has arisen in Ireland is such that if there was an election to-morrow, and if hon. Members on this side above the Gangway came back with a majority, they could do nothing but proceed to settle this question on the lines of Irish freedom.
:I found it impossible to listen to the impassioned words of the speaker who has just addressed the House without deep emotion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, because I have known him for many years, and I have taken an intimate part for many years in the struggle in which he has been engaged. I have seen him dragged into the Law Courts in his own country, in prison dress, and I have seen the right hon. Gentleman who has just left the House (Sir E. Carson) pleading against him. I have visited his colleagues in prison, and I know the struggles they have gone through. When I see him stand up here in the very moment of victory——— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, do hon. Members think that the Ulster Volunteers are going to deprive ns of victory? Some of you must know well enough that it is coming. All honour then to that colleague—and others in this House—when he stands up and proclaims the noble and undying spirit of Irish nationality. Some of the speakers have thought it while to make personal reference to myself. I wish to deal with them in a sentence or two. For my part I cannot understand where the myth has grown up in this House that I am a bloodthirsty ruffian. The Noble Lord in words, and in words which he obviously seriously meant, said "that I wanted to shoot down the Ulster rebels." I do not know where he gets that from.
:From yourself.
:I have only humbly asked a question or two of the Government as to what they were going to do to vindicate the law. I would not kill a fly, but if I could deliver Ulster from bloodshed, if I could bring peace to bear instead of the sword, if I could put an end to this dangerous rebellion, even by the military execution of one of the rebels, I would consent. We have heard talk of the frivolity of the Radical party in this matter. I do not want to treat the subject of this Debate in any frivolous spirit. I entirely agree that the situation in Ireland is serious enough. I confess that I cannot help but see the humour of the situation as brought about this evening in the alarming picture painted of the state of things in Ireland, by the appearance of the second army. I am treating the matter in a serious spirit, and the most serious thing of all seems to me to be what is said and avowed, over and over again, by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of a great historic Constitutional party in this country says the Gentlemen sitting around and behind him have deliberately organised an armed rebellion to resist the armed forces of the Crown, and on purpose to prevent the laws of Parliament and the laws sanctioned by the people———[HON. MEMBERs: "No, no!"]—Well, as that is a disputed point, I am willing to allow it to pass at this moment—but, to resist, I will say, the law which is the embodiment of the sentiments of the majority of this country for twenty years. The right hon. Gentleman says his colleagues behind him and around him have been deliberately organising armed forces to resist the laws of Parliament, and that he acquiesces in it. That, to my mind, is far the most serious aspect of this problem. We have been told we are putting Home Rule through by force. By what force? We are putting it through against force which has been organised; we are putting it through by the vote of the people, by immense majorities in this House, and we are putting it through in the most constitutional manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] We have had to pass an Act of Parliament through this House, and through the other House, where it was read a first, second, and third time, and received the sign manual of the monarch, in order that we might be able to put into law a great reform, which we believe is going to reconcile the two peoples of these islands; they have never been reconciled since you enacted what you call the Act of Union. They will be reconciled now because this will be a real Act of Union.
Again, let me say, I did not rise to argue this matter. I am provoked into it by the interruptions of my opponents. I want really to address a serious word, if I may, to the Government which I have supported with, I think, as much fidelity as anyone of their supporters. I say that every one in this land wants to know what the Government is going to do. Let us see what the people are witnessing in the country. A number of pious Protestants in Ulster, who are lawless, openly and boastfully lawless! A number of men who are rebellious and who are boasting that their rebellion is the truest loyalty. A number of women, who are burning churches and smashing pictures in order that they may qualify for the constitutional rights of citizenship! And what the country wants to be assured about is that the Government of this land has this matter in hand, and that it is able, and intends, to vindicate the law. After all, this is a law-abiding nation, and people are shocked when they find the law openly and flagrantly violated. They look to the Government for its vindication. I can only stand by and admire the infinite patience of the Prime Minister, who I believe is abstaining from that which he would otherwise feel to be his duty in the longing, lingering hope that peace may be obtained, and some olive branch be offered by the other side. But is it not possible to carry that forbearance too far? If the Government wishes to establish its power and strength and influence, if it desires to strengthen those forces which hold it in being, it must show, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that it can govern, that it can deal with lawlessness, that it is determined and able to enforce the law, that the forces of the Crown behind the Government are adequate to enforce it, and that they do undoubtedly control all those forces by which alone they can maintain order.
:It is impossible to conceive a more farcical Motion being brought forward by a prominent Member of a party which has aided and abetted and organised an armed force in Ulster, and to do this must require a measure of hypocrisy which would make even the spirit of the Noble Lord quail. Of what is it the Opposition complain? They complain that there are two Volunteer Forces in Ireland. They never complained before when there was only one, and they merely complain now that the Nationalists have got a Volunteer Force. I think the Government are greatly to blame for this. Their policy of allowing the Ulster Volunteers to continue unchecked has produced this very grave result. At the same lime, it is impossible to absolve the Opposition of their share of blame, for whenever the Prime Minister has made any suggestion, or offered conciliaton, it is the Leaders of the Opposition who have claimed the right of armed opposition in Ulster. Is it unnatural after that that the Nationalists should claim to adopt the same method? What is it that the Opposition wish the Government to do? Do they claim that the Government have no right to put down the Ulster Volunteers, but that they have a mandate to put down the National Volunteers? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If that is their point— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Do they want the Government to put down the National Volunteers? If they do, what course do they wish the Government to pursue? Supposing the civil forces of the Crown are inadequate do they wish them to put the Army in motion? And if the Army is put in motion, does the Leader of the Opposition wish the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister for War, to put a catechism to every officer and private soldier as to whether he wishes to serve with this force or not? I myself have, as I have already asserted, been strongly in favour of the Government taking action against all these lawless organisations. The Noble Lord said that I wish thousands of my fellow countrymen to be shot down. I do not know from where he got his information, but either he cannot have read anything I have said, for which I do not blame him, or else he must be deliberately misrepresenting me. All I have wanted the Government to do is to take legal proceedings. The Prime Minister himself has said it is a grave and unprecedented outrage; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) has admitted in a speech that it is a breach of the law; and the Lord Chancellor has said that it is an illegal act. Is it wrong then for a private Member to ask the Government to take action against this illegal act?
The maintenance of law and order, the administration of the law, should not depend on political expediency. It should go on regardless of policy and regardless of party; and we are called bloodthirsty — I suppose that it is only mere political banter — because we wish this to be done! How are we bloodthirsty? The only way blood can be shed in this matter is by Ulstermen resisting with armed force. Is it to be the new creed of government that you are not to take proceedings against armed force? Are labour organisers and strike leaders to go down to their followers and say at the next strike, "You will not be touched if you are armed?" We remember the Debates which followed and how the hon. Member for the City of London complained, not that troops had been sent down, but that they had not been sent down soon enough. That is a lesson that you have taught them. I think that we on this side have every right to complain of the speeches made by some Members of the Government. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill) goes up to Bradford and makes an exceedingly fine speech in which he claims that the law should be enforced, and then he comes down to this House and, on a vote of censure on the Government, he promptly veers round and makes an offer. We never know what he is going to say next. It adds zest when one opens one's morning newspaper, but it is rather disconcerting to the supporters of the Government. He is, in fact, the most perfect example of the human palimpsest extant. I think the speech of the Lord Chancellor a few days ago, in which he cajoled and flattered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, and praised his moderation after having, in a previous sentence, accused him of committing an illegality, was an outrage. It has been my lot to disagree with one or two Liberal Lord Chancellors; in fact, their speeches are sometimes so difficult for me to agree with, that I think King James, when he flung the Great Seal into the Thames, was doing more for law and order than people dreamt of. I do feel very seriously about this matter. It is a difficult question in connection with Home Rule, and I think the time will very soon come when we shall forget all about Ireland, the precedent set there, and the results which followed those precedents. It seems to me it will be impossible to enforce law and order in this country at all. It will be impossible for those who support the policy of force advocated by Ulstermen—and I am sorry to say also by Nationalists now—to claim any moral right to ask of the Executive Council, in future times of disorder, any protection for their property. They will countenance the appeal to force, and they must be prepared always to be dealt with in the same way. I sincerely hope the Government will move, and will show what some of my hon. Friends and I have been anticipating, that the law is to be administered without any respect for persons. If they fail to do that, they will have done more harm to the Liberal party than hon. Members opposite can ever do.
:It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken indulged in many false analogies as to the use of force. It is an extra-ordinary proposition for him to lay down that because we may say that a certain section of our population are justified in using force to resist pressure, therefore the use of force to maintain law and order in all parts of the country is quite impossible, I can see no connection whatever between the two arguments, nor, indeed is there, or can there be, any connection at all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite always speak as if we thought the raising of the Ulster Volunteers was in itself a desirable thing. They always speak in these Debates as if on its merits we approved—apart from anything else—the raising of what is admitted to be an illegal force. But that is not the way in which we look at it. We look on it as an evil, but as distinctly a lesser evil, than the population of Ulster being forced under a Government which it detests. Our reason for this Motion to-night—our reason for calling attention to the raising of the National Volunteer Force—is because this is a further evil in the chain of evils, all starting from the fundamental basic fact of the Government's proposed tyranny over Ulster. That is the situation from which the Government cannot get away. We do not say that it will not have disastrous consequences; we do not contend for one moment that the drilling of the two armies of Ulster is not a deplorable thing within these islands. It is deplorable. I agree with every word the hon. Member said on that branch of the subject. What we have to look at is the fundamental fact of the whole situation, namely, whether or not Ulster could have done anything else, and whether or not, if she had submitted without doing this, a greater evil would not have been done to the fundamental rights of everyone under the British flag. I am amazed at the defence of the Government. The Chief Secretary for Ireland gets up and says, "Well, after all, what could we do? We know the position is very unfortunate, but we do not see what steps we could have taken."
:I said nothing of the kind.
:I do not think I am inaccurate in saying that is a summary of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, although I am afraid I cannot emulate his phraseology—I wish I could. I am not stating his argument unfairly when I say it is practically, "What else could we do other than we have done?" The real reason the Government have acted as they have done is because they were afraid to act otherwise. They were afraid from the very start. Why did they not arrest the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) in the early stages of this movement?
:Had he broken the law?
:I say "Yes, certainly." I think he, himself, has admitted on many occasions in Debate that his action had been contrary to the law, and that he has challenged the Government to arrest him. Why did they not do so? Because they were afraid that if they did it would have created such alarm in Ulster that they would be driven from office by the indignant voices of the population of this country. What did they do? They tried to laugh the matter off. They declared that the Ulster Volunteers were pretending. On every platform in the country they said they were only drilling with wooden guns and that the movement was all bluff. They knew as well as we did that it was not bluff. They knew very well what was behind the wooden guns. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wooden heads!"] It was because they were afraid of what would happen if they took the step they knew they ought to take that they tried to pretend to the people of this country that it was bluff and there was nothing in the movement. We are face to face with a situation which, although the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) may think it is satisfactory, is a most serious one, for you have two armed forces opposed to each other in Ireland. The
hon. Member for East Mayo seemed to think that the existence of this new national force will tend to promote peace. If that is so, then the character of Irishmen must be changed. The whole of Irish history points to the fact, that when there have been two armed forces in that country it is very rarely that they have parted without fighting. For the whole of this situation we have to thank the Government. We have to thank them for their intended tyranny in the first instance, and for their cowardice in the second.
:I think on both sides of the House it must be patent to everyone that very seldom has the House occupied a more humiliating position than it does at present. We find ourselves face to face with two forces in Ireland, and by the admission of both sides we are unable to deal with either of them. I think it is a case of masterly inactivity being the wisest course to pursue. The hon. Member (Mr. Primrose) has advocated that legal proceedings should be taken. I cannot help thinking that would lead eventually to riot and possibly to bloodshed. I look on the fact of possible bloodshed as being of the gravest consequence to the Empire, and, though I deprecate the varied moods of the Government, at present I think their attitude of masterly inactivity is the only one which they can favour in the humiliating position in which they find themselves. But what is the moral to be derived from it? It is that this dangerous situation ought to be brought to an end as quickly as possible. How can it be brought to an end? The very fact of the extreme danger ought to bring the Leaders of both political parties more or less together in the interests of the Empire as a whole. That is the course that statesmanship would suggest. The country demands that it is the duty of the Government to call together the party Leaders to put an end to a situation full of danger and menace to the future of the Empire.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put.
The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 288.
Division No. 124.] AYES. [10.56 p.m. Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Astor, Waldorf Barnston, Harry Aitken, Sir William Max Baldwin, Stanley Barrie, H. T. Amery, L. C. M. S. Balfour. Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond) Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Clone. E.) Anstruther-Gray, Major William Banbury, Sir Frederick George Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Archer-Shee, Major Martin Barfng, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Ashley, Wilfrid W, Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Beckett, Hon. Gervase Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Paget, Almeric Hugh Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Bennett-Goldney, Francis Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Parkes, Ebenezer Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Haddock, George Bahr Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. Beresford, Lord Charles Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Perkins, Walter Frank Bigland, Alfred Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Pole-Carew, Sir R. Bird, Alfred Hall, Marshall, (Liverpool, E. Toxteth) Pollock, Ernest Murray Blair, Reginald Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Pretyman, Ernest George Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Bowden, G. R. Harland Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Quilter, Sir William Eley C. Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Harris, Henry Percy Randies, Sir John S. Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Ratcliff, R. F. Bridgeman, William Clive Helmsley, Viscount Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Bull, Sir William James Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Rawson, Colonel Richard H. Burdett-Coutts, W. Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo. Han. Sq.) Rees, Sir J. D. Burgoyne, Alan Hughes Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) hemnant, James Farquharson Butcher, John George Hewins, William Albert Samuel Ronaldshay, Earl of Campion, W. R. Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Rothschild, Lionel de Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Royds, Edmund Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Hills, John Waller Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen) Cassel, Felix Hoare, S. J. G. Salter, Arthur Clavell Castlereagh, Viscount Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Cator, John Hope, Harry (Bute) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) Cautley, Henry Strother Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Sanders, Robert Arthur Cave, George Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Sanderson, Lancelot Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Horne, Edgar Sandys, G. J. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Horner, Andrew Long Sassoon, Sir Philip Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Houston, Robert Paterson Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Hume-Williams, William Ellis Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.,E.) Hunt, Rowland Smith, Rt Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton) Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Ingleby, Holcombe Smith, Harold (Warrington) Clive, Captain Percy Archer Jackson, Sir John Spear, Sir John Ward Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Stanier, Beville Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) Courthope, George Loyd Kerry, Earl of Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Starkey, John Ralph Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Kyffin-Taylor, G. Steel-Maitland, A. D. Craik, Sir Henry Lane-Fox, G. R. Stewart, Gershom Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Larmor, Sir J. Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) Croft, Henry Page Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Currie, George W. Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North) Dairymple, Viscount Lee, Arthur Hamilton Thynne, Lord Alexander Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Lewisham, Viscount Tickler, T. G. Denison-Pender, J. C. Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) Tobin, Alfred Aspinall Denniss, E. R. B. Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Touche, George Alexander Dixon, C. H. Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Tryon, Captain George Clement Du Cros, Arthur Philip Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Valentia, Viscount Duke, Henry Edward Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R. Wairond, Hon. Lionel Duncannon, Viscount Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Watson, Hon. W. Faber, George Denison (Clapham) MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Weston, Colonel J. W. Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) Mackinder, Halford J. Wheler, Granville C. H. Falle, Bertram Godfray M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport) Fell, Arthur M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Malcolm, Ian Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wills, Sir Gilbert Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Meysey-Thompson, E. Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Middlemore, John Throgmorton Wolmer, Viscount Fletcher, John Samuel Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) Forster, Henry William Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Wood, John (Stalybridge) Foster, Philip Staveley Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Worthington Evans, L. Ganzoni, Francis John C. Mount, William Arthur Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Neville, Reginald J. N. Wright, Henry Fitzherbert Gibbs, George Abraham Newton, Harry Kottingham Yate, Colonel C. E. Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. Nicholson, William (Petersfield) Yerburgh, Robert A. Goldman, Charles Sydney Nield, Herbert Younger, Sir George Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Goulding Edward Alfred Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Grant, James Augustus Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease. Gretton, John NOES. Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Booth, Frederick Handel Acland, Francis Dyke Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Bowerman, Charles W. Adamson, William Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Addison, Dr. Christopher Barnes, George N. Brady, Patrick Joseph Agnew, Sir George William Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) Brocklehurst, W. B. Ainsworth, John Stirling Beauchamp, Sir Edward Bryce, J. Annan Alden, Percy Benn, w. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Bentham, G. J. Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Bethel], Sir J. Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Byles, Sir William Pollard Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Black, Arthur W. Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Boland, John Pius Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)
Chancellor, Henry George Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Pointer, Joseph Chapple, Dr. William Allen Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Churchill, Rt. Hen. Winston S. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Pratt, J. W. Clancy, John Joseph Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Clough, William Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Clynes, John R. Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Jowett, Frederick William Pringle, William M. R. Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Keliaway, Frederick George Radford, George Heynes Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Kelly, Edward Raffan, Peter Wilson Condon, Thomas Joseph Kennedy, Vincent Paul Raphael, Sir Herbert H. Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kenyon, Barnet Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Cotton, William Francis Kilbride, Denis Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Cowan, W. H. King, Joseph Reddy, Michael Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Crooks, William Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Crumley, Patrick Lardner, James C. R. Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Cullinan, John Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Rendall, Athelstan Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Law, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Leach, Charles Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Levy, Sir Maurice Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Dawes, James Arthur Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) De Forest, Baron Lundon, Thomas Robinson, Sidney Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lyell, Charles Henry Roche, Augustine (Louth) Devlin, Joseph Lynch, Arthur Alfred Roe, Sir Thomas Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Rowlands, James Dillon, John McGhee, Richard Rowntree, Arnold Donelan, Captain A. Maclean, Donald Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Doris, William Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Duffy, William J. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Macpherson, James Ian Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Scanlan, Thomas Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) M'Callum, Sir John M. Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Elverston, Sir Harold McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Sheehy, David Essex, Sir Richard Walter M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Esslemont, George Birnie M'Micking, Major Gilbert Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) Falconer, James Manfield, Harry Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Farrell, James Patrick Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Snowden, Philip Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Marks, Sir George Croydon Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Ffrench, Peter Marshall, Arthur Harold Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Fitzgibbon, John Mason, David M. (Coventry) Sutherland, John E. Flavin, Michael Joseph Meagher, Michael Sutton, John E. France, Gerald Ashburner Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Taylor John W (Durham) Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Geider, Sir W. A. Middlebrook, William Tennant, Harold John George. Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Millar, James Duncan Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Gill, A. H. Molloy, Michael Thorne, William (West Ham) Gladstone, W. G. C. Montagu, Hon. E. S. Toulmin, Sir George Glanville, Harold James Mooney, John J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Morgan, George Hay Verney, Sir Harry Goldstone, Frank Morison, Hector Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) Greig, Colonel James William Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Walton, Sir Joseph Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Muldoon, John Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Murphy, Martin J. Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Needham, Christopher T. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Hackett, John Neilson, Francis Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Hancock, John George Nolan, Joseph Watt, Henry Anderson Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Norman, Sir Henry Webb, H. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Norton, Captain Cecil W. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) Hardie, J. Keir Nugent, Sir Walter Richard White, Patrick (Meath, North) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Nuttall, Harry Whitehouse, John Howard Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wiles, Thomas Hayward, Evan O'Doherty, Philip Wilkie, Alexander Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Donnell, Thomas Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) O'Dowd, John Williams, John (Glamorgan) Henry, Sir Charles O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) Hewart, Gordon O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) Higham, John Sharp O'Malley, William Wiliamson, Sir Archibald Hinds, John O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) Hodge, John O'Shee, James John Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) Hogge, James Myles O'Sullivan, Timothy Winfrey, Sir Richard Holmes. Daniel Turner Outhwaite, R. L. Wing, Thomas Edward Holt, Richard Durning Palmer, Godfrey Mark Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Parker, James (Halifax) Yeo, Alfred William Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Parry, Thomas H. Young, William (Perthshire, East) Hughes, Spencer Leigh Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Yoxall, Sir James Henry John, Edward Thomas Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Johnson, W. Phillips, John (Longford, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Jones. Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea) Pirie, Duncan Vernon Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Supply
Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates, 1914–15
Postponed Proceedings resumed on Question, proposed on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £144,027, 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 on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid." [Note.—£200,000 has been voted on account.]
Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £143,927, be granted for the said Service;" but it being Eleven o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Disappearance of Women and Girls (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Mr. Gulland. ]
:I rise to call attention to a subject of which I gave notice this day at Question Time, and on which I have frequently addressed questions to the Home Secretary. It is a subject which I think is of importance, and as to which all Members of this House and the public generally should be fully informed. I refer to the statistics connected with what is commonly known as the White Slave Traffic, and some weeks ago I asked the Home Secretary if he could let me have the table showing what number of women and girls were reported to the police as having disappeared during the last ten years. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion gave me this answer:—
"I have no information as regards the provinces. As regards the Metropolitan Police district, I gave the figures for twelve months in reply to a similar question on 12th July, 1912. To obtain the figures for ten years would involve an expenditure of time and labour which would seem to be out of proportion to any purpose which these figures would serve."
I venture to say at once that if women had got votes the right hon. Gentleman would not have made that answer to my question. To pretend that this question of women and girls disappearing in London is of such small importance that it is not worth while for his Department to look into the question, appears to be nothing short of a scandal. I turned to the reference which the right hon. Gentleman gave me, and I found that even that was not correct, and that it was 11th and not 12th July, and there I saw that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) asked the Secretary of State the same question in the year 1912. The right hon. Gentleman's reply was as follows:—
"During the last twelve months 1,118 girls between the ages of ten and sixteen were reported to the Metropolitan Police as missing. Of those 1,102 were traced. Two thousand six hundred and seventy-six. women of all ages above sixteen were reported as missing. Two thousand five hundred and forty-two of these were traced. Of the sixteen girls and 136 women who were not traced their absence is in many cases explainable for such reason as their having absconded to avoid paying debts, having quarrelled with friends and husbands, and. a large variety of other causes. One woman is known to have gone abroad with friends with whom she had been keeping company."
I would like to say at first that that answer is a very unsatisfactory one. There is no analysis of where the 2,000 women were traced to. The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but this is a very serious question, and one upon which public opinion has been very deeply stirred, and one about which public opinion is getting more convinced every day that the Home Office is not dealing with it in the manner in which it ought. I would point out that the Home Office here announce that last year 150 women and girls disappeared in London alone, and no trace was found of them at all. That appears to reveal a very serious state of affairs, and it is certainly worth while for two or three clerks at the Home Office to go into this matter, to give the House the real statistics, so that hon. Members can judge for themselves the real extent of this evil. I think that it will be generally admitted that during the Debates on what is known as the White Slave Traffic Bill the House was very ill-supplied with statistics and information on the subject, and, indeed, I should say it is a subject which requiries a great deal more light thrown on it. The whole administration of the Home Office and the police in this matter is suspect in the eyes of public opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] There is a strong feeling in many quarters that the authorities are not doing as much as they could under the existing law to protect women and girls in the country at the present moment. Whether that feeling is justified or not it is impossible for us to say unless and until we get proper and adequate statistics on the subject. I have simply asked the right hon. Gentleman to furnish the House with a few elementary figures on this point. At the same time I asked this question this afternoon, I also asked for a Return dealing with the accidents due to shot fire that occur in coal mines, and the right hon. Gentleman very courteously has given me a full Return which has been circulated with the Votes. I should like to contrast the way in which he is willing to give a full Return of accidents that occur to miners who have votes, and the way in which he treats the disappearance of women who have not got votes. It is absolutely characteristic of the manner in which the present Home Secretary habitually treats women, and, in fact, any body of subjects who come under the domain of his Department whose political power he does not fear. The loss of 150 women a year in London alone, is as bad as a colliery disaster every year.
:Are they all dead?
:In a good many cases we have reason to fear that what has happened to them is a good deal worse than death.
:Can you prove that?
:How can we prove it unless the right hon. Gentleman gives us the statistics for which we ask?
:Then why does the Noble Lord make that statement?
:For the same reason that this House passed the White Slave Traffic Bill. It is a well known fact that there are a number of women decoyed out of their family life into paths of degradation. What their number is we do not know. All I have asked for is a few more statistics on the question. I think the Home Office might have troubled to give statistics for a number of years, so that this House might have an opportunity of judging what the extent of the evil is. We are not willing to condemn before we have the facts before us. All we ask for are the facts, but the right hon. Gentleman has refused to give them.
:I do not blame the Noble Lord, who speaks from ignorance. He is quite unaware of the facts. He gave, as an illustration of my prejudice, the fact that I gave statistics in one case and refused to give them in another. I gave statistics of accidents in mines, whereas I refused statistics as to the disappearance of women all over the country. The Noble Lord is quite unaware of the fact that I am responsible in connection with mines, and statistics of accidents are, under an Act of Parliament, reported to the Home Office. Having the information, I was most willing to give it to the Noble Lord. I am not responsible for the administration of the police all over the country.
:I asked about London.
:I am stating the facts.
:You are misstating them.
:I am stating them correctly. I am not responsible for the police all over the country; I have not the statistics. The Noble Lord's question was not confined to London.
:Yes it was.
:Will the Noble Lord read his question?
:The right hon. Gentleman asks me to read my question, and I will read it to the House. My question was, "To ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newton?" That Return is put down on page 5 of the Order Paper as follows:—
"Disappearance of Women and Girls in London,—Address for Return showing the number of Women and Girls that were reported to the London police as having disappeared during every year of the last ten years; and how many of these in each year were traced?"
:As regards mining statistics, under an Act of Parliament I have authority to call for, and I do receive, statistics from all over the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us about London!"] I am making my reply in my own way and shall continue to do so. There is no duty to make returns laid upon the police in London or anywhere else by Act of Parliament. In consequence no returns are made year by year, and the facts are not kept in a form in which a Return could easily be made. It would require an investigation in every police station, and, for the period of time mentioned—ten years—the cost of a vast number of police sheets and a vast number of returns, and the result would give simply the number of figures precisely of the same kind and nature as those I gave for 1912. This is an evil which does not increase or decrease materially from year to year. We found that in the year 1912 there were upwards of 2,000 disappearances of women reported to the police in London. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or men!"] I did not ask for the men, or we should have had to investigate the police sheets at an equal expense and with equal difficulty.
:There are just as many men as women who disappear. It is most relevant to the point.
:We discovered that a vast proportion of the women who had disappeared were traced. The Noble Lord says that he has reason to suppose that the women and girls who were not traced, I think to the number of 136, had been decoyed away into an evil life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Some of them."]
:You are speaking till the hour for Adjournment.
:I am dealing with one Noble Lord, and the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) may twist and contort himself, but he will not take me away from my course. One Noble Lord keeps bobbing up after another; one interrupts in front, and another behind; all behave equally badly. Perhaps the Noble Lord opposite will restrain his impatience while I deal with the Noble Lord the Member for Newton. The Noble Lord the Member for Newton told us he has reason to believe that a considerable number of these women were decoyed away. We have no information of that sort. As I stated over and over again whilst the White Slave Traffic Bill, as it was called, was under discussion in this House the police had no evidence in support of that statement, and whatever evidence the Noble Lord may have had it has not been brought to my knowledge. Undoubtedly some women and girls have been decoyed away, but that many have been so decoyed away is not in accordance with the information in the possession of the police and is not true.
And, it being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at halt after Eleven o'clock