FERRUARY 21, 1907] 
NATORE 395 
which now help to maintain colleges giving instruc- 
tion of a university standard would have never 
started at all or would have rested content with 
something in the nature of a farm school had it not 
been for the advice and practical encouragement pro- 
vided by the Board of Agriculture. 
During the past year we see that seven institutions 
were in ‘receipt of an annual grant of toool., 200l. of 
which was in respect of the farm maintained by the 
college, while twelve other institutions received sums 
ranging from 8ool. down to tool. The University 
College of North Wales at Bangor and the Arm- 
strong College at Newcastie each received a further 
2501. for instruction in forestry. It is noticeable that 
the Board seems to make the amount of its grant 
depend upon the type of education given, not taking 
into account the number of the students educated or 
the extent of local support. Thus Wye College, the 
total expenditure of which is set at 17,414l., receives 
the same grant, roool., as other colleges the total ex- 
penditure of which does not reach 3000l. Probably this 
policy is most adapted to the pioneer work, when it 
is all important to get the colleges started, but the 
time is drawing near when some of the colleges 
supported most liberally by their localities must feel 
that they should be treated on the principle of the 
Treasury grants to university colleges, which are 
given roughly in proportion to the local support 
received. 
In the body of the report nearly all the collegiate 
centres have the same tale to tell of an increase in 
the number of students, and that greater use is being 
made of the college by the farmers in the district. 
It is not too much to say that the attitude of the 
general body of farmers towards scientific work has 
entirely changed during the last ten or twelve years, 
wherever they have been within the range of influence 
of one of these permanent centres of instruction. The 
supply of agricultural intelligence certainly preceded 
the demand, but now the demand has more than 
grown up to the supply. 
The second part of the present year’s report deals 
with the expenditure of the various county councils 
on agricultural education of various kinds out of the 
funds they derive from the ‘t whisky money. From 
this we learn that in 1905-6 the counties of England 
and Wales expended very nearly 84,o00l., of which 
about 30,0001. went to colleges and schools, the re- 
mainder being spent on lectures or instruction in 
horticulture, bee keeping, poultry keeping, and 
various manual processes. Useful as no doubt much 
of this work is, popular as it is made to be by being 
spread thinly over a wide area and liberally endowed 
with prizes, it does little or nothing for the advance- 
ment of agriculture, though it may be doing some- 
thing to make life easier for the cottager. The 
failure of agricultural instruction that is divorced from 
any permanent teaching centre may be read in the 
steady decline in the expenditure for such purposes 
of the counties which are not connected with any of 
the institutions subsidised by the Board. There are, 
indeed, several counties content to spend nothing on 
agriculture, though their only interests are agricul- 
tural; West Sussex, for example, spends not a penny, 
while several others get through on less than a hun- 
dred a year. 
When one comes, however, to the second part of 
the title, ‘‘ Grants for Agricultural Education and Re- 
search,’’ this report makes an indifferent show, since 
the grants for research only total 355/.! Of course, 
some part of the grants to the colleges is available 
for research, but if we except the fine work that is 
being done at Cambridge, there is little going on at 
the colleges which could come under the category of 
NO. 1947, VOL. 75] 
research. The 355/. consists in the main of grants 
to various institutions carrying out a particular ex- 
periment on the improvement of poor pastures, and 
one sum of 5o0l. to the committee which is working 
at the improvement of English wheat. Rothamsted 
still remains without a grant. 
Account should also be taken of one or two de- 
partmental committees which are inquiring into stock 
diseases; at present, for example, there is one at work 
on contagious abortion in cattle, and a former in- 
quiry into ‘‘louping ill’? in sheep  has_ recently 
reported—the two costing about 30001. But com- 
pare this expenditure on “research with that of the 
United States Department of Agriculture: from the 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1905, we extract the following items for investiga- 
tion work alone, exclusive of the salaries of the per- 
manent officials of the Department. 
Le 
Botanical investigations and experiments... 13,500 
Entomological investigations > 14,000 
Vegetable pathological investigations 30,000 
Biological investigations 6,800 
Pomological investigations 8,700 
Laboratory, Department of Agriculture +» 27,000 
Experimental gardens and grounds, De- 
partment of Agriculture 5,000 
Soil investigations ane 306 34,000 
Grass and forage plant investigations 8,500 
Cotton boll investigations 50,000 
Sugar investigations 1,500 
Tea culture investigations 2,000 
Total - 201,000 
It is the smallness of the Board’s contribution to 
research, the life-blood of scientific education, which 
led Mr. J. F. Mason, the Member for Windsor, to 
move an amendment to the address last week to 
direct attention to the neglect of agricultural re- 
search on the part of the Government. Mr. Mason 
dwelt upon the prime importance of research to farm- 
ing in this country where intensive farming is carried 
on and a large monetary return per acre must be 
obtained. He instanced the losses that have been 
occasioned by plant diseases, which could only be 
dealt with after organised investigation of their causes 
and origin. He particularly pleaded for assistance to 
Rothamsted, the one institution for agricultural re- 
search of the first rank that this country possesses, 
but which, deriving its income from __ private 
benefactions only, is now handicapped for lack of 
funds. 
The amendment received a sympathetic discussion 
from members on both sides of the house, and Sir 
Edward Strachey, for the Board of Agriculture, said 
“that no one was more anxious than he to see larger 
sums applied to experiment and research. But 
scientific investigation had suffered in the past not 
so much from neglect as fro1a want of appreciation 
on the part of the public. If the House had omitted 
to provide sufficient funds for such investigation, it 
was because the question had not been brought 
forward. On the other hand, it might very fairly 
be. said that- there was a general demand among 
agriculturists for larger grants from State funds; and 
the House might rest assured that the President of 
the Board of Agriculture would make representations 
to the Treasury as to the general feeling expressed in 
the debate on that point.” 
But now that the question is attracting public 
attention we trust that the Board of Agriculture will 
be encouraged to make bolder demands on_ the 
Treasury. There was a scheme for creating a council 
for agricultural research which seems to have fallen 
