My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House a Question of which, I understand, he has received private notice—namely, whether, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister that we are face to face with the prorogation next week, he considers that this House will be prepared to get through the very large amount of contentious business indicated by the Government so as to enable the prorogation to take place at that date.

My Lords, I am happy to reply to the Question of the noble Lord, of which I have received a kind of vicarious notice. The noble Lord, I think, will see that it is very difficult to reply with any certainty to his question. Until we know what Amendments are put down to the two important Bills which the House will have under consideration next week, what the character of those Amendments is, and how long the discussion is likely to take upon them, it is very difficult to say whether the Prime Minister's forecast is likely to be fulfilled. My right hon. friend used these words, that the House might be face to face with the prorogation; but, of course, it is possible to be face to face with a thing and not to be in absolutely close approximation to it. We cannot, I think, altogether disregard the possibility of the House having to sit into the following week if it should turn out that Amendments are made in this House of a far-reaching character to either of the important Bills to which I have referred. More than that I cannot say at present.

My Lords, I think it is fortunate that the noble Earl has qualified the some what optimistic statement made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. The noble Earl has said, with great force, that it is quite impossible to predict with any approach to certainty that our business will be completed next week. I am afraid that even that, unless I greatly misapprehend the amount of work which lies before us, is a some what sanguine estimate. The noble Earl last night assumed that we would take the Second Reading of the Port of London Bill on Monday and the Second Reading of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill on Tuesday. That would leave us four days for the whole of the remaining stages of those two important measures, in which many of your Lordships take a great interest, for two or three other Bills which have yet to be disposed of, and, last but not least, for the discussion of Amendments which your Lordships have made in Bills that have already gone to the House of Commons and of Amendments which your Lordships may make in the Bills that have yet to come before us. To suppose that that amount of business could be forced through your Lordships' House in the compass of four days seems to me to be a really extravagant anticipation. I really rose because I think it is for the convenience of the House that noble Lords should be aware that, in our opinion, it will be absolutely necessary, unless some entirely new development takes place, that the House should sit on at least two days of the week following.

My Lords, I owe an apology to the House for asking your Lordships at this late period of the session to give a Second Reading to this Bill, but it is not altogether my fault. I got the Bill through the different departments concerned by the end of October, and I introduced it in your Lordships' House on 4th November. Since then I have given considerable time for examination of the measure by noble Lords opposite, and I am glad to say I shall be able to accept some verbal Amendments of which notice has been given. It is a consolidating Bill merely, and, to the best of my knowledge, contains no new matter. The Bill is generally asked for in Scotland, and I therefore respectfully ask the House, even at this late period of the session, to be good enough to give it a Second Reading.

My Lords, we are all very much obliged to the noble Earl for the time he has allowed for the examination of the Bill before asking us to give it a Second Reading. As a consolidation Bill this I will be a very useful measure; but there are in it two provisions differing from the existing law, the first being in Clause 6. As the law now stands, a tenant is required to make a claim for compensation before the termination of his tenancy; but, under the Bill, all that is required is that the tenant should give notice that he intends to make a claim. Your Lordships will see that there is a very substantial difference between those two things. The result might be that the claim would not be made until two or three years later. In this particular the Bill makes an alteration in the law, whereas our conception of a consolidating Bill is that it merely consolidates the law without making any charge whatever. Another point concerns the mode of arbitration to be followed under the Bill, as to which I should like some explanation. Your Lordships will remember that the Agricultural Holdings Bill as relating to Scotland provided that in future all arbitrations were to be conducted by one arbiter, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. It was seen in this House that that might create very great confusion in regard to the important matter of sheep valuation, and words were inserted here which made it clear that the clause should not so apply. The noble Earl opposite, however, adopted the advice of the Solicitor-General in the House of Commons that the words were quite unnecessary, with the result that within three months he was besieged from all quarters in Scotland on the subject. This Bill, I am told, proposes to meet that difficulty by inserting a new definition of the word "agreement." It is provided in Clause 35 that—

"'Agreement' includes an agreement arrived at by means of valuation or otherwise, and 'agreed' has a corresponding meaning."

How does that affect the question in any way? Clause 11 runs—

"All questions which under this Act or under the lease are referred to arbitration, shall, whether the matter to which the arbitration relates arose before or after the passing of this Act be determined, notwithstanding any agreement under the lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, by a single arbiter."

I do not see that it makes the slightest difference what definition you attach to the word "agreement" if you say that notwithstanding any agreement one arbiter is to act. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to explain that to me on some future occasion. In all other respects I think the Bill conforms to the law as it now stands.

My Lords, I hope the House will not pass this Bill at the end of the session. I do not think it is at all a safe thing to do. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture told us that it was purely a consolidating Bill, but the noble Earl who has just sat down has referred to two very important points where the provisions differ from the existing law. I cannot conceive that it is possible for the Bill to become law this year, and it seems to me that it would be very unwise for this House to part with control over it at this period of the session. There is a Committee presided over by the Lord Chancellor which looks after consolidation Bills, and if the noble Earl would agree to refer the Bill to that Committee I am sure it would got most favourable consideration next session. The definition of "agreement," to which the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, has just called attention, is in itself absurd, and is another pitfall in the way of those who have to read the Bill. In the first place, it is entirely new matter; and while it proposes to define the words "agreement" and "agreed," it does not define the word "agree." I have had two or three communications from lawyers in Scotland upon this point, urging most strongly that the Bill should be carefully considered. I need not labour the matter so far as the other points are concerned; but it cannot have been by carelessness that the draftsman made the change requiring only notice of intention to make a claim to be given before the termination of the tenancy. That is a very material, and, I consider, grossly unfair change to propose. It has been protested against to me by a dozen people from all parts of Scotland. Then there are great difficulties with regard to the definition of what is known in Scotland as temporary pasture. A change in the law would, no doubt, be an advantage. That, however, cannot be done in a consolidation Bill. But if the Bill were referred to the Committee on Consolidation Bills, it would be easy, by means of a schedule showing the change, to get a slight change of that kind made. I do not think it is safe to part with this Bill at this period of the session, and I therefore trust that, if we agree to the Second Reading being taken now, we shall not be asked to proceed further with the Bill this session.

My Lords, I am, of course, entirely in the hands of the House. I have explained how it is that the Bill has been brought before your Lordships at such a late period of the session, and if the noble Lord opposite chooses to take the responsibility of stopping the Bill I can say nothing. I might mention that only on Tuesday I received a deputation of Scottish farmers on this subject. Noble Lords acquainted with Scottish farmers know that they are a very resolute, determined, and outspoken body of men. Some of them were extremely outspoken, and they said they were determined to have the Bill this session. There is really very little difference between the noble Earl opposite and myself. I think the noble Earl is perfectly right, and I am quite ready to accept an Amendment carrying out his view with regard to Clause 6. As the only difference between us seems to be as to the meaning of the word "agreement," I honestly think we might come to some satisfactory conclusion on that point. I hope noble Lords opposite will let us get the Bill through.

My Lords, the noble Earl warned my noble friend, in rather solemn accents, of the responsibility which will rest with him if he stops this Bill. But what will happen supposing the Bill is not proceeded with now? I do not think it will make any difference whatever either to the farmers of Scotland, or to the ultimate prospects of the Bill. This is a Bill which has orignated in your Lordships' House. I do not apprehend that the noble Earl intends that it should pass through all its stages in this House and in the House of Commons as well before the end of the session.

Yes, if your Lordships will give me a chance.

Then we have another little Bill added to the twenty-five Bills which the Prime Minister light-heartedly said he wished to see passed before this session came to an end, and one which, moreover, contains, apparently, some very contentious matter. Surely the reasonable course is that the noble Earl should be content with the perfectly friendly reception which has been given to his Bill, should introduce it again at the beginning of next session, when we are not likely, if it is a consolidation Bill pure and simple, to take long in discussing it, and then send it down to another place. That seems to me a reasonable and businesslike mode of procedure.

My Lords, I must say I think my noble friend behind me has not been entirely well treated in this matter. He seems to have met noble Lords opposite in every possible way by giving them the opportunity of thoroughly examining the Bill. I have no doubt they have taken the fullest advantage of this, and it does seem to me a little ungracious now to refuse to pass the Bill, assuming that it is, as my noble friend has declared it is, purely a consolidation Bill. Of course, I have no personal knowledge as to whether or not there is any new matter in the Bill, but, assuming that my noble friend is willing to make it quite clear, as I think he can, that it is a consolidation Bill pure and simple, I should have thought we might have proceeded with it as a purely formal matter, and that there would be no difficulty in passing it through another place.

My Lords, I have had to pass many consolidation Bills and have always undertaken that they were purely consolidating and contained nothing new. But, in regard to this Bill, two noble Lords have pointed out that new matter of a highly contentious nature has been introduced. Take, for instance, the provision referred to by Lord Camperdown that, notwithstanding any agreement under lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, all questions shall be determined by a single arbiter. I know nothing of the merits, but if that is a new provision it seems to me a very important provision and certainly one which ought not to be passed without due consideration. If it is true the new matter has been introduced, it cannot be suggested that this is merely a consolidation Bill.

My Lords, the object of this Bill is declared in its title to be to consolidate the enactments relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland, but there is, as has been explained, a certain amount of new matter. If the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, would take out the new matter to which we object we should be very glad to facilitate the passing of the Bill, which would, I am sure, prove of the greatest benefit to the whole country. But if the noble Earl cannot see his way to do this, I hope Lord Balfour's suggestion will be adopted.

My Lords, your Lordships have already given a warm welcome to two measures promoted by His Majesty's Government dealing with criminals—one, the Probation of Offenders Act, passed last session, and the other the Children Bill of this session, many of the clauses of which dealt with children who were criminals. To-day His Majesty's Government ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Prevention of Crime Bill, the last, so to speak, of the series, which deals with offenders older than those embraced in either of the other Bills to which I have referred. This Bill is divided into three parts. Part I. has reference to the reformation of young offenders, and the eight clauses in that Part deal chiefly with the question of the establishment of Borstal institutions in various places up and down the country. I think it would be useful in this connection to give your Lordships some figures with regard to the number of young offenders. Statistics were taken out some years ago to show the age at which criminals first fell into crime. The result was that out of 1,181 convicts, no fewer than 704 had fallen into crime before they were twenty-one years of age. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very remarkable proportion. We have on similar occasions agreed that prevention is better than cure, and it is the object of these Borstal institutions, if possible, to prevent these lads from returning to a life of crime. I would draw your Lordships special attention to Clauses 5 and 6. There special provision is given enabling the Secretary of State to release on licence. That is really the essence of the Bill, certainly of this part of the Bill, the idea being that these young men should be released on licence, and watched while out on licence; if they work well, there is every reason why they should be allowed to remain out on licence, but if at any time they show signs of falling back into criminal practices, they will be forthwith put into prison again. In order to carry out this system of licences, it is also important that the Courts should have the power of passing longer sentences, because there must be a power given to the authorities to bring the lads back again, if they do not take proper advantage of the licence given to them. Clause 6 provides that where a person detained in a Borstal institution is reported to the Secretary of State by the visiting committee of such institution to be incorrigible, or to be exercising a bad influence on the other inmates of the institution, the Secretary of State may commute the unexpired residue of the term of detention to such term of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, as the Secretary of State may determine, but in no case exceeding such unexpired residue. The Bill provides also for Treasury contributions being given for assisting and supervising persons on licence. I would ask your Lordships to notice the classes of offenders who will be sent to these Borstal institutions. In the first place, first offenders ought not to be sent, for it is thought they would suffer by association with the habitual criminals for whom these institutions are really intended. Neither should lads who have been in reformatory schools, and failed to profit by them, be sent; they have had their chance, and, if they have not taken it, it is usually thought hopeless to attempt to reform them. Next, only lads physically fit should be sent, the idea being that when they come out of the Borstal institution they will be able, by their own energy, to earn an honest living. Part II. of the Bill deals rather with the opposite end of the scale—namely, with those who have persisted in criminal courses and who are the most hopeless class of criminals of all. The first clause in Part II.—Clause 9—gives power to the Court to pass sentence of preventive detention in addition to penal servitude. The idea is that when a prisoner has been convicted and has also been found to be in the meaning of this Bill, a habitual criminal, he may, under certain circumstances, be sentenced to a period of detention not exceeding ten nor less than five years. We wish to detain those criminals who, as soon as they are out of prison, immediately begin to plan a further crime. In the year 1900, out of a male convict population of 2,624, no fewer than 1,476 had been convicted five times or more. On March 31st this year, the total was 2,897, of whom 2,376, or over 82 per cent., had been previously convicted, while 1,073 had actually undergone previous sentences of penal servitude. The unfortunate thing is that with every conviction the probability of return seems to increase; that is to say, convicts once started have entered upon a very slippery slope. Of the men in prison for the first time, 30 per cent. returned; of those who came in a second time, 48 per cent. returned; of those who came in a third time, 64 per cent. returned; of those who came in a fourth time, 71 per cent. returned; and of those who came in a fifth time, 79 per cent. returned. The figures seem to show that this constant returning to prison is rather on the increase than on the decrease. The object of the Bill is to provide a form of detention under easier conditions than at present exist, when prisoners are sentenced to a long term of penal servitude. It is quite true that in most of the cases coming within this part of the Bill the Courts have already power to pass very long terms of penal servitude; but that is a severe form of punishment and Judges are very often unwilling to commit offenders for a long time, however certain it is that on their release they will return to a career of crime. Prisoners will be allowed, while in these places of detention, to earn a small sum by way of wages, and they may spend it on newspapers, extra food, and, perhaps, on tobacco. They will be allowed to associate more than is the case in an ordinary prison, and they will be kept at labour sufficient to inculcate, if possible, habits of industry. But previous to this detention they will, of course, have to undergo a form of severe punishment; otherwise, this might become an attractive feature to some criminals. Therefore it is provided that preventive detention can only follow a period of penal servitude. It is desired to provide for the prolonged detention of persons who may be called professional criminals, and therefore prevent them roaming at large meditating and committing fresh crimes. It is not intended that anybody should be sentenced to preventive detention who has not committed a crime deserving at least three years penal servitude. There are ample safeguards to secure that this period of detention is not inflicted upon prisoners without proper precautions. First of all, your Lordships will see that the charge of being a habitual criminal cannot be inserted in an indictment without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The second safeguard is that seven days notice has to be given. There is a third safeguard in the appeal, without leave, to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Then there is the safeguard of the Judge who has to inflict the sentence, and, in addition to that, it is provided in Clause 12 that the Secretary of State shall, once at least in every three years, take into consideration the condition, history, and circumstances of the person with a view to determining whether he should be placed out on licence, and, if so, on what conditions; and then the Secretary of State has power to let the man out on licence. I think I have now covered the whole of the important clauses of the Bill. If there is one principle underlying it, it is that there should be individual study of the character and habits of each prisoner, and the punishment in future will much more fit the individual than has been the case in the past. I hope the Bill is sufficiently uncontroversial for your Lordships not only to read it a second time but to give it an easy passage, and I feel sure that in time to come this Parliament will be celebrated for having passed three measures, if not four, of considerable importance in the reform of criminal procedure.

My Lords, I should be very sorry to interpose any obstacle in the way of the passing of this Bill. I think it is impossible to have listened to the very clear statement of the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading without very great sympathy. The Borstal system is one deserving of every encouragement, and I am sure the views which the noble Earl expressed commended themselves to every one anxious for reform in these matters. I do not know whether the Government have considered the number of Borstal institutions they think it will be desirable to set up or whether they regard that so much as a matter of detail that they have not yet applied themselves to it. At any rate, it will be necessary to consider that as time goes on. While regarding with considerable favour the provisions for dealing with the detention of habitual criminals I think the safeguards to which the noble Earl directed attention are wise, though I am not sure that the same consistent thought runs through the entire Bill. I am unable to find that the safeguards which are necessary for England have been given effect to in the case of Scotland and Ireland. In regard to England, a man is not allowed to plead guilty to being a habitual criminal. That is the highest form of proof that can be conceived, yet it is not apparently to be permitted. Clause 9, subsection (2), runs—

"A person shall not be found to be a habitual criminal unless the jury finds on evidence—"

and so on. There is no suggestion anywhere that the Court can take the shorter method of asking the prisoner whether he is guilty. But when I come to Scotland, I find this provision in Clause 15, subsection (5)—

"Where, in Scotland, the accused pleads guilty to being or admits that he is a habitual criminal, such plea or admission shall be equivalent to the finding of the jury under Section 8."

This contrast may not be intended, and I draw attention to it merely that it may be considered. There is another point. The noble Earl quite rightly indicated that one of the checks against possible miscarriage was the opportunity of appeal. In Scotland three Judges may be constituted a Court of Appeal. There is no Court of Criminal Appeal in Ireland, and, so far as I can see, it is not proposed to set one up under this Bill. Reference is made to the Crown Cases Act, 1848, but I am not aware that any Act in Ireland gives power of re-measuring a sentence and calculating the discretion exercised in its award. On the whole, however, I am in favour of the Bill and upport the Second Reading.

My Lords, there are some of us who do not always welcome Bills from the Government bench, but in this case I congratulate His Majesty's Government on having brought in a most excellent measure. I quite agree with the noble Earl the Lord Steward in thinking that this Parliament will be gratefully remembered as one which has, in two Bills at least, taken great and forward steps for the prevention of crime and the proper training of the rising generation of this country. But, although I am satisfied that this is an excellent Bill, I should like to draw attention to one point in regard to which the Government may see their way to making some slight alteration in Committee. I refer to Clause 2. That clause provides that where a youthful offender, sentenced to detention in a reformatory school, is convicted under any Act before a Court of summary jurisdiction of the offence of committing a breach of the rules of the school, or of inciting to such a breach, or of escaping from such a school, and the Court might under that Act sentence the offender to imprisonment, the Court may, in lieu of sentencing him to imprisonment, sentence him to detention in a Borstal institution for a term not less than one year nor more than three years, and in such case the sentence shall supersede the sentence of detention in a reformatory school. Now, a Borstal institution is not a place of punishment, but a place for reform. I can quite understand the Government saying they do not think the reformatory system a good one and that lads of that character ought to be placed in Borstal institutions, but I cannot understand why a boy who is in a reformatory school because of his past conduct should be sent to a Borstal institution, where he will have a pleasanter time, if he is convicted of the additional offences mentioned in Clause 2. I merely draw attention to that point in order that it may receive consideration.

My Lords, I desire to draw attention to some of the provisions of Part II. of this Bill, and to ask your Lordships to consider the principles which underlie the legislation therein contained. For five or six years there has been a growing development noticeable in the tendency to introduce the indeterminate sentence, which has been so much discussed by criminologists. Personally I am in accord with the principle so far as I understand it. The principle of the indeterminate sentence, according to the writings on this subject of Sir Robert Anderson, and others, is, I think, that a person who is a nuisance and a danger to society should be removed indefinitely until he has ceased to be a source of danger. It is perfectly obvious that here the idea is that the criminal with whom you are dealing is a person who has passed all likely chance of reform, and that it is certain from your knowledge of his record that he will Commit crime again. Punishment inflicted, therefore, with the idea of reform would disappear in his case, that is to say, you are bound to admit that you Cannot hope to reform him. If, therefore, you remove him indefinitely from society, your object is not so much that of reform as of protecting society. The object, therefore, is a perfectly legitimate object; it is also, in a sense, a selfish one, for it is the protection of society, not the reclamation of the criminal. If that kind of punishment is applied to the criminal, then it seems to me his seclusion should be surrounded with as little discomfort as you can reasonably make it; he ought to be treated fairly and kindly, and almost in the same kind of way as persons are treated in asylums. But there is a defect in the logic on which the Bill is based The criminal is going to be punished first with a sentence of penal servitude, though if the object is to reform him there can be no particular reason in imposing a punitive sentence. I think the fact that the Judge has to give the prisoner three years penal servitude first may make him in some cases unwilling to impose the preventive detention which the criminal has so richly earned, and which all would feel would be the proper punishment in the interests of the protection of society. For that reason I very much regret the combination of the punitive sentence and the preventive detention. The detention, moreover, is not to be in a home but in a prison, with certain alleviations. Subsection (3) of Clause 11 provides that—

"Persons undergoing preventive detention shall be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and shall be employed on such work as may be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge."

That, of course, depends on how it is administered. The present prison system tends to deprive any one who serves a long term of imprisonment of all moral backbone or power of earning a livelihood. These people will already have suffered three terms of imprisonment, and if they are to be detained simply for the sake of the protection of the public we have no right to detain them except under conditions which involve no hardship. The noble Earl said it was undesirable that this preventive detention should be made too attractive. I am not so sure about that. I think your Lordships and everybody who has life and property to protect would be very glad to provide a permanent asylum if only all the criminals in the country would be attracted to it and remain there. As the clauses stand I think the punishment goes beyond anything we are entitled to inflict; indeed, the clauses impose a punishment for which there is no justification and in their present form I could not support them.

My Lords, I should like in a few words to join in the general welcome which has been extended to this measure The study which I have given to this Bill and to the history of the experiments which led to it leads me to regard it as a measure which it is eminently desirable should be placed on the Statute-book at the earliest possible date. The main feature which I welcome in it is the increase of elasticity which will now be possible for the wise and thoughtful men who, in so marked a way, have devoted themselves to the management and personal study of the very difficult questions relating to internal prison and reformatory life. No one can compare the conditions of twenty years ago and to-day without seeing, not merely that things are much better done now, but that the elasticity which is now possible is a power exercised universally, as I believe, for good. There is no part of the field of sociology in which the value of experiments has proved so useful as in prison discipline, and the results of those experiments are often Unite different from what one would a priori expect. There are certain experiments which should have turned out almost ludicrously impossible but which have been found to work out perfectly well, while others that ought apparently to have worked well have operated in an absolutely contrary sense. With some of the criticisms in regard to this Bill I am inclined at first sight to agree, but I should like to hear the matter discussed in Committee before making quite sure that the conclusion to which one naturally jumps are the right ones. But having given some study to the subject, I believe that this Bill is likely to produce happy and useful results.

My Lords, it is only necessary for me, in thanking noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, to say that the various points which have been brought forward shall certainly receive attention before your Lordships are asked to go into Committee on the Bill. I could, however, deal with the Irish point raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite, but I will not venture to detain your Lordships now.

My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of agricultural education in England and Wales, and to the Memorandum on the same subject, recently issued by the Board of Education; and to ask His Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in order to curry out the recommendations, and especially the financial recommendations, contained in the former, as well as to secure continuity and co-ordination of agricultural education generally, without the risk of overlapping the work of the two Departments. I think I can best deal with this matter, by telling the House how my own attention was called to it. I am a member of a local authority which possesses an agricultural college. That college was started at the time when the late Lord Goschen gave what is commonly known as the whisky money to county councils. They had more ample means then than they have now. The Education Act, 1902, has since come into force, involving heavy expenditure all round. So much so, that the county council with which I am connected had to look round in order to economies, and as a result of their probable economies, I think the agricultural college, to which I have referred, is in very considerable danger. It receives a somewhat insignificant grant from the Board of Agriculture. I believe that if that grant is not increased within a short time, the college will be abolished. The local authority has taken no action with regard to it up to now, because it was aware that the Committee presided over by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Reay, was sitting, and because it desired to await their Report, and the action which H.M. Government might take with regard to it. The Report of that Committee has now been issued, and we are only waiting to know what his Majesty's Government intend to do with regard to the Committee's recommendations. There is no doubt at all that the Report of the Committee is in favour of increased grants to these institutions. I believe this story, which is personal to my own county, is typical of what is taking place all over the country. Since I have been in the House I have received a letter from a noble Lord regretting his inability to be present, but stating that the College of Bangor is in very low circumstances for want of funds. The counties that can do least for agriculture are the agricultural counties, because they are the poorest, and that seems to me a very good reason why we should not depend so largely on the rates for agricultural education. I notice that the Committee say—and we discovered this in our own county—that when there arose the question of the abolition of an agricultural college, the farmers declared that they wished it to be continued. The Committee, in their Report, point out that the attitude of farmers with regard to these agricultural institutions has wholly changed, and that they now regard them as of the greatest importance. I do not think it is necessary in your Lordships' House that I should dwell on the importance of this matter. The noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, is the great advocate of small holdings The noble Earl wishes to cover the country with small holdings; but if these people are to be successful small holders it is essential that they should have every means of education which it is possible to place within their reach. I remember a Report which was issued to your Lordships two years ago, and a very eloquent speech delivered by the right Rev. Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, on the subject of physical deterioration. The right rev. Prelate called attention to the national need that there was for fostering agricultural districts; he pointed to the birth rate in agricultural communities like Dorsetshire and in industrial communities like Blackburn, and demonstrated that it was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the manhood of the nation that rural affairs should have the fullest attention from His Majesty's Government. What is the present position of agricultural education in this country? We depend on two Government Departments—the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education. What does the Board of Agriculture do in this matter The Board gives a grant of £11,500 a year to Universities and colleges. That is the sum total of the money expended by the Board of Agriculture. What the Board of Education does it is impossible to say, because that Board issues no returns from which we can ascertain how much is spent on agricultural education; but from the statistics that I have been able to get at, I am inclined to think that the Board of Education does not spend so much in this direction as the Board of Agriculture. In any case, what is spent in this country is ludicrous when compared with what is spent by other countries. Whilst England and Wales spend £11,500, the Kindom of Prussia spends £100,000. In the United States of America £300,000 is spent by Congress and by the various States for agricultural purposes. Denmark is well known as a country which has done much good progressive work in the matter of agriculture, and the Committee report that in Denmark agricultural education is liberally supported by the Government. France, according to the report of our commercial attache, gives more than £150,000 a year; and it is well known that in our own Colonies a great deal of money is devoted to this purpose. Sir John Cockburn, in giving evidence before the Committee, stated that South Australia gave a grant of £9,000 to one agricultural college, which is almost as large as the whole of the grants of the Board of Agriculture throughout England and Wales. The work of these colleges is not confined to England and Wales, for they are doing an Imperial work. There is a drain of teachers from this country to other countries requiring agricultural education. One man left our small agricultural college in Sussex for Hong Kong, and another for East Africa. It is not right, therefore, that the expense of the education of these men should fall on the rates. I remember that when I was an official at the Colonial Office that department was called upon to find an agricultural expert for the Transvaal. Sir Thomas Elliott, of the Board of Agriculture, was consulted, and the result was the appointment of Mr. F. B. Smith, who has, since the beginning of Lord Milner's government, been at the head of the Agricultural Department in the Transvaal. He is, I believe, one of the most successful officials in South Africa, and a gentleman who had done more than any other to cement the settlement between the Dutch and the British in the Transvaal, and he owes his education to the Wye Agricultural College in Kent. Why, therefore, should this college be supported at the expense of the rates of Kent and Surrey? The Committee report that the grants are inadequate. Every Committee and every Commission that has reported on this subject in the last twenty-five years has said the same thing; and every college and every University in the United Kingdom has, I believe, applied to the Board of Agriculture for increased grants. The Committee state quite clearly in their Report—

"The funds at present available for agricultural education are wholly inadequate, and considerably increased funds should be provided, the main source of which must be the national exchequer."

I venture to ask His Majesty's Government whether these increased funds will be provided from the national exchequer. Before I leave the Board of Agriculture I should like to call attention to the way in which that Department distributes the grants. This will be found in Appendix IV. on page 21 of the Board of Education Memorandum. It will be seen that what the Committee term Universities receive proportionately very much higher grants than colleges. The list starts with £1,250 to the University College of North Wales, Bangor, and concludes with £100 to the agricultural institute at Ridgmont. I do not propose to inquire into the reason why these grants are issued so disproportionately. I think from the evidence it is quite clear that what the Board of Agriculture has done, having limited money at its disposal, has been to devote all the money it thought necessary to the Universities and then distribute the few remaining hundreds of pounds to the colleges. If the whole of the money is to be put into the Universities you will end by having a large number of teachers, but no colleges for them to go to. The grants of the Board of Agriculture begin at the top—namely, with the Universities, and what remains goes to the colleges. The Board of Education, however, does the opposite. The Board of Education begins at the bottom and through its technical regulations gives grants which it declares are to be used for agricultural purposes. But those grants are concealed grants, for in their reports the Board of Education do not differentiate between what is given for agriculture and what is given for other purposes. I wish the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council were in the House, but in his absence might I ask either the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture or the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether the Government would be prepared to lay upon the Table a Return showing the amount of money expended by the Board of Education on agricultural education in the counties? In Appendix III. of the Board of Education Memorandum, which gives information as to the Parliamentary grants available in respect of agricultural education, I find a total of £29,180, presumably largely for agricultural purposes. Included in that sum is an item of £1,610 for the county of Cumberland. Now, I happen to have heard that of that sum only £70 is spent on agricultural education in that county. Therefore it appears to me that this table is not worth the paper it is printed on. If the county of Cumberland does not get a twentieth, the inference is that of this £29,000 under £1,500 is given for agricultural purposes. As I have said, the Board of Agriculture begins its work at the top. The Board of Education, on the other hand, works up from the bottom, and refuses to give grants to colleges which are under the Board of Agriculture. Therefore in your chain of agricultural education, consisting of the University, the college, the evening school and other outside work, the college is your weakest link. It is hardly touched by the Board of Agriculture and it is put in Coventry by the Board of Education. The result is that the college is in danger of almost immediate extinction. I ask His Majesty's Government to tell us what they propose to do with regard to these colleges. I certainly hope they will put an increased grant on next year's Estimates. If they do not, I am inclined to think they will never be worried by these colleges again, because there will be no colleges in the following year to require grants. Then there is another point on which I should like to ask His Majesty's Government for information. It relates to what I call the outside work of those colleges and Universities, not the work done in the building for pupils who are devoting their whole time to these studios, but lectures and other work carried on amongst farmers in evening classes. According to the correspondence between Sir Thomas Elliott and Mr. Ogilvie, published in the Board of Education Memorandum, it would appear that the Board of Education are going to give grants in respect of that outside work. That, however, is contrary to the recommendation of the Committee presided over by Lord Reay. That Committee, in paragraph 28 of the summary of their principal conclusions and recommendations, say—

"The Committee are of opinion that agricultural instruction, when provided by Universities, University colleges, agricultural colleges, farm institute and winter schools, or by means of special classes or courses of lectures in agriculture and kindred subjects (e.g., dairying, horticulture), should be under the direction of the Board of Agriculture."

I venture to ask whether that recommendation is likely to be carried out. If it is, it seems to mo that the Board of Agriculture will require some funds with which to assist those classes. We have waited for the Report of this Committee, and now we are awaiting the decision of His Majesty's Government with regard to it. I hope that the Government will be able to define the spheres of activity of the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture in order that any friction between them may not be allowed to stand in the way of the very important work which is being carried out by the local authorities in the country. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give some information as to the way in which they propose to co-ordinate the whole system—University, college, and technical classes—and to finance it in order to put this country, which has lagged so long behind foreign countries and our own Colonies in this matter, in the position which it ought to occupy.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend opposite for having called attention, in a very interesting speech, to the Report of the Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman. I rise to press on my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture to give effect, as speedily as he can, to the recommendations of the Committee, more especially with regard to what I would call the grading of agricultural schools. By this grading the University colleges are placed at the top; then follow the agricultural colleges and schools such as winter schools, which are of the greatest importance. Some of the members of the staffs of those colleges would be available for work in the neighbouring districts, and there would be in every county an organiser and a staff of exports to give advice to farmers and carry out experiments of various kinds. Agricultural education would be encouraged if most counties followed the example of the county of Wiltshire, which has through my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy secured such an efficient administration. There should be either a special committee for the organisation and supervision of agricultural instruction, or a sub-committee reporting direct to the education committee of the county council in each county, the point being that on such a committee farmers would serve and exercise influence which I consider of the utmost importance in the development especially of the lower grades of agricultural education. The next point to which I would call the attention of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture is the very great importance of settling clearly the boundary line between the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture. Elementary and secondary education the Committee considered outside the scope of their inquiry as coming under the control of the Board of Education. If the higher agricultural colleges are placed under the Board of Agriculture, and are made the directing agency for the lower grades of technical agricultural instruction, it is important that the Department which deals with the first category should have control of the whole system. That is attended in Scotland with the best results. There the whole of the lower educational work is organised by the three agricultural colleges on systematic lines which prevent overlapping. I think it will also be found a very sound plan from a financial point of view. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the amount spent on agricultural education in this country is ludicrously small as compared with the expenditure in foreign countries, and I think the Board of Agriculture have a strong case in approaching the Treasury with a claim for funds for the support of those institutions which are now in a most unsatisfactory financial condition. In the first place, I think my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture should insist on obtaining money in order that the higher colleges should be placed in a proper position, especially with regard to securing a highly qualified staff. That is important, because a greater supply of well-qualified teachers is needed, and they must be trained at the Universities or University colleges. As the Committee have pointed out, the facilities for agricultural instruction of a lower grade are "unorganised, unsystematic, and wholly inadequate." Farmers all over the country are no longer hostile to agricultural education as they were perhaps, twenty or thirty years ago, but are fully alive to its importance. The Board of Agriculture, being in touch with farmers, is better able than the Board of Education to realise what the farmers require. That is another reason why I desire to see this technical agricultural education under the supervision of the Board of Agriculture. The Committee state that in the next ten years from fifty to sixty winter schools should be provided in England and Wales. That is a moderate estimate. Experience in Denmark has shown that winter schools exercise a most beneficial influence on the development of agriculture in the right direction. I wish to insist on the urgent need of more State aid being given to veterinary education. We had a good deal of evidence on that subject, and it is quite clear that what has been done hitherto is inadequate and should be largely increased. The provision of scholarships for post-graduate research and travelling fellowships for teachers is also a matter which should not be lost sight of. I am very glad to see that my noble friend Lord Belper is in his place, as he took a prominent part in our discussions and in the preparation of this Report; but I greatly regret that Lord Barnard, to whom the appointment of this Committee was largely due and who has such a thorough knowledge of the subject, is not able to be present. I need hardly point out that all the recommendations of the Committee were unanimous. At one time it was anticipated that there would be a good deal of difference of opinion; but, finally, after a discussion of a very interesting character, we succeeded in coming to unanimous conclusions. I therefore think that we have been able to strengthen the hands of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture in approaching the Treasury for more grants in aid of this great national industry; and since we have reported, chambers of agriculture and farmers' clubs all over the country have expressed their assent to the Committee's recommendations. We have adopted a definite and constructive policy, and have outlined a comprehensive and thoroughly national scheme, which must be looked at as an organic entity and judged on its merits as a whole.

My Lords, I think all your Lordships will thoroughly sympathise with the Question asked by the noble Lord and will agree as to the great importance of the subject. It seems to me, if I may venture to say so with great deference, that what is wanted is a general scheme of agricultural education throughout the country, connected with, and as far as possible worked by, the county councils through their education committees or committees more especially devoted to agricultural subjects. In that way you can make use of existing machinery, which in my opinion is an important point. In too many instances what small funds have been available have been injudiciously spent, and instruction has been given on the wrong scale. In West Sussex, to which county I belong, hardly anything has been done in the way of agricultural education on anything like a proper scale. The farmers cannot be said to look with any hostile eye on this. What they complain of is that there is very little to be got out of it. They do not think a system of lectures very practical. It seems to me that if the education is to be effective, it must be made interesting and practical. It may be questioned whether agriculture admits of being taught by lectures and whether it is not entirely a practical subject. I suppose the answer is that there are two sides to agriculture as well as other things, and that the scientific side can, to a great extent, be helped by lectures delivered by experienced men. But there are also the various agricultural operations which can only be taught by practical instruction in the field. This subject has attracted increased attention not only in this country, but in others. I notice, in the Report of the Committee, that allusion is made to the very practical kind of agricultural schools in France. There are some thirty-eight of these, and they consist of farms varying in size from 100 to 350 acres. These farms not only combine theoretical with practical instruction, but are worked at a profit; and it seems to me that if we could take a leaf out of the foreigner's book in that way, and combine instruction with practical working, we should be going a great way to solve the difficulty. I trust that His Majesty's Government will approach this matter in a helpful way, and that this important question of agricultural education will no longer run the risk of perishing from lack of funds.

My Lords, I should like to say a few words on what I might call the diverse recommendations of the Departmental Committee and the Memorandum of the Board of Education as to the line which divides the sphere of influence, and the sphere of action of the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education. Personally, I think the recommendation of the Departmental Committee might have gone even a little further than it did. I think, that the moment you come to what may be called secondary education in agriculture, that education should be entirely under the supervision and direction of the Board of Agriculture. The noble Lord who presided over the Departmental Committee has told us that he was careful to guard against stepping into the sphere of the Board of Education wherever there was what one might call a mixed realm, and where in the same sphere of action both agricultural and general education were being treated. But I think that if the Board of Agriculture had under its control the Universities, University colleges, farm institutes, agricultural colleges, and winter schools, it would very soon be found that what might be called the agricultural side in the secondary schools would rapidly decay. The work would be transferred entirely to the institutions which the noble Lord recommends should be placed under the Board of Agriculture, and I think it would be found after a time that the agricultural sphere of influence in the Board of Education would be limited to such preparation for agricultural teaching as it would be advisable to have in the elementary schools. In an elementary school in a rural district it is very essential that the instruction should be, to a certain extent, founded upon agricultural circumstances. By this I mean that if you are going to give something in the nature of a preparatory scientific training to elementary school children it must, of necessity, be applied to the surroundings of the child. You can bring up a scientific student, if he is only to be a theoretically scientific student, under any circumstances at all, providing that your school surroundings are sufficient; but if you are going to give him what I might call a practical, scientific grounding, you must do that where the scientific methods which you teach are linked with the surroundings of his every-day life; and you cannot give this scientifically practical agricultural training in a school situated in a town. It must be done in a rural school, and for this purpose I think there should be inter-communication between the two Departments, so that the teachers who are placed in these rural schools might have had previously some kind of agricultural training which would give them a theoretical knowledge of the subject and enable them to direct the minds of the elementary scholar into a scientific way of looking at agricultural life. The objection is made that of the students in an elementary school in a rural district only a small proportion will take to agricultural life, and that therefore it is a mistake to give an agricultural aspect to the teaching, which may, after all, be only of avail to a small percentage of the students. But, as I have said, the scientific teaching, whatever it is, to be practical must be based on the everyday surroundings and everyday life of the child. I would appeal for a mutual arrangement which would give to the teachers concerned some scientific knowledge of the science of agriculture. Things have altered since the counties first had money given them for technical education. The agricultural instructors whom we have trained during the intervening period now have something to teach the farmers, the farmers recognise that it is so, and the Boord of Agriculture has a very promising work to do if it will take it up in a thorough and systematic manner.

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend, Lord Zouche. I think a great deal of money is wasted by county councils in lectures. My experience of the colleges about the country is that they take in gentlemen's sons, agents' sons, and the sons of large farmers, but there is no school to which the sons of small farmers can go. The country is over-run with unskilled labour, yet it is extremely difficult to get men who can do drain or hedge work. I would like to ask the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has so nobly taken up the question of small holdings, whether he can do something in the direction of sending to schools some of those boys, who exist in every village, who are intelligent and prepared to follow in the footsteps of their fathers, but fail through want of opportunity.

My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord opposite for calling attention to this matter, and for a most interesting and instructive debate. The noble Lord asked for information as to the amount of money spent by the Board of Education on agricultural instruction. I am afraid that would be a somewhat difficult question to answer, but I will submit it to my noble friend the Lord President of the Council and see if any satisfactory reply can be given. I should like to take the first opportunity of giving an assurance that there is no question of disagreement or friction between the two Departments, but there are intricate questions which must be threshed out before any system can be devised for the complete co-ordination of agricultural education. The heavy business of the autumn session has made it absolutely impossible for any definite conclusion to be come to between the two Departments on the recommendations of Lord Reay's Committee, whom I thank most sincerely for the way in which they have dealt with this important subject. I have not had an opportunity, owing to the pressure of work, to go in detail into the consideration of all the proposals, but I hope I shall not be thought very optimistic if I say that I think it will be extremely easy to come to some agreement which will be satisfactory to all concerned. We shall have to go to the Treasury in regard to the possibility of an increased grant. The necessity of that has been earnestly pressed, and I shall be more pleased than anyone if we can obtain more money for the purpose of forwarding agricultural education. I hope it will not be long before the two Departments come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject.

My Lords, I was very glad to hear the noble Earl say there was no disagreement between himself and his colleague at the head of the Board of Education. I never for a moment supposed that there was. When I had the honour of occupying the position the noble Earl occupies to-day, I found the then Minister for Education, the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, willing to do everything he could for the advancement of agricultural education. The noble Marquess was good enough to appoint Mr. Dymond, whose work in promoting agricultural education generally in primary schools is little short of marvellous. There is no friction between the heads of the Departments. But it is clear that the Board of Education think that they alone ought to have the distribution of the grants now given to all except the Universities and the University colleges. I cannot help thinking that there is a serious amount of disagreement on this matter between the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education, and I hope the noble Earl will devote special attention to trying to come to some understanding between the two Departments. I cannot believe that is impossible. I cannot believe it is even difficult. Many suggestions have been made. It has been suggested that there should be a permanent consultative joint committee. It has been suggested that there should be a committee from both Boards, who should have the administration of these grants. Then there is an advisory committee of the Treasury, which makes reports on behalf of the Board of Education to the Treasury in respect of the grants made to the various forms of higher education. Surely one or other of these plans might be adopted. But, if neither of them commends itself to the noble Earl or his advisers, there is yet another suggestion, and I am not sure that that is not the suggestion which may, perhaps, be productive of the best effect. After all, this matter of agricultural education is mainly one for county councils and local authorities, and I would venture to ask Lord Belper, as chairman of the County Councils Association, whether it would not be possible to get together a committee of those who are experts in the administration of agricultural education in their several areas, who might draw up some clear line of demarcation between the moneys which may properly pass through the hands of the Board of Agriculture and those which may properly pass through the hands of the Board of Education. I really do not care whether you appoint a committee, or what committee you appoint. What we want is to get more money in one way or another for the purposes of agricultural education, and our trouble is that while the Board of Agriculture, we believe, is bettor able to spend the money in the way which agriculturists wish, it is the Board of Education which has the money at its command. I cannot help thinking that when any impartial tribunal comes to consider this question, they will be impressed by the fact that the Department whose duty it is to foster the industry of agriculture, should also be charged with the duty of fostering higher education in matters of agriculture. The relations between the Board and the farmers are of the most friendly character. I speak with the greatest possible respect of the Board of Education, and of the inspectors which that department employs, but somehow or other I cannot altogether believe that those distinguished classmen who come from Oxford and Cambridge can be quite as sympathic with the agriculturists of this country, as men who have been trained in practical agriculture, and have not neglected the advantages of chemical research and of practical agricultural industry. In the Blue-book to which attention has been called, there is a reference by a representative of the Board of Agriculture to a committee which I think owes its inception to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Duchy. It is a committee of the Wiltshire County Council. It is charged, not only with agricultural education, but with all the duties it properly can perform, that affect farmers and agriculture in the county. The farmers look upon it as their own committee, and I venture to think that a committee such as that, can do more good almost than any other department of a county council. This is what the representative of the Board of Education said of that committee—

"A local authority has too much to do, and an agricultural committee charged with the duty of looking after all agricultural interests and education would be much better for that part of the work; but if these men in any area are segregated the work of general education is apt to suffer very seriously. To cut out the agricultural interests in any way from the region of general and secondary education in rural communities would, I consider, be a matter of gravest misfortune."

That, I believe the noble Lord will say, is not the experience of the county of Wiltshire; and I venture to hope that it is in that direction we may look for some improvement in the organization of agricultural education. What the Board of Agriculture has done in the past is, I think, worthy of some praise and some credit. It has shown that it can organise these institutions. It is said by the Committee that, after all, we are not so very much behind foreign countries in our institutions for agricultural education, and that the addition of a few of these institutions would furnish the country with sufficient collegiate centres. I cannot help thinking that a Department which has been successful to that extent is worthy of being trusted to go further. At this moment there is a great deal more interest being shown in the country generally in all that affects agriculture, and I trust that my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture will strike while the iron is hot. I earnestly hope that he will follow out the recommendations of the committee, and that he will do all that he can to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the amount — the miserable amount—placod at his disposal for the encouragement of agricultural education.

My Lords, I do not rise to continue the general discussion, nor to attempt to add to what has been said on behalf of the Government by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. I intervene merely to explain that the Agricultural Committee of the Wiltshire County Council has not the full powers which Paragraph 115 in the Report of Lord Reay's Committee might lead anyone who read it to think. I recommended in my evidence that those powers should be handed over to one committee. The actual fact is that the committee—it is a separate committee, not a sub-committee—not only does the work in question, but also deals with the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act. That is undoubtedly an important addition to their work. I gave it as my opinion, in my evidence, that it would be desirable to carry that further, and to hand over to the Agricultural Committee also the work of the Diseases of Animals Act, and Small Holdings and Allotments. I can certainly repeat what I said to the Departmental Committee, that the experiment of having such a committee has, so far as it has gone, been very successful, and if we could get further statutory powers, those additional subjects might with advantage be handed over to the committee. It is of very great advantage, from the point of view of administration, especially of education, that there should be a committee which the farmers of the county look to as their committee.

My Lords, I should like to support almost all that the noble Lord the Chairman of the Departmental Committee has said. I must also give credit to the noble Lord as being the most careful and painstaking chairman of a Committee it would be possible to find. The noble Lord gave every opportuity for discussion, and the unanimous opinions we expressed in our recommendations cannot be said to have been arrived at without the fullest possible deliberation. I think for the first time it has become apparent that the agricultural interests in the country are satisfied with the good work accomplished by the colleges. I have had some experience of this. We issued invitations to a large number of farmers to inspect our college and see for themselves what was being done. The result has been that farmers who were entirely opposed to the work before have expressed unqualified approval of the practical instruction given. That is a point which cannot be too strongly emphasised when we go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for more funds. If the agricultural interest are unanimous in pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant sufficient funds for the improvement of agricultural education, in order to put our farmers on an equality with those of other countries, I hardly think that any Government can refuse to accede to that request. The County Councils Association have passed unanimously a resolution approving of the main recommendations of the Departmental Committee. With regard to the appeal made to me by Lord Onslow, I can assure him that the County Councils Association will always be ready to do anything in their power to assist in a matter of this kind, especially if the co-operation does not involve any further expenditure out of the local rates. It is no idle observation in the Report of the Committee that it is impossible for county councils to find further sums themselves for this purpose. We are already overburdened with obligations placed upon us by Parliament, and it is obvious that the National Exchequer is the only source from which increased funds can be obtained for an improvement of agricultural education. I hope the sympathetic expressions of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture will not prove idle words, but that before long funds will be forthcoming, not only to make the existing colleges more useful than they can be with their present limited means, but also to establish a really national system of agricultural education.