Commons Sitting of 10 July 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Caerphilly Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Sheffield Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Boaz' Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
Copy presented of Fifth Report by the Scottish Land Court for the year 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to 31st March, 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS WAR CONTRIBUTION.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 4th July, 1917, showing the manner in which the Contribution of the Colony of the Straits Settlements towards the Cost of the War will be applied [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

FINANCE (No. 2) ACT, 1915.
Copy presented of the Motor Cars (Temporary Importation) Regulations,
1710
1917, made by the Treasury under Section 13 (6) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    UNITED STATES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States of America are now at war with Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, respectively; and, if not, whether in order to complete the unity of the Allies, representations have been made to the United States on this matter?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

    ROUMANIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the statement in Lord Hardinge's letter of 21st July, 1916, that Roumania was striving to obtain enormous tracts of territory, he will state whether any undertakings were given to Roumania involving annexations or indemnities to Roumania's benefit when Roumania declared war in August, 1916, on Austria-Hungary?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member's question of the 28th ultimo.
    Mr. KING: Will the Noble Lord or the Foreign Office be able to make a fuller statement if I raise this matter on the next Vote of Credit?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know what we shall do if the hon. Member raises anything on a Vote of Credit.
    Mr. KING: I desire to give notice that on the next Vote of Credit I shall raise the matter of these statements of Lord Hardinge which seem to commit the Government, but for which the Government repudiate responsibility.

    GREECE.

      EX-KING CONSTANTINE.
      Mr. GILBERTasked what allowance or annuity has been1 paid or promised to King Constantine by the Greek Government on his abdication?
      Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir ! The matter is, I understand, to be submitted to the Greek Chamber so soon as it has been convened.

    SOUTH AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether any of the South American Republics are in a state of actual war with Germany; and, if so, whether a special message of congratulation will be sent to them from this House?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    DISABLEMENT AND DISCHARGE.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the provisions of the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, exempting from notice and examination under that Act men who have been discharged from the naval or military services of the Crown in consequence of disablement caused by wounds (including injury from poisonous gases) received in battle or in any engagement with the enemy or other wise from the enemy, apply to men who have been discharged from such service in consequence of disablement caused by wounds received in former wars; and whether his recent announcement extending such exemption to men who have been discharged from such service in consequence of disablement, however caused, in the course of their naval or military service, applies to men who have been so discharged in former wars?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Recruiting officers have been instructed that the exception from this Act of men discharged in consequence of disablement resulting from wounds, etc., is to be taken as applying to discharges on these grounds in any war. The recent instructions which
    1712
    in effect extend the exception from this Act to all men discharged from the Armed Forces of the Crown in consequence of disablement after service overseas also extend to service overseas irrespective of service in the present or in former wars.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Does the reply cover all the cases of men who have been discharged in this or former wars by reason of disablement, whether due to the specific causes mentioned in the Act of 1917 or to any other cause?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.

    EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CANTEEN (PROFITS).
    Colonel BURNasked if any decision has yet been arrived at as to the disposal of the money derived from the profits made by the Expeditionary Force canteen?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer the lion, and gallant Member to the answer given on 21st November, 1916 to the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow. The profits made by the Expeditionary Force canteens will be devoted to the benefit of the Army under the direction of the Army Council.
    Colonel BURN: Would not the hon. Gentleman consider a proposal to start a fund which can be made use of to relieve, after the War, men who have been soldiers, and who are in want through no fault of their own?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, I will place that consideration before the financial authorities.

    SHETLAND TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now state why the War Office have not sent any reply to the matter laid before them by the Shetland Territorial Association?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand my hon. Friend to refer to certain proposals as to recruiting which were put forward by the Shetland Territorial Association last January. These proposals were approved by the War Office last March and the Associations concerned informed on the 10th of that month.

    CLASSIFICATION.
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War,

    1713
    concerning the case of Private F. Willey, No. 12313, C Company, 2/7th Durham Light Infantry, Assaye Barracks, Colchester, if he is aware that the soldier in question enlisted on 8th September, 1914. was wounded in France in August, 1916, was twenty-two weeks in hospital, and when, after a period of sick furlough, he rejoined his unit in February last, was classified C 2, B 179, B 179 being said to be equivalent to a recommendation for discharge; if he is also aware that three weeks afterwards Private Willey had a pension granted to him; if lie is further aware that shortly after this Private Willey was told to appear before the regimental medical officer for the purpose of being inoculated, whereupon he refused and was told that he would have to go to France in less than two months, and was classified as B 1; and if he will inquire into the circumstances relating to the ease, and take suitable action as required?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiries, and will inform my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    EXEMPTION.
    Mr. T. C. TAYLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the statement made by the Chairman of the House of Commons Tribunal on 2nd July that men holding certificates of exemption from a local tribunal are not liable for medical re-examination by any military authority has the sanction of the War Office; if so, why this is not made clear in the notice (A.F.W. 3,579) requiring men to be re-examined, which purports to give a full list of exceptions to the requirement; and whether he will have the necessary addition made to all forms sent out after this date?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Military Service (Review of Excepitons) Act, 1917, applies only to men who were, previously excepted from liability for military service. If such a man previously. held a certificate of exemption, such a certificate, being an exemption from a liability to which he was not subject, had no validity, and, therefore, did not preclude the man being served with a Statutory Order under the Act. It is, therefore, unnecessary to make any such addition to the Statutory Order as is suggested. I am not aware in what context the alleged statement by the Chairman of the London Appeal Tribunal may have been made, but it is the fact that a man who holds a valid
    1714
    certificate of exemption from a tribunal, and who has already been examined by a recruiting medical board, is not required to be medically re-examined while the certificate is current. If, however, a man though holding a tribunal certificate, has never been examined by a medical board he can be required to submit himself for examination under Defence of the Realm Regulation 45 C.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Would there be any drawback to putting this alongside the other exemptions on the noticed?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid my hon. Friend has not heard the whole of my answer. My hon. Friend is talking of exemptions. The Act refers not to exemptions, but to exceptions.

    NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office now intend to remove from work on the land men be longing to the Non-Combatant Corps; whether such men are no longer allowed to work on the land; and, if so, as the need for labour on the land is greater at the present time than earlier in the year, whether he will take steps to renew the permission to such men to do farm work?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Any man of the Non-Combatant Corps who has been accustomed to work on the land will, as far as possible, be used for farm work.

    ARMY ACT (SOLDIERS' PAY).
    Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will take into consideration the fact that the daily rate of a soldier's pay would in many cases admit of a larger amount being deducted towards a maintenance order for a wife or child or bastard child; and whether he will amend Section 145 (2) (b) of the Army Act so as to enable the rate to be deducted to be in proportion to the amount of daily pay received and not only in accordance with the rank of the soldier?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is not practicable at the present time.
    Colonel WILSON: Does my hon. Friend consider that where a private soldier is in receipt of, say, 3s. a day, it is sufficient for him to be marked at only 3s. 6d. per week

    1715
    for the support of a wife, a woman whom he has deserted, or at 2s. 4d. for the support of a bastard child?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot argue with my hon. Friend as to the merits of the case, but I would point out to him that to carry out his suggestion would require an amendment of the Army Act.
    Mr. KING: As the Army Act is being amended now once or twice a year, will this matter be considered when the next Army (Annual) Act (Amendment) Bill comes in?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe it is considered every time: my hon. Friend sees to that.

    FARMERS' SONS.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if farmers' sons and others engaged in agricultural work who have been exempted by local tribunals but have been appealed against by the military, with the result that the Appeal Tribunal has given exemption only until a substitute is found, come under the Instructions recently issued to tribunals by the War Office providing that men engaged in agriculture are not to be recruited?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No Instructions have been issued by the War Office to tribunals, nor would any such Instructions be competent. Recruiting officers have, however, been given Instructions to the effect that a man whole-time employed on a farm on farm work is not to be posted for military service without the concurrence of the Agricultural Executive Committee in England or the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in Scotland, and these Instructions take effect whatever may be the man's position with regard to tribunal exemption.
    Sir J. SPEAR: May I ask if men who have been before the tribunal, and have been exempted until substitutes are found, will come under the Instruction just mentioned?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must have notice of that.

    EX-SOLDIERS ABROAD.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the position under the Military Ser-
    1716
    vice (Convention with Allied States) Bill of ex-soldiers discharged on account of physical unfitness from the Army who have since gone to America or other countries; and whether all ex-soldiers discharged on account of unfitness since the beginning of the War who have been allowed passports to leave this country will be exempt from the provisions of the Act, and whether or not they have been on foreign service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Where a convention has been concluded with an Allied State under the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Bill, it is proposed to issue instructions to His Majesty's Ambassador to any such State to the effect that where an ex-soldier claims that he is not liable to service and produces evidence that he has been discharged from the Army in consequence of physical unfitness, he is to be granted a provisional certificate of exemption and his case referred to the War Office for special consideration.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Does that mean that the soldier has no right in the matter at all, and that the matter rests with the War Office?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is so, but I do not see what the War Office could do. It does not come directly under this Act, but we are doing the best we possibly can by instructing the Ambassador that a soldier under those circumstances should be granted a provisional certificate of exemption, and that the case should be referred to the War Office to be decided on its merits.
    Mr. KING: Has any convention on these lines been already agreed upon?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend must put that question to the Foreign Office.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements for suspending the drafting of the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial Force) now at Blackpool to Infantry battalions so as to permit of the reconsideration of their position, in view of the fact that about 74 per cent, of these men have already been wounded at the front, are anxious and able to return to their former work there, for which they have had long

    1717
    training and special experience, and also of the fact that a large number of them enlisted at the commencemet of the War for the form of military service which they could conscientiously render and had no opportunity of claiming the position given by the Military Service Act to men who did not voluntarily enlist?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Out of 1,154 Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial Force) men who are being transferred to Infantry, ninety-two only (or 7.97 per cent.) have been wounded. Arrangements have been made by which any men who enlisted with the express proviso that they should only be employed in Royal Army Medical Corps work shall remain with the Royal Army Medical Corps. Also that the cases of any men who enlisted at the commencement of the War, and are in a position to prove that they conscientiously object to service other than that in the Royal Army Medical Corps, will be sympathetically treated.
    Mr. HARVEY: How are they to have the opportunity of proving that?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I shall have to consider that.
    Mr. HARVEY: Will a statement be issued?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes; I think that is advisable.

    MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
    Sir CHARLES NICHOLSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a discharged soldier called up for medical examination and passed for service under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, is compelled to give up his certificate of discharge from previous service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative. Where a man in possession of a discharge certificate is called up and not immediately posted his discharge certificate is endorsed medically examined under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, and classified in Category C (ii.), B (iii.), or C (iii.), as the case may be.

    MEDICALLY UNFIT.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Herbert John Wallace, of 68,
    1718
    Glengarry Road, Ea3t Dulwich, who was recently passed fit for general service by the Special Medical Board; whether he is aware of the fact that on 30th June Wallace received a letter from the Ber-mondsey Tribunal informing him that they were unanimously of opinion that he was not fit for general service, but that, in view of the medical report, they were unable to grant further exemption; and, in view of the fact that in May, 1915, Wallace was classified C3 by the Camber-well Medical Board, that he subsequently joined a volunteer battalion, but was only found fit for orderly-room work, that he afterwards offered himself for Section B of the Volunteer Force, and was in February, 1917, examined by three Royal Army Medical Corps doctors, who rejected him for heart trouble, and also for inguinal hernia, whether this case can be reconsidered?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I gather that the question at issue in this case is the medical classification of the man, and I have therefore informed the War Office of the hon. Member's question, and have asked them to communicate with him.
    Colonel BURNasked whether men who were exempted from military service as being mentally unfit are to be considered fit and proper persons to exercise their vote at a General Election?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The question of the mental competence of any voter to exercise the franchise is one for the decision of the Returning Officer at the time of the election.
    Colonel BURN: Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair if a man is unable to serve his country—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

    FUNERAL WORKERS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, owing to shortage in the number of funeral workers due to Army recruitment, corpses have in some cases to lie for days without a coffin being available, and that in other cases the funeral has had to be delayed for a week or more after the coffin was forthcoming; whether he has received any representa-

    1719
    tions on this matter from the public health departments of local authorities or from other quarters; and whether it is proposed to take any action?
    Mr. FISHER: I have received some representations on this matter, but not recently. I have no reason to think that generally the position is serious. I am fully prepared to consider any representations which may be made to me.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Councillor Dollan, of Glasgow, has been granted exemption by the Central Tribunal on the ground of conscientious objection, conditional on engaging in work of public importance; whether the Central Tribunal imposed as a further condition that the work must be found more than fifty miles from Glasgow, and, if not, who imposed this condition; whether his appeal to the High Court against the decision of the stipendiary magistrate that he was an absentee has not been heard; and, if not, whether he ought to be released from prison until it has been finally decided whether he was rightly convicted of being an absentee?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am aware of the decision of the Central Tribunal in this case. I am informed that it was intimated to Dollan that he should find employment in a district at least fifty miles from Glasgow. As regards the latter part of the question, I am informed that no such appeal has been heard in the High Court. The question of interim liberation has already been disposed of by the stipendiary.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is it in order to impose such a condition as that he should find work of public importance at a distance of more than fifty miles from Glasgow? Is not that more suitable for the action of the authorities under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. MUNRO: I see no reason whatever to doubt the legality of the condition.
    Mr. SCOTT: What is the object of a condition like that? Is it held that no work of public importance can be found within fifty miles of Glasgow?
    Mr. MUNRO: That is a matter entirely for the tribunal and not for me.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is it the case that the tribunal can impose any condition whatsoever, no matter how irrational or how irrelevant to the matter at issue?
    Mr. MUNRO: One must wait until such a case arises. This is not a case of that type.

  EAST AFRICA (NATIVE CARRIERS).
  Mr. MOLTENOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether the system of recruiting of native carriers in East Africa for the Army is voluntary or compulsory; (2) what are the rations provided for the native carriers in East Africa; whether he is satisfied that they are adequate; (3) whether he can give any information as to the medical care provided for the sick and wounded native carriers for the Army in East Africa; what provision is made for ambulance and hospital accommodation for them; and whether he is aware that these casualties are said to amount to an average of over 10,000 per month?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The large number of carriers and labourers needed in the Transport and Works services of the East African Expeditionary Force can only be made available, consistently with military efficiency on the one hand and equitable treatment of the native population on the other hand, by applying the principle of compulsion. The precise method of application differs in the several Protectorates and Territories according to the necessities of the case and the special requirements of each locality, but I may say that the procedure adopted has resulted in a minimum of friction and hardship.
  The British methods provide for recruiting in the Protectorates and the portions of German East Africa under civil administration by experienced civil officials, working through the authority of the chiefs and headmen.
  In the actual area of military operations a certain amount of labour is engaged direct by the Supply and Transport Branch of the Army, but more often through the agency, of special (civil) political officers attached to columns and forces. A thoroughly organised Labour Bureau is in existence.

  1721
  The pay is substantial, having regard to the customs of the country. Good rations and issues of clothing and equipment are provided. Especially is attention paid to periodical reliefs of personnel. In many cases engagements are only for short periods, but in general "first-line carriers," who actually accompany the fighting troops, and amongst whom discipline is very necessary and experience desirable, are engaged for the duration of hostilities.
  The scale of rations is as follows:

  l¼ lbs. Flour for flour eaters, or

  1 lb. Rice for rice eaters;

  ¼ lb. Beans (or ¼ lb. flour in lieu to men who are not bean eaters);

  ¼ lb. Meat;

  ¼ oz. Salt.

  This ration is considered adequate for average work for natives.
  I have cabled for information with regard to the medical arrangements, and will let my hon. Friend have the information in due course.
  The German modus operandi involves the wholesale impressment of villagers, and the chaining together of men, women, and children, for transport or labour. Payment is either nil or made in valueless tokens for the most part, and such as fall out by the way are left to die. The whole system is reported as brutal in the extreme.
  Mr. MOLTENO: Are the rations named in the reply the total quantity of food?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to take definite steps for recruiting in German East Africa, and so allow the natives of our own Colonies to have a little rest?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand we are doing our best in that direction.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Could the hon. Gentleman make some representation to the proper authority?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.
  Mr. MOLTENO: Has any legislation to authorise compulsory recruiting been passed in British East Africa
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I think not.

  BRITISH ARMY (ALIENS).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that owing to mistaken or misunderstood public utterances certain aliens, being Allied friends now in the British Army, are apprehensive that they may be deported to the countries from which they are political refugees; and whether he will give an assurance that such Allied subjects who are of good behaviour will not be transferred out of the British Army to any other authority or command?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of the matters referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I may, however, state that it is not the practice to transfer friendly aliens at present serving in the British Army to the Army of their own country in cases where the men themselves do not wish to be transferred.
  Mr. KING: Is there no intention to do so?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: None at all.

  WAR MEDAL (ARMY SERVICE, 1914).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the French Government have issued to all the survivors of the French Army who were actively employed in the War up to and including 31st December, 1914, a medal, with the addition, in the case of those who were wounded, of a small bronze star on the ribbon; and whether the Army Council will consider the advisability of issuing a similar medal to the survivors of the British Army who were actively employed in the War during the year 1914?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can only refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer which I gave on 19th June to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is the question under consideration and will my hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that this relatively small recognition would be a great satisfaction to our Army of 1914?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend the matter is receiving at the present moment very-serious consideration.

  BELGIAN LOCOMOTIVES (FRANCE).
  Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is a considerable number of Belgian locomotives in good repair in France which are not being used; what is the reason why they are not used; and whether, in view of the depletion of loco motives from British railways, he will consider the desirability of making full use of all this Belgian rolling stock, either by purchasing it or guaranteeing its replacement after the War?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no considerable number of Belgian locomotives of suitable types in good repair in France which are not being used

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the claims of wives and dependants of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who had volunteered for military service to the war bonus have yet been considered; whether the sacrifices in reduction of pay of these men have been taken into consideration; and, if not, when will they be considered?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The constabulary allowances to the wives and dependants of Royal Irish Constabulary reservists and volunteers for military service have been increased by the amount of additional pay sanctioned by the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1916, as well as by the war bonus granted in that year. The question of an increase in the war bonus is under consideration.
  Mr. MEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Corporal J. Nagle, No. 9006, 3rd Battalion, E Company, Royal Irish Rifles, Victoria Barracks, Belfast, on enlistment two years ago made an allowance of 3s. 6d. per week to his mother, and the War Office allowed only 2s. per week dependant's allowance; and whether, having regard to the fact that he was an only son to support his mother, and that he would now be in receipt of £40 per
  1724
  year if he had remained at business, his claim for the usual allowance and arrears to his mother will be reconsidered?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The War Office has no power to make allowances on any basis other than that of the actual degree of dependence before enlistment. Any application based on what might have happened if the soldier had remained a civilian should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.
  Mr. WING: Will there be any possibility of reconsidering these war allowances, in view of such cases as this?
  Mr. FORSTER: Surely my hon. Friend will see that if the machinery has been entrusted to the Ministry of Pensions for reconsidering the cases, there is no object in duplicating it by entrusting it again to the War Office?
  Mr. WING: I am speaking of the amounts of money they receive which do not come under pensions in the sense of allowances.
  Mr. FORSTER: I understand that, but the responsibility of determining whether or not the dependant's allowance should be increased because the soldier, owing to his youth, was unable to make a substantial contribution towards the upkeep of the home before enlistment, has been entrusted to the Ministry of Pensions.
  Mr. WING: But the pension committees do not really carry out the spirit indicated by the hon. Gentleman in his reply.
  Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member must take that up with the Minister of Pensions.
  Sir C. NICHOLSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, when allotment is made by a soldier on enlistment or mobilisation, the amount of that allotment, when deducted from the soldier's pay, should be remitted to the payee as from the date of the allotment; and whether, if allowance is claimed on behalf of a dependant, such allowance with allotment should be issuable from the date of enlistment or mobilisation or from the date when allotment is made and allowance claimed, irrespective of the delay due to investigation by the pensions officer?
  Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Payment of allowance for a dependant runs from the date of enlistment, provided that the soldier makes a claim within ten days of his enlistment. If the claim is not made within the ten days the allowance is paid as from the date on which the claim is received by his commanding officer.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Pensions Minister whether a pension awarded to a man on account of disability sustained on active service, and. who is now recalled to the Colours under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, is held in abeyance for the period of his present service; and whether upon discharge that pension is continued in addition to any pension that may be awarded on account of subsequent disability or whether the claim to a pension is assessed upon the admitted total disability at the time of discharge?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): Any pension in process of payment to a man recalled to the Colours in the circumstances quoted will be continued for the currency of the award, with resurvey at the end of the stated period, if the pension was a conditional one. The allowances for children will not be continued, as these will be provided for in separation allowance. If the man is subsequently invalided for a different disability, he will be eligible for a further pension or gratuity in addition to any pension which he may be drawing in respect of his first disability; but if the second invaliding is for the same cause as the first one pension only, assessed upon the admitted total disability at the time of discharge, will be awarded.
  Sir G. TOULMINasked the Pensions Minister the basis upon which the amount of gratuity is awarded in the case of dependants of deceased soldiers; whether there is a scale of such awards; and, if so, will he publish that scale?
  Mr. BARNES: The gratuity, which is generally given only where the dependant is not qualified for pension, is limited by Article 22 (2) of the Royal Warrant to a year's pay of the deceased, or a year's allowance at the rate at which separation allowance and allotment were last payable. In most cases the maximum grant is made and no scale has been laid down or is considered necessary.
  Sir G. TOULMINasked the Pensions Minister, on the question of whether a discharged soldier's disability has or has not been caused or aggravated by military service, whether the finding of the medical board at Chelsea, which recommends the man's discharge is final, or can be subsequently overruled to his detriment without a further physical examination; and, if so, by whom?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The finding of the medical boards which form the basis of the awards of pensions at Chelsea would only be overruled to the man's detriment by the medical referee on the Advisory Board there in cases where it was found that the medical board had dealt with the case on incomplete or incorrect information. The finding of the medical referee or of the Advisory Board can be overruled by the Minister, but it is most unlikely that this would be done to the man's detriment.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: Can the hon. Member say whether that revision takes place without a further physical examination?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That depends entirely on the circumstances. In many cases, when there is a doubt, we order a fresh examination.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has considered that, although the allowance for dependants of active service ratings may be adequate in the case of men who were serving before the commencement of the War and whose dependants are now placed in a better position than before, it is inadequate in the case of men who have joined for continuous service since the commencement of the War, and whose dependants are now in a much worse position than they were before his enlistment in comparison both with the amount of dependency and with the dependants of men enlisted for hostilities; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I appreciate the point of my hon. Friend's question. But I am afraid it is not possible to give the more favourable treatment he suggests to the men who have joined for continuous service since the commencement of the War. Such

  1727
  discrimination would obviously be unfair to those who joined for continuous service before the commencement of hostilities. Further, the Statutory Committee have a Regulation giving them power to make suitable additions in proper cases.
  Mr. SCOTT: How would it be unfair, seeing that it would be based entirely upon dependence and that in the case of the men who were serving before the War there was not dependence?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There must have been dependence before the date of their admission. I cannot discriminate between those who enlisted before 4th August, 1914, and those who enlisted after that date.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Minister of Pensions whether a dependant, Class A, may exercise option as to pension or gratuity; whether, if a gratuity is awarded, any sums paid prior to the award of such gratuity are deducted from the amount of that award; and what is the rule which governs such deductions?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The decision, where the Regulations provide for an alternative as to whether a pension or gratuity is to be awarded, rests with the Ministry. In the case of parents pensions are normally granted, but where the dependence was slight, and a gratuity appears more beneficial, it is given in lieu of a pension. Other dependants are only granted pensions if incapable of self-support and in pecuniary need. In other circumstances they receive a gratuity under Article 22 (2) of the Royal Warrant. If a gratuity is awarded, any sums paid after the normal period for which separation allowance is admissible, and pending final decision on the claim, are deemed to be part of the gratuity.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Pensions whether any supplementary allowance, equivalent to the amount issued supplementary to the separation allowance payable in the case of the family of a soldier residing within the London postal area, is issued supplementary to pension awarded to the widow, family, or dependants of such soldier?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The allowance to families resident in the London area is only paid in respect of separation allowances, and is not con-
  1728
  tinued in respect of pension. I would point out that widows are eligible for alternative pensions based on the pre-war earnings of the husband, and that under the new Regulations of the Statutory Committee allowances in cases of special hardship can be granted to widows and dependants in addition to this maximum pension under the Royal Warrant.

  ENGLISH COUNTY REGIMENTS (WAR SUCCESSES).
  Sir EDWARD GOULDINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the continued services rendered by the English county regiments on the various fronts since the beginning of the War, and in view of the great increase in the number of the battalions of each regiment, he will consider the possibility in future in the communiqués of mentioning their successes in the same way as is done for the Canadian, Anzac, Irish, and Highland regiments?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The suggestion underlying my hon. Friend's question has been brought to the notice of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in France, who will no doubt give it sympathetic consideration. A similar policy will be adopted on all fronts.
  Sir E. GOULDING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of resentment in the homes of English county regiments that no mention has been made of the part they have played in successes, and the whole credit has been given to other regiments?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, a great many letters have been addressed to me personally, and representations have been made to that effect. As I have told my hon. Friend, I am bringing the matter before the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in France.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MEAT.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what system is pursued regarding meat contracts, generally, in Ireland; whether tenders are invited or whether private arrangements are made with certain individuals;

    1729
    whether there is open competition to ensure reasonable prices; and whether the quality of the supplies is inspected, and by whom is the inspection carried out?
    Mr. FORSTER: In the Dublin and Cork districts meat is obtained under the contract system. In the Belfast and Curragh districts cattle are bought from farmers and slaughtered by military labour. Under the contract system tenders are invited and there is open competition. Supplies are inspected by the Army Service Corps.
    Mr. FIELD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that a stockbroker from Belfast has a contract for The Curragh?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; I think not.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his Department has yet investigated the working of the experimental meat scheme now in operation in certain districts in Ireland; can he now state the results obtained by the scheme; do the results, if obtained, encourage the continuance of the scheme; and will he now inform the House what are the intentions of the War Office in respect to the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have nothing at present to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 28th June.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to let us know? Has not the experiment gone on long enough for an adequate result? It has been going on since last December.
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, I think so far as I am able to gather, it has been so successful that in all probability it will be continued, but no final decision has been reached at the moment.

    FRESHWATER FISH.
    Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has received a resolution from Houghton-le-Spring Rural Council to the effect that the public should during the present food crisis have free access to the rivers of the country, with a view to increasing our home-produced food supply, and that the Board of Agriculture should remove the present restrictions; and, if so, will he say what steps, if any, he proposes to bring about this result?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Similar resolutions have been received from a number of local authorities. It is not clear what is intended by the expression "free access to rivers and lakes"—whether, for instance, it is suggested that a general right of trespass shall be conferred upon the public, or that existing licence duties and by-laws should be abolished. It does not appear to the Board that circumstances have as yet arisen which would warrant so drastic an interference with private rights or action liable to have so prejudicial an effect upon the future welfare of our inland fisheries. The Board expect to receive now at an early date the interim report of the Committee which is considering the question of the utilisation of the freshwater fish supplies of the country, and do not propose to take any general action in the matter till they have considered the report.
    Mr. WING: May I take it from that reply that the Board itself is opposed to taking any action whatever in order to give more free and better access to the rivers of the country?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I do not think the hon. Member can come to that conclusion. We have an open mind on the subject

    EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked how many women have been found employment on the land by war agricultural committees and at what wages; what directions these committees give as to the provision of suitable housing for the women; and what sum is usually charged them for board and lodging?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Five thousand two hundred and forty-three National Service Volunteers selected by the county women's war agricultural committees have been placed on farms or in instruction centres. Instructions have been issued that the National Service recruits are only to be placed with employers whose accommodation and general conditions have been approved by the county selection committee. The wage is never less than 18s., and up to the present has reached in some cases 27s. The billeting rate varies between 12s. and 15s.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Are these 5,243 all women who have been found employment on the land?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Yes, that is so; only those through the National Service. Of course, there are farmers who have made their own private arrangements.

    LERWICK (STEAMSHIP SERVICE).
    Mr. C. WASONasked the Postmaster-General by whose orders steamers from Lerwick to Aberdeen are prohibited from crossing direct; if it has been brought to his notice that a large consignment of beef arrived in Lerwiek absolutely rotten; and if he will take the necessary steps to insist on a direct mail at least once a week?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. (Illingworth): The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As to the first and third parts, I am not in a position to insist on the maintenance of any mail service without regard to naval requirements.

    SUGAR.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if any steps are being taken to supply those who have large fruit gardens and have always made considerable quantities of jam in past years, and have applied for sugar, with at least some sugar and so prevent the fruit rotting on the ground, as tons of fruit have already been so wasted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Bridgeman): About 7,500 tons of special preserving sugar have been allocated to private growers of soft fruit for domestic jam making, and no further issue for soft fruit is contemplated.
    Sir C. WARNER: On what system is this sugar being distributed, seeing that many people have got some, whereas regular makers of jam and many of those who applied have had no notice taken of their applications?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will give me instances I will put them before the Food Controller.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentle man issue some information, so that poor people may know to whom to apply for sugar?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think there have been notices issued, but it is hardly any use issuing any further notices now for the soft fruit season.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of people who grow fruit have had no reply at all, the alleged cause being that they did not include stamped directed envelopes, and does he think it quite fair that such a small technicality should deprive the country of a great quantity of fruit?
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: Is he aware that those who did include stamped directed envelopes did not receive any sugar?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have heard both these complaints before, but I do not think that I am in a position to express an opinion as to what course the Food Controller ought to have taken. I will pass on the remarks of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: How much sugar has been allocated to Ireland?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question. The hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to carry all these figures in his head.
    Sir C. WARNER: It was stated just now that there would be no more soft fruit. I think that must be a mistake, because plums and so on are none of them ripe, and they are soft fruit.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I said was that I did not think that it was any use issuing any further notices with regard to soft fruit. I meant soft fruit as distinct from stone fruit. I am perfectly ready to bring it before the notice of the Food Controller.
    Sir J. AGG-GARDNERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that while the approximate amount of sugar used in the manufacture of 100 gallons of ginger beer or lemonade is 150 lbs., the amount used in the manufacture of 100 gallons of light ale, of 18 lbs. gravity, rarely exceeds 25 lbs.; whether in many breweries in the United Kingdom the employment of sugar is altogether excluded; and whether, in view of the restrictions of output which have been imposed upon breweries, with the alleged object, inter alia, of conserving sugar as an article of

    1733
    food, he will say if similar restrictions have been applied to the output of ginger beer and lemonade?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My hon. Friend's statement is approximately correct as regards light ale; but I understand that the maximum amount of sugar now used in the manufacture of 100 gallons of ginger beer or lemonade is about 80 lbs. and not 150 lbs., as stated in the question. If sugar is wholly excluded from use in many breweries, such exclusion is not due to any Statutory restriction. The amount of sugar that may be used for purposes of manufacture is 25 per cent, of that so used in 1915. This restriction applies equally to brewers, makers of ginger beer and lemonade and other manufacturers.

    BREAD.
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether there is a definite and compulsory limit to the amount of cereals other than wheat in the constitution of flour now permissible for the baking of ordinary bread; if not, will he take steps at the earliest possible moment to fix a definite limit; will he consider the desirability of taking compulsory measures by which all flour for the making of ordinary bread shall be ground to such degree of fineness as the experts advising the Departments state will ensure the most nutritive and digestible qualities; and, while the committee of experts is experimenting with the view of overcoming the difficulties in the baking of bread made of flour in the constitution of which maize, beans, etc., form part, will he take means to safeguard the health of the public by allowing in the immediate future the milling only of 80 per cent, or 75 per cent. wholly wheaten flour for the making of ordinary bread?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The machinery in different mills varies so considerably that it is impossible to prescribe a uniform standard of fineness for finished flour. Nor is it possible, in view of actual and prospective supplies, to revert, even temporarily, to the pre-war degree of extraction. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that no effort will be spared to ensure the supply to the public of a digestible and palatable bread.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what are the component parts of the standard loaf; and what provision is made to secure uniformity of standard and the prevention of adulteration of the bread standard prescribed throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no standard loaf. The suggestion that the mixture of flour should be standardised throughout the country is attractive but impracticable. It is not, however, permitted to mix with wheaten flour anything save flour derived from rice, barley, maize, oats, rye, or beans.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Could the hon. Gentleman say how much of the offals of wheat, such as bran and pollard, are mixed with the present standard loaf?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot say.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that offals coming from wheat, such as bran and pollard, are favourite feeding-stuffs for cattle among farmers, and that in their absence they are importing other feeding stuffs?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must ask for notice of that question.

    TILLAGE ORDER (COUNTY TIPPERARY).
    Mr. HACKETTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) the number of rated occupiers in county Tipperary who have failed to comply with the Tillage Order; and what action the Department intend taking to enforce the penalties provided by the Order?
    Sir THOMAS RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Several cases of non-compliance with the Compulsory Tillage Regulations in county Tipperary have been reported to the Department of Agriculture. Inspectors have visited the county, and in the case of twenty-nine holdings the Department have entered or are about to enter upon the lands in the exercise of their powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

    POTATO SPRAYING (IRELAND).
    Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether farmers in county

    1735
    Leitrim could not proceed with the potato spraying owing to the scarcity of spraying machines; and whether the Department will supply spraying machines to the county committee to be lent on hire on the same terms as in county Fermanagh?
    Sir T. RUSSELL: I am not aware that farmers in county Leitrim are unable to spray their potatoes owing to the scarcity of spraying machines
    Mr. MEEHAN: I am.
    Sir T. RUSSELL: These machines can be procured, and the Department are prepared to advance loans to farmers to enable them to purchase knapsack sprayers. Every county committee of agriculture may purchase spraying machines for hiring to farmers, and where the funds of the committees are insufficient the Department are prepared to advance the amount required. Spraying machines have not been supplied free to any county committee.

    MESOPOTAMIA COMMISSION.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether any disciplinary notice has been taken of those officials and persons censured in the Mesopotamia Report; and, if not, whether the decision to do so will be announced before Thursday or whether it is the policy of the Government to wait and see what debate in this House may produce.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I propose, with the leave of the House, to make a statement at the end of Questions tomorrow as to the intentions of the Government in this matter.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has it become the settled policy of the Government to cover up their blunders by a shower of decorations?

    SCOTTISH ESTIMATES.
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked when it is proposed to give a day for the discussion of the Scottish Estimates?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to arrange a day for this, probably in the week after next.

    DOMINION INCOME TAX.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardship of taxpayers having to pay double Income Tax, and in view of the concession granted by the British Government of 1s. 6d. in the £ to all who suffer from this charge, he can say whether any of the Dominion Governments have shown a similar consideration to the British investor whose money is invested in a Dominion where he has to pay the local Colonial Income Tax, in addition to all his taxes in this country, by way of a partial rebate of Dominion Income Tax or in any other manner?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of any provision in the Income Tax laws of any of the Dominions under which a resident in this country would obtain relief from the Dominion Income Tax on the ground that income arising to him in the Dominion is subject to Income Tax in the United Kingdom.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. TURTONasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to direct a uniform gratuity to Metropolitan Police officers and constables who, having qualified for pension, are retained in the force in accordance with the provisions of the Police (Emergency) Acts?
    Sir G. CAVE: As regards the Metropolitan Police this has been done. I would refer the hon. Member to my written answer of the 14th February last. As regards the county and borough police, I have no power to order any such payment to be made out of local police funds.
    Mr. TURTONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, owing to the amount of additional work occasioned by the War that has now to be performed by the Metropolitan Police, many officers and constables are showing signs of strain, and that it is necessary they should be granted such leave of absence as is possible under the circumstances, but the expense of travelling by train is now so prohibitive that they are unable to take advantage of it to the full; and whether, as the police are largely assisting in military work, he will arrange that they should be treated in the same manner as other members of His Majesty's Forces and granted the privilege of a return ticket at single fare when proceeding on leave?
    Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by the President of the Board of Trade on the 7th and 21st ultimo. With regard to the Metropolitan Police, while they have undoubtedly felt the strain of additional war duties, it is right to say that with few exceptions their hours have not been lengthened, and there is less sickness in the force than at this time last year?

    GERMAN BANKS (LICENCES).
    Colonel BURNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether all the licences granted to German banks and firms have been definitely withdrawn; and, if so, will he undertake that no continuation of these licences will be granted during a period of years after the declaration of peace?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The licences to the enemy banks are granted in order to enable payment to be made to British, Allied and neutral creditors and securities held by banks to be properly disposed of, and cannot be cancelled till this work has been done. As regards the second part of the question, the existing licences are applicable only during the War, and the whole question will necessarily have to be reconsidered in relation to the conditions which will obtain after the conclusion of peace.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication when he thinks this change will be made and the licences withdrawn?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say, but I hope it will not be very long delayed.
    Colonel BURN: Is he absolutely certain that these men will not be able to start again immediately after the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope not, but it will depend upon the Government in power at that time.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: If the right hon. Gentleman is leading the House may we be assured that that will be the case?

    GOAL SUPPLY (LONDON).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if the scheme of the Coal Controller for dealing with the
    1738
    coal supply of London during the winter months has yet been circulated to the Metropolitan local authorities who recently attended the conference on the matter called by the Local Government Board; and, if not, when will it be issued?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. George Roberts): A draft scheme for dealing with the coal supply of London during the winter months has been completed by the Controller of Coal Mines and circulated among all local authorities within the Metropolitan Police Area.

    ABERDEEN STEAMERS (CONVOY).
    Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is by Admiralty orders that steamers from Aberdeen to Lerwick are prohibited from crossing direct; whether he is aware that, in consequence, much perishable food, meat and fish, becomes useless; and, in view of the fact that an armed vessel continually crosses said, to carry mails only, will he inquire if it is possible to utilise this cruiser or destroyer at least once a week as a convoy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A report is being called for.

    LOBSTER FISHING (BEREHAVEN).
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the naval authorities have forbidden Con Sullivan and Michael Murphy, of Dee-shirt, and Joseph Moriarty, Castletown Bere, to carry on lobster fishing in Bere-haven; whether he is aware that these men have carried on their industry for a long number of years, and that it was their source of livelihood for themselves and their families; and whether, in view of the fact that they have been deprived of their living in direct consequence of naval operations, he will see that they get proper compensation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Fishery Regulations applying to the district in question were prepared only after the most careful consideration, and no infraction of them can be permitted. My hon. Friend will, of course, recognise that the fishermen in whom he is interested are only three amongst many affected by the Regulations. Claims for interference

    1739
    with trade or business are not dealt with by the Admiralty, but by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and compensation can only be awarded when private property or private rights have been interfered with. It cannot be awarded for interference with a public right such as the right to fish at sea, which is apparently the basis of the claim in the present case.
    Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask if nothing can be done to protect the livelihood of these poor people?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very sorry that that should arise, but what has been done is an inevitable consequence.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this means a further shortening of the fish supply, which is the food of the people?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that is the result.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SALARIES AND PENSIONS).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that numbers of teachers in elementary schools have received no war bonus and are still working at the same salaries as before the War; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I have no power to require local education authorities to pay war bonuses to teachers, but I have every reason to believe that the great majority of local education authorities have either granted war bonuses of teachers in public elementary schools or increased their salaries.
    Sir C. SEELY: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of issuing a circular from the Board of Education asking the local educational authorities to consider this question of granting war bonuses, seeing that he has himself stated that in his opinion the salaries paid before the War were by no means large, and that if they receive no war bonus they will suffer very considerably? My information is that in many cases they have not had any war bonus.
    Mr. FISHER: I have already indicated my attitude towards the remuneration of teachers very clearly, and I do not think that any circular is necessary. I think many local educational authorities are waiting for the Report of the Committee on salaries paid before they take any such action as the hon. Baronet desires.
    Mr. LOUGH: When does he think the Report and the other Report with regard to salaries will be issued?
    Mr. FISHER: I hope very shortly.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in the Departmental Committee set up to inquire into the principles which shall determine the construction of scales of salaries of teachers of elementary schools, no members have been appointed to represent the National Union of Uncertificated Teachers, although uncertificated and supplementary teachers number 54,771; and whether, as these are by far the worst paid teachers employed in elementary schools, he will see that their case is adequately represented by the addition of members of the Committee selected by the National Union of Uncertificated Teachers to represent them?
    Mr. FISHER: I may refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Tavistock on the 5th instant. I am sincerely anxious that the position of teachers in public elementary schools, including uncertificated teachers, should be improved, and I have recently stated the principle of a fixed minimum salary for uncertificated teachers which will involve a very large additional expenditure.
    The problems which arise in the construction of scales of salary of uncertificated teachers are much simpler than in the case of certificated teachers. In the case of uncertificated teachers, the amount of their remuneration is much more important than the method of its distribution. The Departmental Committee, however, is not authorised to consider the amounts by which salaries should be improved.
    I am afraid I cannot regard the National Union of Uncertificated Teachers as representing the uncertificated and supplementary teachers of the country, and in view of the character of the circular letter issued over the name of their secretary on the 2nd July I should be sorry to do so.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education is prepared to make representations to the Treasury to increase during the period of the War, or during the present period of the increased cost of living, the amount of the Government pensions and breakdown allowances to elementary school teachers?
    Mr. FISHER: The Board have already made representations to the Treasury in this connection, but, as I explained in my answer to the right hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent on 20th June, it is difficult to grant relief to one particular class of retired public servants unless it is possible to extend such relief to other classes also.

    NATIONAL SERVICE (MR. SPEAKER).
    Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service whether he is aware that, under a notice dated 2nd July, issued from the M.A.S. Office, 6, St. Helen's Street, Ipswich, Office No. 12, Enrolment No. 14,185, it is proposed that Mr. Speaker be transferred to new employment as a labourer at Wolverhampton at 4s. 10d. per day, 5s. per week war bonus, Saturday and Sunday H.D. 4s. 10d., on the ground that such employment, upon the instructions of the Director-General of National Service, is deemed to be of greater national importance than that on which the recipient of the notice is at present engaged; and what steps the recipient of the said notice should take to comply with its instructions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Cecil Beck): Through a regrettable clerical error, a calling-up notice intended for Mr. F. C. Culpeck was addressed to Mr. Speaker by a local officer of the National Service Department. Mr. Culpeck, who is engaged as a gardener by Mr. Speaker at Campsea Ashe, volunteered for National Service, and it is proposed to transfer him to the steel and iron works of Messrs. Hickman, Limited, at Wolverhampton.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is not this another example of the incompetence of the Department?

    6TH ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Undersecretary of State for War why the Report on the work done by the 6th Royal Welsh Fusiliers in recent fighting in the East, and which was read at the headquarters at Carnarvon is not given to the Press; and will he, in fairness to the men and for the gratification of those interested in them, cause it to be released for publication?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand the facts to be that permission was inadvertently given locally to the commanding officer to communicate certain facts for the personal information of the Territorial Association. There was never any intention of giving general publicity. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend has shown by his question that this battalion is in the: East, as this information is just what the enemy Intelligence Department is always seeking to discover to enable him to dispose of his own forces to the best advantage.

    BEER RESTRICTIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether several small licensed traders in Ireland are not getting nearly their one-third, while the large traders who supplied them are getting considerably more than one-third of their beer supply of 1915; and whether, as small traders can least bear the strain of restriction of their trade and are now being ruined, he will take steps to amend the law so as to give them a right-of civil action in case they do not get their rightful supply
    Mr. DUKE: This matter is not under my control. I have, however, made inquiries and am told complaints have reached the Board of Customs and Excise that a number of small licensed traders are unable to get what they consider is their fair proportion of the beer now being brewed, but that the Board have no knowledge as to the actual quantity of beer being received either by the large or the small traders. The complainants do not appear to have legal right to a supply, but I have brought the circumstances under the notice of some of the principal brewers.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us to whom should applications be made in cases of this kind, if not to himself?
    Mr. DUKE: The Food Controller probably has some power in the matter.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Under a Defence of the Realm Regulation could not some rule be made, the same as has been made for a standard distribution of sugar, so that people may get a fair proportion, in order to eke out an existence?
    Mr. DUKE: I will bring that suggestion to the notice of the Food Controller.

    ALLIHIES MINES (CORK).
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the mining engineer to the Ministry of Munitions, wishing to test the quality and quantity of copper ore available for Government purposes in the Allihies Mines county Cork, and requiring some timber to enable him to pump one of the old shafts, arranged with the receiver of wrecks and naval authorities at Queenstown that he could utilise for the purpose a quantity of wrecked timber salved by local fishermen as no other timber was available; that the engineer and a local merchant guaranteed the full market value of the timber to the receiver of wrecks, but on the very day when operations were to begin at the mines, an armed trawler under orders of the naval authorities at Queenstown, arrived and took away the timber, thus paralysing the efforts of the engineer; and whether he will arrange with the proper authorities that this timber is restored forthwith, or other timber provided, so that operations in the mines can be started without further delay?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that inquiry was made on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions as to whether certain wreck timber could be sold to the Ministry for use in the mines mentioned in the question, and that the naval authorities were apparently unable to spare it. Further inquiries are being made.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any plans tending to coercion or repression by military forces are now being worked out in regard to Ireland; and, if so, whether he can state the justification for such measures?
    Mr. DUKE: I know of no facts which warrant this inquiry.
    Mr. LYNCH: Then would the right hon. Gentleman explain what the recent Conference was about?
    Mr. DUKE: I really do not know precisely what the hon. Member means by his inquiry. This is the sort of question which, on the face of it, is obviously most mischievous, and is not intended to promote peace in Ireland or to do any general good.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it not more mischievous to inaugurate a policy of coercion there?

    HOSPITAL STOPPAGES.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will authorise repayment of hospital stoppages deducted from the pay of soldiers in the case of men who have suffered or are suffering from wounds received or disease due to or aggravated by active service?
    Mr. FORSTER: If any such stoppage has been made it is directly contrary to orders, and if the hon. Member is in possession of particulars of any such case, and will communicate them to the War Office the case will be dealt with accordingly.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will grant the right to appeal against the decision of a commanding officer who has decided that a stoppage shall be made from a soldier's pay while in hospital suffering from disease contracted upon, due to, or aggravated by military service?
    Mr. FORSTER: The rights of appeal which a soldier already possesses will be found by reference to Section 43 of the Army Act.

    WHITECHURCH MENTAL HOSPITAL.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Whitechurch Mental Hospital has been taken over by the War Office and is now known as the Welsh Metropolitan War Hospital; if so, will he state the terms of the agreement under which the transfer was effected; whether he will define the military status of the staff under the terms

    1745
    of the agreement; and whether the wife of every male member of the staff is entitled to separation allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The hospital was taken over under the scheme arranged with the Board of Control to govern such cases. The subordinate staff remain subject to the conditions and terms of their civil employment, and separation allowance is not issuable in respect of them.

  MUNITIONS.

    GALWAY NATIONAL SHELL FACTORY.
    Captain GWYNNasked the Minister of Munitions whether the shell factory established in Galway has turned out work which in point of cheapness and efficiency compares favourably with that of any other centre; whether he is aware that there is water-power sufficient available to drive, and floor-space to accommodate, many more machines than have been supplied to this factory, and that there is abundance of good labour to be had locally; and whether, seeing that under these conditions an increase in the installation of machinery must lower the cost of production per shell, he will explain why, in face of these facts, the Ministry of Munitions decline to enlarge the plant in this factory?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): Owing to the short time that the Galway National Shell Factory has been running cost returns are not yet complete. I am aware that there is sufficient floor-space to accommodate additional machines, and sufficient water-power to drive them. Certain machines for balancing the existing plant are being supplied, as well as certain machines for tool-room purposes, but in view of the resources available elsewhere for producing shell and in view of the demand for machine tools for other purposes, I am not at the present moment able to agree to the installation of additional machines beyond those I have mentioned
    Mr. CLANCY: If the facts are as stated in the question, will the hon. Gentleman say what was the object of the Government doing what they have done in this matter if there is to be no further development?
    Sir W. EVANS: The object was to get the output that the machinery at present is capable of giving.

    HOLLYFORD COPPER MINES (COUNTY TIPPERARY).
    Mr. HACKETTasked the Minister of Munitions what steps, if any, have been taken by the Government to procure copper ore from the Hollyford Copper Mines, Dundrum, county Tipperary?
    Sir W. EVANS: These mines were last worked in 1862. They have been inspected, so far as the state of their workings would allow, by a representative of the Mineral Resources Department of the Ministry. They do not give sufficient encouragement to warrant the large expenditure that would be necessary to reopen them.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the chairman of the Salford Court of Referees, Mr. Aitken, in the appeal of Miss Lilian Fox and Miss Margaret Hill, employed by Messrs. Harden and Company, Thornley Street, Hyde, that unemployed benefit was payable in respect of time lost during the recent; engineering strike, on the ground that it was a dispute between the workers and the Government and not a dispute between the workers and the employers; and whether, in view of this decision, he will direct the unions who have made arrangements under Section 105 of the Insurance Act, Part II., will receive a refund in respect of benefit paid to workers thrown out of employment as a consequence of the dispute in question?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: These cases have been referred to the Umpire for an authoritative decision, and the matter is therefore still sub judice. Should the Umpire uphold the decision of the Court of Referees, repayments in respect of any other cases coming within the terms of his decision will be made to associations having arrangements under Section 105 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, provided that the members concerned made claims to benefit in accordance with the ordinary procedure and provided that evidence of unemployment is forthcoming.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the exemption from Excess Profits Duty in the case of a business carried on by a liquidator, receiver, or trustee under the Court, as provided in Section 56 of the Finance Act of 1916, is intended to apply to a business in Scotland which a debtor has 'handed over by trust deed to a trustee to carry on for the benefit of debenture holders or creditors?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The information given by the hon. Member is not sufficiently explicit to enable me to answer this question. If he will inform me of the case he has in mind, I will have inquiry made in the matter.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
    Mr. BILLING: I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the lack of defence of England against enemy air raids, as proved by last Saturday's air raid over London."
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter which was discussed last night.
    Mr. BILLING: The Prime Minister told us last night that if the House was not satisfied with the result of the Secret Session, we should be given an opportunity of debating it in public, and I beg your leave to put to the House whether there are at least forty Members here who are of that opinion.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The first thing to do is to ask the Leader of the House what day he will be prepared to give, if any. Perhaps the hon. Member will do that.
    Mr. BILLING: I should like to ask the Leader of the House if he is prepared to give us an early day for an open Debate on the question of our Air Services?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I said yesterday, if there is any general desire in the House for such a discussion, I should be prepared to arrange for it, but I should have thought that, after the discussion yesterday, and the fairly full Report which you, Sir, have issued, it would not have been desired to take it.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the Leader of the House aware that all that we had last night was long speeches by the supporters
    1748
    of the Government policy, and that no private Member was given any opportunity of asking any questions. There were no questions asked, there were no reasons given, and there was nothing stated in the whole of that Session which could not have been stated in public Session with the exception of the numbers of our anticipated deliveries. May I ask your leave to move the Adjournment of the House here and now, for the purpose of finding out who is responsible for the hopeless defence of this City?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That matter was discussed yesterday.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have answered on the point of Order.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask you, on another point of Order, what action a private Member of this House has under these circumstances? We were distinctly given an assurance by the Prime Minister that this House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. I ask you to give this House an opportunity here and now of either voting for or against, by the usual manner of rising in their places, a Debate this evening on the Adjournment of the House. May I ask that you should do so?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have no such power to give leave.
    Mr. BILLING: Would you advise me what action I can take so that this House shall have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this matter of urgent public importance?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he accepts the statement of the Prime Minister last night that if, after the Debate, any Members desire an opportunity of discussing the subject, he will grant it? Does that stand at present?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I heard my right hon. Friend's statement, but I certainly did not understand that he said anyone. I thought his statement was the same as my own, that if there was a general desire—I do not mean a majority, but anything like a general desire—we would give it.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask the Leader of the House whether here and now he will give the House an opportunity of proving whether or not it has this desire? Will

    1749
    he appeal to the Chair to do so? May I ask him for an answer? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that question here and now—whether he will now give the House an opportunity?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go on repeating questions of that kind. He has addressed the Minister, and he has had an answer. He has addressed a question to me, and I have given him an answer.
    Mr. BILLING: Is a private Member of this House not to have an opportunity of obtaining a reply from a Minister on the Front Bench? I have put a definite question to the Leader of the House—whether he is prepared to prove his words, and to give this House an opportunity of expressing its opinion. The least the House can do is to refuse it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member goes on repeating the same question over and over again. He has had his answer. He will get nothing more by going on asking the same question. I point out to him that he may very shortly become disorderly.
    Mr. BILLING: I regret if I have to rise from ray place again, and ask you what action I can take to endeavour to give the public an opportunity of having a debate in this House on the question of our air defences. I appeal to the Leader of the House to state definitely now whether or not he will give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have already informed the hon. Member more than once that he has put his question, and has had his answer. He is not entitled to go on putting the same question. I warn him of the provisions of Standing Order 20.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the Leader of the House what steps he proposes to take in order to ascertain whether there is a considerable body of opinion in this House favourable to another debate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: During the time I have occupied my present position there has never been any doubt as to whether or not any large body of Members desired facilities of this kind. I have found no difficulty in finding out.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

      Dilapidated Houses.
      Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in Bolton Road, Kensington, there are a certain number of dilapidated houses which are inhabited under conditions contrary to Section 17 of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909, which forbids that rooms be occupied measuring less than seven feet from floor to ceiling; that the floor of some of these rooms is more than three feet below the surface, of the street adjoining; that there is no water to individual houses, and that the lavatory accommodation of each house of four storeys high, which is let out into tenements of one or two rooms per family consists of only one water closet, placed in the basement; and, if so, whether directions will be immediately given to the local authorities to set in motion their powers to condemn these houses and to substitute dwellings fit for human habitation?
      Mr. FISHER: I have some information as to the houses in Bolton Road. Kensington, but am not in a position to give any such directions to the local authority, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. If the authority made closing orders in regard to any of the underground rooms or the houses in question the Local Government Board would be the tribunal to whom the owners would have the right of appeal.

      Old Age Pensions.
      Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Mrs. Andrew Maguire, of Corralaskin, Kilty-clogher, county Leitrim, was granted an old age pension in 1915 by the local subcommittee and that, on appeal by the pension officer, it was disallowed; that she was again granted the pension in 1917 and on appeal it was disallowed on the ground that her age could not be found in the Census; and whether, as this woman is over the statutory age, a special officer will be sent to see her and decide the case?
      Mr. DUKE: This claim was disallowed upon appeal by the pension officer, on the ground of insufficient evidence of age. The Local Government Board saw no special reason for local investigation. The only definite evidence submitted was that the claimant was full age when married in

      1751
      May, 1875. Her family was traced in the 1851 Census, but her name was not given in the return.
      Mr. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Bryan Early, of Tullnaha, Dowra, county Leitrim, was awarded an old age pension by the Carrick-on-Shannon sub-committee in December, 1915, and on appeal by the pension officer it was disallowed on the ground of means; and whether, having regard to the fact that this man has no means, as he assigned his land to his son, John Early, in 1912, his claim will be reconsidered?
      Mr. DUKE: The Local Government Board have at present before them for decision an appeal by the pension officer regarding a claim by Bryan Early to an old age pension.

      Education (Ireland).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the equivalent grant for Irish education and as to the steps he proposes to take to improve the status, financial and otherwise, of national teachers in Ireland?
      Mr. DUKE: I propose to make this statement in Committee on the Irish Estimates. I understand that a day in next week is likely to be available for the purpose.

      Scottish Land Court and Board of Agriculture.
      Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Reports of the Scottish Land Court and Board of Agriculture will be presented?
      Mr. MUNRO: I am informed that every effort is being made to secure the presentation of the Reports referred to in the course of the present week.

    BOAZ' DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
    Message to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Boaz' Divorce Bill [Lords].—[Mr. J. A. Clyde.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CORN PRODUCTION BILL.
  Order read for consideration in Committee.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Of the Instructions on the Paper the first two, standing in the names of the hon. Members for North-West Lanark and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, propose to divide the Bill into two parts, the first consisting of Part I. of the Bill and the rest the remainder of the Bill. It is only a short time ago that I laid down the general principles as to division of Bills, on 6th June, and I think I need not repeat the ruling which I then gave. This proposal comes clearly within the terms of that ruling and would be out of order on the ground that a clear division cannot be made, and it is impossible to cut Part I. out of the Bill and leave it standing alone. There are certain provisions in Part III. and also in the last part, which are closely connected with Part 1. Part I. could not stand alone. The second Instruction, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough)—["to strike out Part IV."]— is impossible to carry out. There is no power to strike out a portion of the Bill. If Part IV. was, as he thinks, beyond the scope of the Bill, the right hon. Member ought to have raised his objection upon the Second Beading. If there was anything improper in Part IV. being in the Bill, it has been cured by the fact that the House has read the Bill a second time. What I have said in regard to dividing Part I. from the rest of the Bill also applies to Part II., because there is a good deal in the other parts of the Bill which is connected with Part II. and Part II. could not be severed from the Bill without having to re-enact some portion of the other Clauses, for instance, in regard to the arrangement for Scotland and Ireland. In regard to the next Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Members for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White) and of the Leigh Division of Lancashire (Mr. Raffan) [" That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend relief from Income Tax under Schedule A in respect of buildings and other works for the improvement of housing, agriculture, horticulture, intensive
  1760
  cultivation, and the keeping of live stock "]—these are proposals which ought to find place in the Finance Bill. They are beyond the scope of this Bill. The same observation also applies to the last Instruction on the Paper, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyne (Commander Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Hagger-ston (Mr. Chancellor)—["That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to enable the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the corresponding Boards in Scotland and Ireland, respectively, to fix the valuation for purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A and for the purposes of local rating for twenty-one years or any less period of lands which in their opinion are not being cultivated properly."] If it is within the scope of the Bill it can be brought up as an Amendment.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CORN PRODUCTION BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Payments to Growers where Average Price of Wheat or Oats is Less than Minimum.)
    If the average price for the wheat or oats of any year for which a minimum price is fixed under this Act, as ascertained for the purpose of this part of this Act, is less than the minimum price as fixed by this Act, the occupier of any land on which wheat or oats have been produced in that year shall be entitled to be paid by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in respect of each quarter of wheat or oats which he proves to the satisfaction of the Board to have been so produced and to have been sold, a sum equal to the difference between the average price and the minimum price per quarter.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first notice appearing on the Paper to leave out Part I. is not a motion admissible in Committee. In Committee we deal with the Bill Clause by Clause, and a Motion to leave out a Clause only arises at the end of the Clause, when the Committee sees in what form it is left after Amendments have been considered.
    Mr. LOUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he has any statement to make generally with regard to Part I.? It might facilitate Debate if we had some general view before we entered upon the discussion.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is an early Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Kilmarnock Burghs which raises a general discussion. The proposal to amend line 6 [''Minimum Price of Wheat and Oats"] is not admissible, because the words in line 6 are only a heading, and are not part of the actual Bill.
    Mr. CLOUGH: There are Amendments down later to lines 8, 9, and 16 and 17. Would it not be in order to take them here to begin with?
    The CHAIRMAN: If any Amendments are carried to the actual Clause that requires an alteration, either to the heading or to the side-notes, those alterations will be made without any Motion from hon. Members or action on the part of the Committee. The same thing applies to the proposal to leave out the words "and oats" in the heading.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Motion which I have on the Paper is to postpone Clause 1. In putting this on the Paper I had in mind the Amendment which immediately follows in my own name. This Amendment immediately following proposes to substitute an alternative option for that which is proposed in this Clause. The object of the Clause, I take it, to be to give security to the farmer, and the method which is proposed in the Bill is to give the security by means of a bounty, raising the price of grain to a certain fixed price. The alternative which I have proposed in this Amendment is that, instead of being given a bounty, the farmer should be given the option to sell his grain to the Government at that fixed price on the condition that he exercises it before a certain date. I had some doubts as to whether this and the following Amendment would be in order at this particular part of the Bill. I thought, if possible, that you might have ruled that it ought to come as a new Clause, but I thought, nevertheless, that it was a point of principle which ought to be discussed before the House committed itself to the principle of a bounty which is embodied in the Clause, and it was for that reason that I placed this Amendment to postpone the Clause on the Paper. Before I move in the matter, therefore, I think perhaps it would be desirable and would facilitate the business if you could give some ruling with regard to the Amendment which I have immediately following and with
    1762
    regard to the general position of this Clause in relation to this and similar Amendments.
    The CHAIRMAN: I shall be very glad to do that. I read the hon. Member's intentions as being such as he has described, but a Motion to postpone the Clause would not achieve the object he has in view, because he could not discuss the merits of the Clause or of the proposed alternative on a Motion of that kind. With regard to his actual Amendment on the Paper, it is clearly out of place here, because we must first of all consider the proposal in the Clause and any Amendments which may be made to it in Committee before we could say whether we would accept or reject his Amendment and whether additional alternatives are then required. I think what I have already said will answer the point to a considerable degree, that on the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Kilmarnock Burghs there will be an opportunity for the hon. Member to put forward his alternative to the proposal in its present form. In regard to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tynemouth, the same thing applies. We must not insert words at the beginning of a Clause. We must see how the Clause stands after we have amended it, then we shall consider whether any provisos or additions are required at the end. Then I come to the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, to leave out the words "average price for the." I do not quite understand whether that stands by itself or whether it is one of a series of Amendments on the Paper.
    Mr. LOUGH: The other Amendment is quite different from this, and this one can be looked at by itself, for it stands on its own footing. I beg to move to leave out the words "average price for the," and to insert instead thereof the words "price received by any producer for his."
    I think this proposal raises the principle in this Bill of the average price for wheat, which, as it is defined afterwards in Clause 2, is a most unsatisfactory proposal. I think we ought to get at the very beginning of the Bill some more satisfactory basis upon which to construct this average price.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment down which appears to me to have the same purpose as that

    1763
    of the right hon. Gentleman. It is in Clause 2, where the definition of the average price comes. I should have thought that that would have been the proper place for it. All I want to ask now is whether, if the right hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment, that will preclude me from moving my Amendment in the proper place?
    4.0 P.M.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member for St. Augustine's has chosen the better place for this purpose. I am rather unable to see how the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman will really read with other proposals, but I should not be prepared to rule it out of order.
    Mr. McNEILL: What I want to submit is that this is a matter of definition. Clause 2, Sub-section (2), in the nature "f a definition of what the average price mentioned in Clause 1 means. Therefore I submit that that is the proper place for an Amendment which is in the nature of a definition.
    The CHAIRMAN: It seems to be a better place.
    Mr. LOUGH: This Motion of mine is not only a definition Motion, but is perfectly clear and explicit in itself. The case presented by my hon. Friend is that if we proceeded with the Bill preserving these words to which I object we might define them in Clause 2, but that would not remove the evil of which I want to get rid. The whole of this Bill is based on the words which I am moving to leave out in Part I. of the Bill on this question of average price. Clause 2 defines how the average price is to be fixed. It is based on a series of averages. The averages are taken weekly first, then they are put together and taken monthly, finally there is an average on a period of from six to seven months. Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that in these prices the lowest price was 45s. and the highest price was 60s., and the average at the end of six months was found to be about 50s., then, if the proposal in the Bill stands, the effect will be that this average price is taken as one price, and the minimum price set out in the Bill is taken as the other, the difference, when found and determined, will be paid to everyone of these farmers who has sold his wheat. That would be grossly un-
    1764
    fair. The average price would give the bonus to the wrong man, if the system of this Bill were adopted, while the man who deserves most would get least. For instance, if some of the farmers get 60s. and others get 45s., and the average price is 50s., the bonus would be 10s., and the man who had got 60s., or the occasional lucky man who got 70s. for his crop owing to its excellence, is put on the same level with the unfortunate farmer, say in Scotland, whose prices are much lower, who is working in most difficult circumstances far away from a market.
    This is a most extraordinary proposal and is quite unnecessary, because my Amendment shows how it can be avoided. My Amendment suggests that instead of putting in this artificial fictitious average price, we should take the price at which a man has sold his wheat, an actual sample price, instead of this difficult working average. That would be a far fairer system. If the Commit tee will examine this problem they will see that it is quite impossible to proceed on the plan suggested in the Bill. The object of the Bill is to encourage people, who arc not favourably situated for the purpose, to produce wheat and oats. There are certain counties—I believe, that the county Norfolk is one—where no inducement is required, and all the wheat that can be produced is produced. Surely the policy of the Government ought to be that in out of the way places which do not usually produce wheat, and on land on which wheat is not usually grown, an inducement should be given for the production of this crop which is so necessary for the life of the people. Instead of that, the men who arc in the worst positon, men in remote parts of the country, farthest from a railway station and from a good market, are the people who will receive the lowest price for their wheat, and they are getting no more than the growers situated in the most favourable places who get the highest price. Then there is another point. Two farmers who are in practically the same position may never get any good price. One will get a good price and one a bad price. Yet both are to receive the same bonus. Therefore, because farmers who are in the same position will, under the arrangements of the Bill, get quite different amounts, and also because the farmer who ought to receive most will get least, some more satisfactory standard should be adopted.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Under the arrangement proposed in the Bill a farmer might sell his oats or wheat at a price well above the price fixed in the Bill as the minimum price, and yet would be entitled to receive the bonus, so that in the end he would receive far more than the price fixed in the Bill. That is corrected by the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time I foresee some difficulty in carrying out the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, because it will be necessary then to take the prices received by every individual fanner, and that I regard as a very great difficulty.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: The tight hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member who supports him do not, I think, realise, in reference to average price, that this is the price to be fixed to decide whether there is to be a bonus given or not. There is no question of distribution. That will come later on, and all the arguments advanced are arguments as to distribution. I quite agree that this is not the right place to deal with distribution. We have now the question of fixing the average price, so that if the price of corn falls below that average a bonus will be given to the farmers, and whether the Bill gives it afterwards or not is another matter. The question at this point which we have to decide is that there should be some guidance as to average price for farmers throughout the country.
    Mr. W. WATSON: I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment what his object was in moving it. I am not a practical farmer. I know a little about it—not much—but it does strike me that if the right hon. Gentleman's purpose was to secure the poorest possible crop of corn or other cereals in this country he is going the best way about it. I quite appreciate what the last speaker has said as to the question of distribution, as to whether a man who sells at 60s. is to get a bonus. That is another point. As far as I can see, if we are to strike out "average" and give to everybody the difference between the price which he actually gets and the minimum price in the Bill, the result will be that the person who cares least about the quality of his crop and gets the poorest price will get the biggest bonus. At present I see no answer to that
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The object of the Bill is to get the maximum of production, and it is not, if I may say so, from the small man that the maximum of production is going to be got. I agree that under the Bill as it stands we do not sufficiently look after the small man and the poor land. I think that that is the objection to the proposal of the Bill as it stands, and from that point of view I am quite willing to consider certain Amendments that follow, which have for their object, as I understand, helping the man with poor land, and not allowing too great a share of the allowance to go to the big man; but the principle of averages, I have no doubt, is the fairest system to adopt. This encourages everybody to do his best, and in the case of the man who, with extra skill, grows superior grain, it is meet that he should receive as much encouragement as the man who grows poorer corn. It will be within the knowledge of the House that there are many sorts of wheat which, from the milling point of view, are most highly valued, and those sorts are not the most prolific. We want to have all sorts of corn grown and we want, therefore, to have a general average fixed. As I understand the right hon. Member's Amendment, he thinks that if a man sells half his crop at 61s., and the other half at 59s., he is to get no difference. Is that the transaction?
    Mr. LOUGH: Yes.
    Mr. PROTHERO: Obviously, if the man, on the rates at which he sold his samples, is not to claim the difference between the minimum price and the price at which he sold, it seems to me that would be absolutely impossible. I cannot understand how such a system could be proposed with any chance of success. I realise the right hon. Member's point, and on other Amendments I shall be very glad to give most careful consideration to the point, that our present proposal may be held to give more benefit to the larger farmer than it ought to do and too little to the small farmer. While I agree with the object of the right hon. Member, I cannot think that his proposal will really bettor the situation; rather, it would make it more difficult.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: I should like to know a little more as to how the average price works. Is it taken over a number

    1767
    of months, with the minimum and maximum? A man might sell at 90s., or at a high price in one season and at a low price in another season, and the two would be on entirely different lines.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a subject which will be discussed on Clause 2, and we shall deal with it when we reach the Amendments to that Clause.
    Mr. LOUGH: I wanted to call attention to this average price at an early point in the Bill; however, my right hon. Friend has given such a sympathetic answer and has promised further Amendments, that: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell), it is put down for a different purpose from that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Shaw).
    Mr. SHAW: That is so. The hon. Member for Burnley has put down words with an object diametrically opposed to the idea which I, and other Members who support my Amendment, entertain. We desire to fix one standard, arid apply it to all the land. The hon. Member for Burnley apparently wishes to deprive the oat-growing farmer of reward under this Bill. I should like to ask whether I may move the alternative scheme, as the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley are fatal to it? If I do not do so now, will I be in a position to move the Amendment on lines 10 and 11 of the Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to remove the words "on which wheat or oats have been produced in that year." I shall propose the Question on lines 10 and 11, and the hon. and gallant Member will be able to put forward the whole of his scheme. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough) does not come in at this point, and if he proposes it in the form of a new Clause I shall deal with it.
    Mr. SHAW: I beg to move to leave out the words "on which wheat or oats have been produced in that year."
    In moving this alternative scheme which stands in my name and in the
    1768
    names of several other hon. Members, perhaps I may be permitted to say what is the scope of our proposal. If hon. Members will look at the bottom of page 1412 of the Amendment Paper, they will see a further Amendment in the names of the same hon. Members in which we propose to leave out, after the word "each," the words, "quarter of wheat or oats which he proves to the satisfaction of the Board to have been so produced and to have been sold, a sum equal to the difference between the average price and the minimum price per quarter." We propose, when that Amendment is reached, to insert, instead thereof, the words, "acre actually tilled by him in that year to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture in excess of the total acreage tilled during the year nineteen hundred and fourteen, on the whole land in his occupation, for every acre of such excess a sum equal to three times the difference between the average price and the minimum price per quarter of wheat." By these Amendments we propose three things, and I shall deal very briefly with the first two. In the first place, we propose to adopt the acreage basis instead of the basis of production and sale Secondly, we propose to adopt one standard of reward for the whole country, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, for the breaking of additional acres, and, further, we propose to apply that standard of reward to tillage of any kind irrespective of the things produced, so long as the tillage is conducted to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture. Our third proposal is to confine the guarantee to excess above the normal cultivation in time of peace, and we take, for example, the year 1914. I will deal very shortly with the first two points. As to the basis of production and sales, I have consulted many eminent agriculturists, and I am told that in Ireland, for instance, it would be absolutely unworkable. In Ireland the Board of Agriculture would be faced with 500,000 applications on the basis of production and sale, each one of which would have to be carefully investigated, and I am informed by those who understand the question, that in all probability the expense of such investigation, and the large staff required, and so on, would in all cases be greater than the total amount the farmer himself would receive.

    1769
    Secondly, the requirements of production and sale is unjust to every country but England. The Scotch farmer and the Irish farmer and the Welsh farmer consume a large proportion of their own production, but that cannot be a justification for depriving a man, who may' be eminently successful as a dairy farmer or stock-breeder, simply because he has not sold his grain, of the advantages of this Bill. We propose to do away with all the elaborate machinery which will be required, and further to do away with the attraction of colourable claims of sale merely for the purpose of obtaining the bonus. In that respect I think the Bill is morally as well as economically indefensible. As regards the standard of reward, we propose one standard for the whole country, irrespective of particular crops produced, so long as the land is cultivated to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture. We wish to divide the reward over the whole of the land, and the guarantee we propose requires a few words of explanation. We propose to guarantee the particular acreage cultivated in excess of the standard of 1914. I will not bother the Committee now with the particular standard; what I want is to take a normal year, a prewar year, and then take any excess over the existing standard, the standard today, because the effect of the War has been that a great deal of energy and capital has been put into new land, and I think it would be most unfair to the farmer that you should consider this normal standard.
    Therefore, we propose to go back to the year 1914, and we consider that more fair than to accept the present standard of cultivation as the basis. We propose as a standard of guarantee three times the difference between the market price of wheat and the price in the Bill. How that figures is arrived at is this: The Committee will remember that we apply the reward not only to wheat growing land but to land that is tilled to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture. One-half of the cultivated land in this country is under grain crops, and the average yield per acre of wheat is four quarters. It would follow that to leave the former in the same position financially under the Bill, a guarantee given irrespective of crops produced on the land, would have to be a guarantee equal to twice the difference between the minimum price and the general market price
    1770
    of wheat. Here another fact enters in: When new land is broken up, I am informed that the first crop is a grain crop, and therefore it would be unfair to take the normal basis as the basis of reward for additional tillage, as the guarantee we propose applies only to excess tillage above the 1914 standard. Some people have suggested that three times is really too generous. I think it is generous, but I do not think too generous, for, provided that we can put this Bill on a sound economic basis, then, in matters of tillage, we can afford to be generous, and ought; to be generous, to the farmer at a time like this. I beg the Committee to consider that there is all the difference in the world between the pledge of the State to pay a large sum by way of guarantee for that portion of the crop which ought in normal times and under normal conditions would be produced in any case and paying rather handsomely for something which the State under normal conditions would not receive at all. I think that substituting one standard for all parts of the Kingdom is a proposal which will appeal to the Committee. The first idea was to take oats as a standard for Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, but we found it added complications without any corresponding advantage, and would be less favourable to those countries than the universal standard we propose.
    What is the real substance of this Amendment? We propose to confine the guarantee to excess production, and, if the Committee will permit me, I should like at the outset to deal with two principles which have been suggested. It has been urged that additional wheat will be grown in some cases on land which is at present tilled, and that therefore we deprive the farmer of the guarantee, although he produced additional wheat. There is no ground for that submission. Whether additional wheat is produced by alteration in the rotation of tillage, some crop will be displaced, and the displaced will naturally have to be grown on newly ploughed-up land, and so far as that process takes place the farmer will get the benefit of the guarantee under the alternative system. That is not the only criticism suggested. Another criticism has been suggested. It is said, "Oh, your alternative scheme militates against intensive farming." I think that is a criticism which ought to be met. I put this point to practical farmers. What some of them say about it is this, that it is a very good

    1771
    point for a politician and an excellent point for a Government which is desirous of thrusting a rather unpopular Bill through a protesting House of Commons, but there is nothing practical in it. The best method of employing extra capital and labour is in extra tillage. That is the real, substantial point and the substantial need of the nation. That is the most productive and most economical process from the national point of view. Always presuming there has been decent farming in the past, the real way to grow more grain is to till more land, and it would be time enough, I submit, to consider what will be done in the way of intensive and hothouse cultivation when the millions of acres in this country which are crying out for the plough have been brought under adequate tillage. The great cry is to plough up the land. We are told that there must be 3,000,000 extra acres ploughed up next year. The Selborne Committee, to whose Report I would respectfully call the attention of hon. Members and which was delivered in January of this year 1917, deal with the point in this way. They say, in paragraph 23 of the Report:
    "What the nation wants is more land under the plough."
    That is the real, substantial problem. If you confine your bonus to extra tillage and accompany that with proper supervision of cultivation, then, in my submission, you have met the national need in a sound and economic way. But if you insist upon paying a bonus on the portion of the crop which the nation would receive in any case, and if you insist upon paying a bonus for the purely normal production of the country, then I venture to say you have raised quite a different set of questions, and you have raised questions which are not war questions, and questions which are highly controversial questions, and questions which ought not to be raised at a time like this. Why do the Government drag in the normal production of the country into this Bill at all? Is it in greater danger, this normal production of the country, from foreign competition? I submit that it was never in less danger from foreign competition than at the present moment. May I remind my right hon. Friend of two things? In the first place, unfortunately, there is a lack of tonnage, a growing lack of tonnage, and while that is a most grave matter for the nation and for this country
    1772
    for many years to come, it operates as a check upon a rush of foreign competition and low prices. That, I think, is sometimes forgotten. Consequently, when we are told about the increased cost of production, with all deference, that is not a factor which is confined to this country. It operates throughout the world, in varying degrees it is true, but still it operates-throughout the whole world, unfortunately, and that, again, a misfortune no doubt to the nation at large, tends to equalise the position and preserve the normal production of British agricultural soil in the same competitive relation to the production of other countries as it was-before the War, and, as I venture to suggest, in a slightly more favourable relation than before the War.
    I submit that the normal production of the country can be left to take care of itself, whether the prices be above or below those fixed in Clause 2. Why do-the Government drag it in at all1? Because of hypotheses and conjectures as to what would happen to the poor farmer. There is a perfect cloud of hypotheses and a cloud of conjectures all round this Bill. Some of those hypotheses and conjectures I think it would be unfair at this stage to mention. Some of us seem to see under the abundant shade of Governmental hypotheses and conjectures which protect him from the gentle rain of foreign competition and shields him from the unpleasant glare of the Income Tax, and the even more searching rays of the Super-tax and Excess Profits Duty, the pathetic but somewhat substantial figure, hitherto-unknown in our history, of a statutory profiteer. What figure will he cut in the public eye? At bottom I acknowledge he is the best of all good fellows. We have a great respect for him, but he has never asked to be put in this invidious position;, he never apprehended any real danger to-his normal existence. Oh, no, but the gracious and benevolent personality, which I am glad to see adorning the Front-Bench, came to him and said with that-dangerous charm and that fatal power of suggestion which he possesses, "Are you quite well? Are you quite sure you have no apprehensions for the future? We know that your fears are vague: we told the House of Commons so; but just let us treat you as a baby and, to calm all your apprehensions, we will go down to the House of Commons and get them to enact a statutory lullaby." In my submission that is what this Bill is.

    1773
    Because we decline to be parties to this aspect of the plan of the Bill it must not be supposed that we are hostile either to my right hon. Friend or to the Government or to the objects, the avowed objects, of the Bill. So far as I can understand the real object of the Government, an object which must commend itself to every Member of the House, is to make it profitable for the farmer to till land which under normal conditions could not be tilled at a profit. If the Bill were confined to that then I venture to say there are few people, whatever their economic beliefs were, either as Free Traders or Tariff Reformers, who would take the slightest exception to it as a purely exceptional measure justified by exceptional circumstances. But the Bill goes very far beyond that. It proposes a bonus not only on new production, on new-land, but also on that large portion of the total crop which if there were no Bill at all would still return a fair profit in the normal course of business to the grower. Will the Committee consider for a moment what this proposal may mean to the taxpayer? Lord Selborne's Agricultural Sub-Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the President was a member, reported in January of this year, taking into account increased wages and cost of production, in favour of a minimum guarantee price for wheat of 42s., which they said would be a fair recompense to the farmer. They went further and said this in paragraph 42 of the Report:
    "For the reasons we have given we think that farmers may fairly be urged, and if need be, compelled, to grow wheat and oats if they are assured of a minimum price of 42s."
    What arc the prices in the Bill? Sixty shillings and 5ois., although that Committee thought 42s. would be adequate remuneration. Suppose that next year, or, say in 1919, the contingency which the Government do not contemplate had arisen, and supposing the price of grain fell to the levels which Lord Salborne's Committee said in January of this year would be remunerative, what would be the position of the taxpayer? He would have to make good the difference between those prices and the prices fixed in Clause 2, and a very simple calculation based on the last year's Returns which have been laid on the Table, show that the taxpayer would have to pay £14,456,000 before a single extra bushel of grain had been produced for the nation, and that magnificent addition to profits to the men who had not lifted a little finger
    1774
    to add to the food supply of the nation. On the 1914 level of production, and assuming that prices fell to the figures of Lord Selborne's suggested guarantee, the price the taxpayer would have to pay for nothing, and merely by way of inflation of profits, would be £14,371,218.
    Mr. ARCHDALE: Would he pay any more wages?
    Mr. SHAW: My hon. Friend has failed to grasp the point, because Lord Selborne's Committee definitely say, taking into account increased wages and increased cost of production, that 42s. is a, proper price.
    Mr. FABER: What was the date of that Report?
    Mr. SHAW: January of this year.
    Mr. ROYDS: What term of years did they guarantee?
    Mr. SHAW: I do not know that they suggest any period. The period in the Bill is six years. If, taking into account increased wages and cost of production, Lord Selborne's Committee was of opinion in January last that 42s. was a fair price, then I submit the onus is on the Government to prove that 42s. is not fair now, and that 60s. is required. If we accept Lard Selbome's Report as accurate, the proposal in the Bill, so far as it relates to normal production, which we want to see left out, is indefensible, and we are faced with this dilemma. I do not desires to put the matter offensively, but either the Bill is an Inflation of Profits Bill, or it is not. If it is, then at a time like this ipso facto it stands condemned. If it is not, then equally it stands condemned because it is so drawn that if it becomes operative at all, it will operate mainly in a direction which was never intended, and therefore, I contend, the Government ought to. accept this Amendment. The vital flaw in this Clause as it stands is that it provides a guaranteed price not merely for additional production, but also for production which would already be remunerative at a much lower figure. The advantage of the Amendment is that, while it confers a generous guarantee for extra tillage and extra effort, it can never operate to inflate the profits of the man who has not lifted a finger to increase the food supply of the nation. Why should it? We are told, and this is

    1775
    one of the hypotheses and conjectures with which the Bill is surrounded, that the operation of this Bill is a remote contingency. Those who tell us that seem to regard it as a substantial point. But what is to be said for a Bill, the best argument in favour of which is that it will never come into operation. Even though the contingency is remote, that is no reason for providing for the contingency in an essentially unsound and uneconomic manner, and it is no reason at all for adding a most damaging precedent to the agricultural and reconstruction legislation of the country.
    I submit that the alternative scheme in the Amendment secures the position of the farmer and secures the position of the taxpayer. The farmer will receive a reward for his added efforts and the taxpayer a definite return for his money. The Amendment means something for something, while the vital flaw in the Bill is that if it operates "t all it involves something for nothing. So long as there is a sense of fairness left in the country, where is the security for the permanence for such an arrangement, where is the security that it will last even for six years? The best security for the farmer on this Bill is justice, and I appeal to the Government not to leave this measure in a condition where great public pressure may arise—it is arising now, and the accidents of political chance may lead to its repeal—but to place it now on the unassailable foundation of providing for the public needs by a measure which gives substantial justice to every class of the j community. No doubt the fanner ought to be given a sense of security. If lie must have a sense of security, by all means let him have it; but is the farmer the only person entitled to a sense of security? The great masses of the people of this country to-day are eating dear bread, and if the price falls to-morrow they will have to pay for it under this Bill. I submit that this measure, in its present form, ought not to pass the House of Commons, which, after all, is the trustee of the general public interest, and is about, once more, as we hope, to assume its time-honoured rôle as the custodian of the public purse.
    Sir J. SPEAR: The speech to which we have just listened is one of the character i we have heard in this House for the last thirty years, and is largely responsible for the present deplorably high prices of the
    1776
    necessaries of life. We had hoped that the lessons we have learned through this War, of the danger of relying so much on foreign food supplies for our own people, would have taught something which would lead Members of the Committee to realise that the national interest demands that we should produce from our own soil more food in order to prevent a scarcity such as we are unfortunately at the present time experiencing. Speaking as a farmer, we did not ask the Government to take the steps which they propose to take. We would rather have gone on on principles dictated by those of supply and demand, but the State, in the interests of the State, deemed it important that we should revolutionise our system of agriculture, and all we ask is that the State who makes this call upon agriculturists will see that agriculturists in carrying out the interests of the State will not be the losers thereby. It seems to me that it is a simple measure of justice which is proposed by this Bill. We want to see the agricultural districts prosperous. We want to see the agricultural labourer better paid. This Bill provides for that, and therefore I venture to think from that point of view it is a step in the right direction.
    I am not going to attempt to make a Second Reading speech, but what I am going to say as a practical farmer is that in my opinion, if the hon. Member's Amendment is accepted, it will largely defeat the object of the Government in determining to raise from our own land a larger amount of corn than is at present the case. I will say why I contend that that will be the result of the acceptance of the hon. Member's Amendment. He proposes, as I understand him, to prevent the guarantee being applied to corn grown on land now under cultivation. He claimed and argued that in any case, and without this Bill, corn would be grown from such land, and therefore there was no justification whatever for a guarantee being given. I venture to say, with great respect, that that is altogether a fallacious argument. If we are going to depend on a great increase in the amount of corn grown from our own land, we must depend on the present arable land rather than on the land recently broken up which has been under grass. It is a system with many of us to grow a series of crops for, say, four years, and then to lay down the land for temporary pasture for a similar period. I contend that the real salvation

    1777
    of the country in increasing the corn supply will lie in the breaking up of our temporary pasture to grow corn, rather than in attempting to grow it on the old pasture land to be broken up. In other words, we are endeavouring to accomplish the objects of the State rather by intensively cultivating the arable land we have than by depending on the pasture to be broken up, and for this reason: The old broken up pasture will not be suitable for corn growing. In the first place, it is full of grub, which will probably destroy the crop. In the next place, if we succeed in getting a plant, the fact that that land so laid down has accumulated fertility for many years would make the straw grow so softly that when the first storm came down it would go. The straw would be rotten, and the corn in quantity would not be much more than the seed we put in the ground.
    I admit that the breaking up of a limited amount of pasture is desirable in the interests of the State. We want to have increased cultivation, not only for the present time but in the future; but we shall have to use that land rather for the growth of potatoes, mangold, and roots, and thereby we shall bring it into condition to grow a reasonable crop of corn. The hon. Gentleman, however, wants to keep the farmer out of any guarantee for the corn grown on the old arable system. I do venture to repeat that nothing could be put before the House more likely to defeat the great objects we have in view—of getting more corn and of trying to reduce the price of the necessaries of life to the people—than the acceptance of his Amendment. Let me point out this: The fact of our intensively cultivating the arable land will prove a great loss to the farmer, because he will be deprived of his four years' pasturage for his sheep, one of the most essential conditions in the successful maintenance of a farm. We willingly make the sacrifice in the interests of the State, but the farmer will suffer, I know from practical experience, very serious loss from having his temporary pasture broken up—which I say is absolutely essential to grow the corn we want—and thereby losing the new ground for his sheep. He will be an extremely heavy loser, and altogether I do venture to appeal to the Committee to allow this narrow-minded class idea of hatred of the landlord and farmer to be forgotten. Let us encourage the farmer. We are prepared to do our duty as the custodians of the
    1778
    land, which the State has to see is managed in the best interests of the State. Do let hon. Members not speak against us if they cannot speak for us, and I venture to say that the Committee will be well advised to reject the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt he introduced it with great spirit, but, if he will allow me to say so, if his principles are adopted they will defeat the object of raising move corn and will prove a gross injustice to the farmer, who is very anxious to develop his holding in the best interests of the State.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: On a point of Order. On this Amendment the principle contained in an Amendment appearing lower down on the Paper, to leave out from the word "each" ["each quarter of wheat or oats"] to the end of the Clause, and to insert other words, is not raised. I want, if I may, to call this to your attention, that the Amendment to which I have referred involves, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) said, three distinct points. I want to suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee that the Division, if there be a Division, should be limited to the one point. The three points are, first, acreage, instead of quantity produced; second, to eliminate sale, and give it on produce whether measured by acreage or quarters; and, third, to limit the guarantee to land not under the plough in 1914. That last point, I suggest, is the one which will be most conveniently dealt with in this discussion, because the other two points—of eliminating sale or putting in acreage instead of quarters—are covered by Amendments which stand in the name of certain hon. Members, including myself. Consequently, the question of limiting the guarantee to additional acreage is the most convenient question to discuss now.
    The CHAIRMAN: I had realised that there were really three proposals, as indicated by the hon. and learned Member. The present proposal is embodied in a series of Amendments, of which this is the leading one, which raises the question of giving only a bonus on excess acreage. That is really the issue of the present Amendment. If this proposal is not accepted by the Committee; I propose later on to take proposals such as those standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner), and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself (Mr. Scott) has one

    1779
    later on the Paper. But I think it is right that on the present one the other alternatives also should be open to discussion, as to come to a decision on one point the Committee must be able to hear the case on the others.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. PROTHERO: We have heard a very brilliant and able speech from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Shaw), but with all its brilliance and with all its ability I should not choose him as a tenant farmer. I feel that this is a very important Amendment, which not only justifies my making, but compels me to make, a somewhat elaborate statement about the question of a guaranteed minimum price and its effect upon farming. In the first place, as to this particular Amendment, I would suggest to the Committee that it will encourage an indiscriminate breaking up of grass land. There is no magic at all about ploughing up grass that is unsuited for arable cultivation. It also quite indefinitely enlarges the scope of the Bill. The Government finds that there is one industry, the corn-growing industry, which runs a special risk, that of a fall in prices owing to foreign competition, and that this risk means a great deal to the farmer at the present time, because we, at all events, are quite uncertain in spite of what the hon. Member has said, as to the conditions which may prevail after the War. Therefore, whatever uncertainty he may have felt before as to launching out in the corn-growing business, it is greater now, and what he hopes for at the present moment is security. When the hon. Member for Kilmarnock says that rests upon hypothesis and conjecture I would point out to him that in 1915 the Milner Committee took a great deal of evidence and the evidence was absolutely conclusive on the point that what the farmer wanted, before he could launch out further in corn growing, and risk his capital, was security, and that this was the evidence given in great detail and at great length before the Selborne Committee; therefore it rests upon something more substantial than mere hypothesis. When the hon. Member went on to speak of the large sums that may become payable under this Bill, I wonder if he followed his argument out to its logical conclusion. The same argument was used at great length by the hon. Member for Dumfrieshire (Mr. P. A. Molteno) who told us that there might be
    1780
    cause for a loss to this country of £104,000,000; therefore. I imagine his argument, and that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, is, that this is so perilous a speculation that it is not one on which the nation can possibly embark. How about the farmer? Can you ask the farmer to embark on a speculation which is so hazardous that the nation will not touch it; it is the strongest possible way of stating the case for the farmer and the-case for the Bill. If you follow it out to its ultimate conclusion that is the meaning of that argument.
    Under this Amendment tillage does not necessarily mean corn production; that is to say it does not necessarily effect the object of the Bill. There is no limitation whatever to the kind of crop that may be grown on this land. At the present moment the Board of Agriculture has been taking great pains to try and prevent the cultivation of certain crops, which with prices like these and when we want all the bread stuffs we can get, are in the nature of luxuries. I mean such crops as hops, bulbs, fruit, etc., All these could be grown under this Amendment in the middle of a great war, and the only control proposed is that the Board of Agriculture should see that the land is properly tilled. That is a fatal objection, I submit, to the Amendment. As to the effect on milk, something has been said about milk production, that milk is not encouraged by the Corn Production Bill; but surely nobody pretends that the milk producer is faced by the same danger of fluctuating prices owing to the cessation of the War, as the coin producer. He does not run the same sort of risk, or a risk on the same lines. His ease is perfectly different, and I submit it is abundantly met, because he has been guaranteed against too low a price for the season 1917–1918. A further objection that I would make to the Amendment as it stands is this, that it limits the allowance to the increase in arable land. What does that mean? It excludes from the benefits of this Bill, as was said by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Spear), the man who increases his acreage by ploughing up his temporary grass land. There are 2,600,000 acres of this temporary grass land which would be excluded as a means of increasing your corn cultivation, and I submit that is a great blot on the Amendment. In Wales, for instance, we expect to get a very large addition to our acreage under corn by ploughing up, not

    1781
    the permanent grass land, but the temporary grass land, which has been kept down for seven or eight years. Then surely it excludes also the man who cleans his fallows and grows corn upon them; it excludes the man who because his land is foul and impoverished, which it is at the present moment, throws all his strength into cleaning it and bringing it to a proper state of cultivation.
    The whole point of the corn production campaign we arc carrying on in England is this: we are asking, not as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock says, for 3,000,000 acres of grass land to be ploughed up; we are asking for 3,000,000 additional acres under corn. That is a very different thing, and yet fully one-half of that additional acreage under corn and potatoes would be excluded by the Amendment. That would be diametrically opposed to all we have been doing for the last six months, and would be a fatal objection to the Amendment. I would also point out that the difficulty of carrying out this Amendment would be very great. the Board of Agriculture has to supervise the tillage, to say it is tillage which is to its satisfaction, and we should have to have a large staff of inspectors. I would point out this, that if you make an offer, let it be a firm offer; do not let it be conditional on somebody else deciding whether it has been carried out satisfactorily. To say to the farmer you shall have this allowance, whatever it may be, provided you satisfy such and such public body of officials, is not an offer which would give confidence to the farmer. Then I would like to point out that the adoption of a scheme like this would be very unfair to those districts which grow oats mainly, very unfair, that is, to Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and for this reason: the prices of wheat and oats do not run in regular parallel lines; wheat may keep up firm, oats may go down Under this Amendment the oat farmer, whose prices have fallen, would get nothing at all, because any payment is conditional on the fall in the price of wheat. In 1903, for instance, wheat stood at 26s. 9d. and oats at 17s. 2d.; the following year wheat had risen to 28s. 4d., oats had fallen to 16s. 4d.; not a penny to the oat grower would there be because wheat had gone up and the oats had fallen, and therefore I submit that would be a most unsatisfactory rule to adopt. If you take years 1907–1908 you will see exactly the same thing. Therefore, if you are anxious
    1782
    to exclude Ireland, Wales and Scotland from the benefits of this Bill then I admit this Amendment would be of use.
    Finally, the Amendment will work, as I think, in the most unfair way. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. Supposing there are two farms, side by side, of exactly the same quality—150 acres each. On farm A the farmer is a man of enterprise, he has got 60 acres of land under the plough. Farmer B is one of the slow-moving, cautious, and slack kind, who goes on making a small but safe profit, and he has not got an acre under the plough. Under the Bill each of these farmers plough up 30 acres, that is to say, farmer A has now 90 acres under the-plough and farmer B 30 acres under the plough. Assume that each of them puts one-third of his land under seeds or roots, and that farmer A grows 30 acres of wheat and 30 acres of oats. He will get 120 quarters on his 30 acres of wheat and 150 quarters on his 30 acres of oats. Farmer B grows 10 acres each, namely, 40 quarters of wheat and 50 quarters of oats. When you come to make payment under this Amendment, let us suppose the price of wheat meanwhile had fallen from 45s. under the Bill to 34s., a difference of 11s., and that oats similarly had fallen from 24s. to 20s. Three times 11s. has got to be paid on the 30 acres of wheat on each of these farms—that is,. 990s. to each farmer. On farm A that works out at 5s. per quarter on 120 quarters of wheat and 2s. 7d. a quarter on the 150 quarters of oats. On farm B it works out at 15s. a quarter on the 40 quarters of wheat and 7s. 9d. a quarter on the 50 quarters of oats. So that farmer A, who has really done the mast for the nation,. the man who has grown the most wheat, and has employed the most labour, gets. for his wheat, with the bonus, 39s. a. quarter—that is, 6s. under the minimum price—and for his oats 22s. 7d. a quarter. On the other hand, farmer B, the man who ha>s done nothing all these years, the man who has been a slacker, a lag-behind, and who has refused to follow the example of his more enterprising and energetic neighbour, under this Amendment gets for his 40 quarters of wheat 49s. a quarter, or 4s. above the minimum price. Farmer A, the man of enterprise, gets 6s. less than the minimum price. Farmer B will get on his oats 27s. 9d.—that is, 3s. 9d. more than the minimum price—whilst the more enterprising farmer only

    1783
    gets 22s. 7d. I appeal to hon. Members whether an Amendment that can work so unfairly as that is one which this House ought to adopt?
    There are, however, points in this Amendment which I do feel are of great importance. I realise, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock says, that produce and sale are a very difficult matter administratively, and that it will be particularly difficult in Ireland, where there are numbers of very small people and where—not more, perhaps, than in England!—the pleasure of doing the Government nearly beats steeplechasing. I do not mean the slightest offence to hon. Members from Ireland. We should all do it if we had half the wit or intellect of the Irish Members. But I think, under the produce and sale system, every sack will do its duty. However, I leave the matter there. I do feel that, administratively, the difficulty of produce and sale are enormous; that if we go by payment upon an acreage basis we shall have got a system which is administratively possible, and which will mean a very great gain and great improvement, if I may say so, to the Bill as it stands. That is one point on which I hope we shall be able to meet the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. On the other hand, on the standard of reward, I have endeavoured to show the House—I trust with success—that the standard of reward will work very unfairly if it is based only upon wheat, and that it will press with great hardship upon the oat-growing countries which are under this Bill; and as to excess of production over 1914, I think the hon. Member is quite fair in taking that date—if he takes any—yet the principle of excess production is one which, I believe, is very detrimental to production under this Bill. To put it only upon excess is, I venture to think, wrong, especially when that excess is an excess of acreage. What are you asking the farmer to do when you are asking him to increase his corn production? In the first place, you ask him to plough up—I hope the House will not think I am getting too horribly technical, for I do not mean to be; I only want to make the point plain—supposing you ask the farmer to plough up his grass land. He has a perfectly safe return for his money in his grass. He makes no big outlay of capital. He incurs no personal anxiety. He runs very little risk. He gets his money in regularly. He has a, very small labour bill—
    1784
    one man per 100 acres. You ask him to plough up that grass. First of all, you ask him for a very considerable capital outlay. Then you ask him to exchange, no doubt a possibly larger return, for a perfectly safe smaller return. You ask him to incur no end of personal anxiety. You give him a labour bill which is two and a half times the size of the former. That is a very big demand to make upon the farmer.
    Take the case of a man who ploughs up his permanent grass and does not come under this Amendment. He has laid that grass down temporarily. Say he has only had two years of it. It is going to be profitable to him at a very minimum of expense for at least six years longer. You ask him to plough it up, and you offer him no security whatever—no allowance under this Amendment. Take, again, the case of the large farmer of whom we have heard so much, the large farmer in Norfolk. I believe the hon. Member for Kilmarnock alluded to him. Do you mean to tell me that that man, without any security at all, is going to lay himself out to grow more corn if he is uncertain at all as to the future of his prices? He will not! I am afraid this is a technical argument, but it is one which every practical farmer would agree with me in. Some hon. Members seem to think that in farming large production is necessarily cheap production. It is nothing of the sort. There is in that respect the greatest difference between manufacture and agriculture. It is the case that in agriculture you have the law of diminishing returns and in the case of manufacture you have the law of in-creasing returns. If that large farmer has to get an increase in his production he has to make a very large increase in his expenditure. If you leave him alone my fear is that he will not make that expenditure. Let me put the case in this way: An acre of land without any fertiliser whatever grows 18 bushels of wheat. If you apply one dose of fertiliser you get an extra 10 bushels. If you apply a second dose of fertiliser you get an extra 8 bushels. It is to the nation's interest—and never more than now—to get the whole of that 18 extra bushels. Does it pay the farmer? Will it pay the farmer? That is entirely a question of the price he is going to get—absolutely !
    Suppose that his fertiliser costs him at present war prices for an acre 65s., and

    1785
    that wheat is standing, as it is in these minimum prices at 60s. a quarter. That means 7s. 6d. a bushel. My farmer applies his fertiliser at the cost of 65s. He gets his 10 extra bushels of wheat. That 10 bushels of wheat at 7s. 6d. a bushel is 75s. He thus gets a profit of 10s. an acre. Supposing he applies a second dose and gets an extra 8 bushels. He has now spent 130s. His extra 8 bushels would be worth 60s. That is to say he gets 135s. for the 18 extra bushels, and spends 130s. to get them. His profit on the smaller amount is 10s. per acre, and is reduced 5s. per acre on the larger amount. It is, however, to the advantage of the nation to get the 18 extra bushels. Unless, however, the farmer is pretty sure prices are going to rise considerably above 60s. he will not grow the wheat. Why should he? He cannot be expected to do it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is his profit now?"] Or, take this point: Suppose prices go down to 40s. He has bought his fertiliser in 1917. He has put it on in the spring of 1918, and he sells his crop in 1919 His loss if he puts on that fertiliser will be something very considerable. It will be £2 an acre if he grows that 18 bushels of wheat for the nation. That is what he stands to lose if the price goes down. There lies the reason, the practical reason, the reason of the experienced farmer, why we say that you cannot leave the farmer unprotected in this matter. It is to him we look for the larger increase in the corn production of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock, with his great experience of farming, told us, you will not get it on this new wheat land; this newly ploughed up grass land. We ourselves are warning the agricultural committees throughout the country that the whole of the increase in wheat that we expect them to get will have to be got from the existing arable land for the harvest of 1918. That is sound practical advice. Not one penny, not one atom of allowance will, under this Amendment, be paid on that additional wheat grown. I have dealt with the Amendment fully, because I believe it is of great importance, and also because it enables me to show that on one very important point I am in agreement, namely, that the acreage basis, if we can adopt it, will be administratively useful. and will be a most valuable improvement.
    Mr. ACLAND: I merely rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I meant to do before he got up, to deal with one I further question, so that the Committee may know exactly where they are. I appreciate fully, I hope, some of the technical objections he has raised to the particular Amendment before the Committee, though, I think, they leave the central principle of the Amendment to a very considerable extent untouched. But what I want to be certain about is this: Are the objections that he has just made so strongly to this particular Amendment directed to this particular Amendment only, or does he take up the attitude that, under no circumstances whatever, is he going to establish the principle that the State shall get something extra for these guarantees? I put the question in a perfectly specific way. Will he or will he not accept the provisos that were inserted in the Milner Report?
    Mr. PROTHERO: We cannot accept the principle that these allowances should only be paid upon additional production, because it seems to me that before you increase production you have got to maintain it, and you cannot maintain it unless you give the same security to the big man to whom I alluded just now. As to the Milner Committee, I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and I were both members of that, but what we did recommend was a minimum guarantee of 45s., and we said that of other proposals the one which seems to be practically worthy of notice is the proviso which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. We did not recommend it; it was not part of our substantive recommendations, but it was thrown out for consideration.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think we had better really know exactly what it was the Milner Report said, because it is really a matter of some substance. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was considering the Financial Resolution, said this Bill was based on the Milner Report, and, as he signed that Report, on which he says this Bill is based, one would expect that the Bill would really carry out the main recommendations of the Report, and the point I want to. make is that the provisos of the Milner Report, the conditions without which the guarantees would not become operative, do not only apply to a man who is ploughing up fresh land. We -specifically recommended that a man, on

    1787
    whose holding at least one-fifth of his total acreage under grass and annual crops should actually be under wheat, should share in the guarantee. The farmer A, whose case the right hon. Gentleman gave, would be entirely covered "by the provisos of the Milner Report. Let me read the words, if I may, first of all, to see to what extent it is true that this was a recommendation, and then give the definite provisos. First of all, we considered, and dismissed, the idea—which the right hon. Gentleman will remember I was specially keen about—contained in the Amendment now before the Committee, that we should only pay on the extra amount that is produced. Then we come to Paragraph II.:
    "Another proposal, having the same object in view, appears to us of a more practical character. It might he possible to give the guarantee in respect of the whole quantity of wheat produced, and at the same time to make sure that the country is getting a substantial quid pro quo for the liability undertaken by the Exchequer. One method of doing this would be to confine the guarantee to those farmers who were able to show that they had made a reasonable effort to increase the production of wheat. It is difficult to devise a test for that purpose, but if it was decided that any farmer claiming the benefit of the guarantee would have to show that he had fulfilled one or other of the following conditions, we believe that the double object of limiting the liability of the Exchequer, and ensuring an adequate return for the risk undertaken by the state, might be achieved. These conditions are:
    (a) That a farmer should have increased his area under arable cultivation by. at least. one-fifth over the similar area in October. 1913:"
    That, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman has just said, he does not feel able to do—
    "or in the alternative,
    (b) that, ill least, one-fifth of his total acreage under grass and annual crops, should actually be under wheat."
    So that the big farmer who is already growing plenty of wheat and doing his duty—the farmer A of the right hon. Gentleman's illustration would be covered by this proviso of the Milner Report. At the present stage I do not lay any emphasis on the exact proportion of one-fifth. We are getting a basis not of wheat only, but of wheat and oats, and therefore that might have to be reconsidered. I do ask this question: Will he, or will he not, in some such way as this secure that there shall be some quid pro quo Because, undoubtedly, both he and I put our signatures to the general principle that there should be Some quid pro quo, though not necessarily that you should pay on the extra production. The quid pro quo was that the man was tilling more land and increasing his arable area,
    1788
    or that he had already been placing, and had made it the habit of his system of farming to place, a fair proportion of his land under crops which are the most essential food supply of the people.
    I want to be quite definite. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he, having signed this Report, having this Bill, as he said last time, based on this Report, will insert in the Bill something like the two provisos of this Report, I shall vote against the Amendment, but if he says he cannot accept the provisos in any form I shall have to vote for it. I am bound to do so, because I think the general principle that a man, by his general system of cultivation, or by extra cultivation, shall have done something to earn his guarantee, is very essential. To getaway from the rather small pont, as the right hon. Gentleman may claim, of what was contained in a particular Report, surely the principle is of enormous importance for this reason: We are hoping by passing this Bill, and by the other measures taken by the Government, to enter a new era with regard to the relations of the agricultural industry and other industries and the nation in general. Surely it will be a bad day for that good understanding, which we hope will be entered upon, if it goes out to the people of this country that that arrangement is a one-sided arrangement, and that there is not going to be any return necessarily made for the guarantee of prices that is given. I believe the people of this country, even if they dislike having to pay any guarantees, be they small or large amounts, would stick to the arrangement faithfully, and would be willing even that it should be perpetuated if they were certain that they were getting something definite in return. I thought this Bill was mainly based, not on the Milner Report but on the Selborne Report, and was intended to lead up to a permanent system. In that case I should have expected a quid pro quo to be given, not in the form of making a requirement from the individual farmer, but of a declaration from the Government that in the course of so many years they were going to see to it, under Part IV. of the Bill, that our food supply was increased from this country as a whole by certain steady, definite amounts each year until we got, not to the point of absolute safety, which perhaps we never can get, as we never can produce the whole food supply from year to year, but, at any rate, up to the point

    1789
    of nearest safety which, as Mr. A. D. Hall has explained, is safety in an emergency.
    If this Bill had been, so to speak, a reconstruction of agriculture on a permanent basis. I think it would be very important to find out what the return to the nation permanently for this guarantee would have been in terms of safety. But I understand I am wrong, and that this Bill is based on the Milner Report and has to be regarded purely as a war emergency measure. As from the war emergency standpoint of view we have nothing definite as to what the farming community as a whole is going to do, I do think it becomes extremely important, if we are to enter this new era of good understanding between agriculture and other industries, that there should be some sort of requirement from the individual farmer who is going to benefit from the guarantee. I would be willing to take it with regard to the mass or the individual, but I think we ought to have it in one way or the other, because, if not, there is nothing which can prevent part of this Bill, at any rate, seeming a. very one-sided thing to an enormous number of people, who, in their present state of mind, are really very anxious to be just to agriculture, and I am sure a great many of them are very anxious to make up for what they admit might have been a past neglect of agriculture. But they do want to do it on the basis of some arrangement which, in some form or other—not necessarily in the form of this or some other Amendment on the Paper—shall secure that the man who gets the advantage shall do something to earn it. This will be the sort of case: A man with a farm of 300 acres has, perhaps, 80 acres under wheat or oats, which steadily drop down to 60, 50, or 40 acres; but so long as he grows any he is going to get the advantage of these guaranteed prices, if the price of wheat or oats falls below that which is contained in the Bill. Really that is a bad start, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to try, not necessarily at this stage of the Bill, but to try somehow whether lie cannot carry out in the spirit, at any rate, those two provisos in the Report to which he put his signature, and on which he said the Bill was based.
    Sir C. WARNER: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I would say that a quid pro quo is a very difficult thing, and I will show one of the
    1790
    difficulties, because in many cases, even under this Amendment, we shall get no quid pro quo at all. But to start with, what is it we are trying to get by this Bill? [An HON.". MEMBER: "Protection!"] I do not think the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, who express themselves just as good Free Traders as my hon. Friend near me, would for a moment agree to any Bill that was simply a Protection Bill. That is not the point. What we are asking for at the present moment is that every possible acre of land should produce wheat or oats. That is what the nation wants. Wheat or oats are what the Bill is demanding in the name of the nation. Every man who cultivates an acre of wheat or oats this year, whether he has done it before or not, is doing something for the nation; and this Bill proposes to give him some security that he shall not lose by it for this year, and that if he does it for next year he will not lose by it next year. This is not a question of the man only who is going to raise a new aero of wheat. It is a question of the man who is already growing an acre of wheat. Is he to go on growing that acre of wheat? In many cases it is not profitable to go on growing it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not make him?"] If you are going to coerce him, then you will have to find him the capital, and the amount of capital is very considerable in proportion to the return. If you ask him to put his capital into this particular acre of wheat, are you going to give him nothing? Is he to have no quid pro quo if the prices fall?
    Is he not to get what the shipowners hare got, an insurance against destruction? This is an insurance for the farmer and not for the landlord, and it is for the man who puts the crop in. This Bill is to insure the man against loss who grows wheat or oats, and that is the way to pro-dace more wheat or more oats. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is it?"] I think it is, and I believe I know more about farmers than my ho". Friend who interrupts me. I have talked to dozens of farmers, and I know they look upon it as important that they should have some security. You have no guarantee that prices will be kept up to their present level, and you do not know what prices are going to be. Under this Amendment, or any restrictions upon increased production, you would have to put it on the number of acres satisfactorily cultivated. That is what the Minister of Agriculture has accepted, and he has pro-

    1791
    vided that every acre cultivated in wheat or oats shall receive according to the amount cultivated, and if a farmer reduces the number of acres under this kind of cultivation he will get less security, and if he increases his cultivation he will get more. The only crops which get this insurance; arc wheat and oats. There are thousands of acres this year which were sown in winter wheat and oats, and the seeds rotted in the ground, and you cannot say that it was not properly cultivated. Are they to get anything? Those crops absolutely failed from the hard winter, and of course the nation would lose that money. I think the man who cultivated and sowed that land would have been entitled to get something.
    Mr. MOLTENO: He gets nothing under this Bill.
    Sir C. WARNER: I am talking of the scheme suggested that a quid pro quo should be given, and on this point the Milner Commission was quoted. If that recommendation had been adopted and a fifth had been laid down in wheat and oats probably the greater part would have utterly failed. I know on my own farms and hundreds of other farms the crops absolutely failed in their winter sowing, and they had to be ploughed up again. Surely a man who made this effort would be entitled under the scheme proposed to get his share of this insurance. Of course you cannot control the Seasons and that is a difficulty with fanning. The farmer is willing to risk that if you will give him an insurance against the fluctuation of prices. He is willing to take one risk, but he is not in a position to take both risks. The mover of this Amendment raised many objections to the Bill, but most of them are swept away by the concessions which the Minister for Agriculture made when he said he would give this allowance according to acreage. It does not moan the acreage of the whole farm, or the acreage of other things put in such as hops or even beet sugar and things of that kind, but it means the acreage absolutely of corn and oats. In all fairness the man who is helping the nation to-day by trying to grow the utmost amount of wheat and oats is entitled to this insurance, and it is only an insurance in the case of prices falling below certain figures. It is an insurance that he shall not be a very heavy loser, and therefore I think the nation will do fairly well, and
    1792
    it does get a quid pro quo in every acre cultivated for the purpose of growing grain. I know that hundreds of other things can be grown besides wheat or oats: some of them have been enumerated and others have not, but the question we have before us to-day as a nation it how much wheat and oats we can get grown. You must not deviate from the principle of giving the same security to the man who grows wheat or oats for the first time or the hundredth time, because those farmers are doing what you want done and they ought to have the security, and if you do not give it you will not get the increased production which you are looking for.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I have listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Baronet opposite. He spoke of giving a security and an insurance, and he also dealt with the question of a quid pro quo. I submit to the Committee that if the taxpayer is to give a guarantee, the country should get some benefit because of that guarantee or payment. The hon. Baronet speaks as if there would be no wheat or oats produced at all in the absence of this guarantee. That is a fair assumption if his argument of spreading the guarantee over the entire supply is a sound one. I think the hon. Baronet recognises that even without the guarantee a great deal of wheat and oats would be produced, as has been the case in past years.
    Colonel WEIGALL: Yes, at a loss.
    Mr. WHITE: The hon. and gallant Member only needs to look at a recent return, and he will see that a large amount of wheat and oats has been produced year after year for a number of years, and to tell me that this has been produced at a loss year after year all those years is really too ridiculous. Whether the production is successful or not depends very much on the nature of the ground, and this brings us to the question of the productivity of the soil. If you are dealing with the richer lands, they may produce five or six quarters to the acre, and those lands will be cultivated without this guarantee, and therefore the guarantee should be limited to the poorer lands. What I am saying has not only been said in this House, but it was repeated in a letter in the "Times" newspaper the other day from someone who will be regarded as an independent

    1793
    authority, namely Mr. Wade, the Agent-General for New South Wales, and I will quote his words. He said:
    "This above basis provides no guarantee of any substantial increase in the production of breadstuffs. There will be some increase, no doubt, but whether to any extent seems doubtful. On the other hand, there are not only individual landowners, but districts, and possibly counties, where all the arable land is as far as practicable now being utilised. In such cases fixing prices would not increase the area under cultivation, but the taxpayer will be under the burden of finding, an increased amount to meet the extra price per quarter payable on the yield from existing areas.''
    The point is that the taxpayer might have to produce a very considerable amount without getting any corresponding advantage or possibly without getting any advantage at all. I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture, who dealt at some length with what is commonly known as the law of diminishing returns, and he made the extraordinary statement that the law of diminishing returns applied to agriculture and the law of increasing returns applied to productive businesses. I can assure hon. Members that if they look into any elementary book upon political economy they will find that the law of diminishing returns applies not only to production but to every other business, and the principle is that every properly conducted business, up to a certain point, as long as an increased application of capital brings in a still greater increase of profit, capital will be poured into it, and will continue to be poured into it as long as there is a corresponding ratio of return, but when the ratio of return for the increased amount of capital begins to diminish, then the point of diminishing returns is reached, and that principle is not limited to agriculture, but it applies to other businesses. I really could not allow such a statement from the Front Bench opposite to pass unchallenged. In speaking of the law of diminishing returns there is one law linked up very closely with it which the right hon. Gentleman altogether failed to mention, and that is the law of rent.
    Mr. G. FABER: Rent is a diminishing return.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. WHITE: Rent will not be a diminishing return under the conditions of this Bill, but it will be an increasing j return, and this Bill, which is called a Corn Production Bill, ought to be called a Rent Production Bill. Take the case of I ordinary corn production, without subsi-
    1794
    dies of any kind. Corn or wheat will be produced on land where it pays to produce it, and the richer land will yield a proportionately higher result than the other land. Any attempt to increase artificially the price lowers the margin of cultivation on, the poor lands and increases the rent of the better wheat lands. That really follows from fundamental principles, and our great objection to this Bill is that these fundamental principles no not seem to be realised. I know that something has been said of shifting altogether on to the acreage basis. There is, to my mind, something to be said for that. I still think it is economically unsound, but it certainly is not so unsound as the other basis. If the amount to be paid were the same for the less productive land as for the more productive land the proposal would not work out so unjustly as under the Bill, because under the proposals of the Bill as it now stands the man with the richest land, which would be farmed for wheat whether there were this Bill or not, gets much more than the man on whose land it barely pays to grow wheat. Therefore, I regard the acreage basis as the less undesirable, though economically unsound now as I believe it would be in peace. It seems rather a pity when the Government had this alternative line in mind that they did not put something on the Paper embodying their view. It really makes it very difficult to discuss the matter when we have only some vague statement, from the Minister in charge of the Bill. He indicates his desire to make certain changes, but those changes are not put on the Paper. I understand that the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) in a very interesting speech, but that they are prepared to do something else of which they have not given the Committee notice at all. Really, when we are considering at a time like this a Bill involving such enormous expenditure on the part of the taxpayer, and a Bill which proposes to extend his liability by guarantees which may mature into Grants, we ought to have something on the Paper from the Front Bench opposite to show what we are discussing. One feels that difficulty in discussing the matter, and I really hope the representatives of the Government will at the earliest possible moment make the situation clear and say in plain and definite language what is their proposal.
    Colonel WEIGALL: The motto of the Royal Agricultural Society of England is "Science with practice," but this Debate has been a glorious example of the application of theory without practice. The speech of the hon. Member who last sat down (Mr. D. White) and the brilliant speech of the Mover of this Amendment (Mr. Shaw) were two conspicuous examples. The last speaker was surprised because the President of the Board of Agriculture stated that the law of diminishing returns applied to the agricultural industry and did not apply to other industries. I will tell him why. He forgets entirely that with manufactures you can go on expanding with the same establishment and administrative charges and increase your output. That does not hold good in the case of agriculture. The economic production of the soil is controlled by the price which the farmer is going to receive. Neither the hon. Member nor the farmer can control the seasons. These considerations do not apply to ordinary manufactures. We have been asked why the nation should be compelled to be under any financial obligation unless it is going to get a quid pro quo. That is perfectly sound in theory, but in practice the answer to-day is this. The House seems to forget that for fifty years the country allowed the whole agricultural industry to relapse. We lost over two million acres of arable land, and to-day that land is unproductive so far as food is concerned. The country now says that we have got to try and get back to the arable acreage of 1872. The only way is to give a sense of security to the only people who can do it. You cannot farm by Government Departments or by War agricultural committees. All you can do is to restore a sense of security to the landed interest.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Bill does not do it.
    Colonel WEIGALL: My right hon. Friend says that the Bill does not do it. but it does shod an air of security over them. There is a still greater quid pro quo. Let me just read some words used by Bismarck in 1879, because they are really applicable to-day. He said:
    "There is a limit below which tile price of corn cannot full without the ruin of our entire economic life. That point must nor be reached, for when it is it will be too late for the country.….This is the position of British agriculture to-day. They have been feeding the nation mainly out of their capital for years past. and unless this downward course is promptly stopped, it means national ruin and anarchy as the result."
    1796
    There is your quid pro quo. If you want national economic security, you must have a prosperous agriculture, and the reason for introducing this Bill is to prevent the agricultural industry relapsing into the state reported upon by the Eversley Commission in 1897. My hon. Friend who spoke before me was surprised when? interrupted him and said that at a certain period neither oats nor wheat had been grown at a profit. I said that on the authority of the Eversley Commission. They say:
    "Generally speaking, the effect of the depression on all farmers has been to seriously cripple their resources. They are getting little or no interest on their money invested in the soil; they have now to considerably alter their style of living.….As regards the changes in rents, the evidence we have discussed. …. shows that in the most depressed parts of England rents have been reduced, on the average, by 50 per cent., while on very poor soils in some of the eastern and southern counties, no rent can be obtained and farms have been thrown on the owners' hands. Moreover, landlords have incurred increased expenditure on repairs, drainage and buildings, and since 1892 they have paid the tithe, frequently without any adjustment of rental. In many instances, where landlords have been called upon to undertake improvements of this kind it may be confidently held that the present rent does not represent more than a very low interest on the original capital expended."
    During those periods oats and wheat were grown at a loss.
    Mr. WHITE: On some of the land, or on all the land?
    Colonel WEIGALL: On the whole of the East Anglian corn-bearing land.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I would remind the hon. Member that this is not the Second Reading of the Bill. The question before the Committee is whether this sum to be paid to agriculturists is to be reckoned either on the produce from the soil or on the acres tilled, and I really think that we ought to confine ourselves to that point.
    Colonel WEIGALL: There are three points.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: In your absence, Mr. Whitley was asked to deal with this as a point of Order, and he indicated that the main point for the purposes of the division would be whether the guarantee should be given in respect of excess acreage over the 1914 level or over the whole of the acreage of wheat and oats, though he said that the other points would be treated as in order for the purposes of the discussion.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I supplement what has been said and point out that if

    1797
    what was said by Mr. Whitley were taken in concise form as put by my hon. and learned Friend, it would preclude the possibility, if the acreage proposal, for instance, were discarded and we retained the quarterage proposal in the Bill, of taking the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Shaw), as an alternative to his scheme, providing for payment for the excess on a quarterage basis. I hope no ruling will preclude the possibility of that Amendment coming up for discussion.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: I should like to support that appeal if I may.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not giving any limiting ruling on supplementary Amendments. I am only protesting against the rather wide range which the hon. Member is developing.
    Colonel WEIGALL: I am faced with a practical difficulty on this Amendment. It raises three diametrically different points, the excess and the acreage being the two main ones. It may well be that there are Members who are in favour of the acreage as against the quantity being taken as the basis, and they may be diametrically opposed, as I am, to only paying on the excess. I understood the ruling given by Mr. Whitley was that we were only dealing with the question of excess. Am I to understand that we can now arrive at a decision on the question on the excess, leaving the other point to be dealt with on the omnibus Amendment later on.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to give any ruling on that point now. My intervention was solely with a desire to get the hon. Member to direct his remarks more closely to the discussion which has already taken place in Committee. I heard most of the ruling, and I think that I am in touch with what has been going on.
    Colonel WEIGALL: Then I will reserve my remarks.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The hon. Member began by telling us that the motto of a certain institution was "Science with practice," and he proceeded to allege that the speeches of some of my hon. Friends had been distinguished by theory or science rather than by practice. It is rather a dangerous method of argument in this House to adopt such illustrations. It is rather like
    1798
    pointing a gun at the enemy, but pointing the wrong end of it and having the muzzle directed towards oneself. The retort is obvious. I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would claim that his own remarks were more distinguished for their science or for their practice, or for both of them. Probably it is better to allow arguments to speak for themselves. I will not claim any special inspiration, either from science or from practice. I will endeavour merely to address myself to some obvious, common-sense considerations arising out of the proposal of the Bill, the Amendment, and the various remarks that have been made. In considering the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Shaw) it will be wise to lay emphasis upon what is the specific and avowed object of the Clause we are now considering. The object, as it has been clearly stated by the President of the Board of Agriculture, is a general one: it is to give security to the farmer. Security is the one thing needful for the maintenance of existing production and the increase of production in the future. We are also told that the guarantee involved to make up prices to the high level contained in this Bill is a guarantee which is not likely to become operative, that so far as can reasonably be foreseen, in view of all the conditions at the present time and the prospective conditions of the future, the actual prices prevailing in the market will probably be above this level, and that the guarantee will not become operative. What, then, is the need for the guarantee? We are told that there is still some element of doubt that farmers are by nature suspicious and cautious, that they prefer solid certainties even to the mildest speculation, and that the Bill has been framed with the object, at very little cost to the country, of giving them that security by means of a guarantee which it is very improbable there will be any occasion to implement.
    If it is considered that the prices contained in this Schedule are in themselves, if guaranteed, sufficient security, not only to maintain existing production but to secure an increase of production of a kind which is necessary for national safety, why is there any necessity to tolerate prices beyond that level? If these prices give adequate security, then any profit which is secured in excess of these prices must be excess profits. Here I would like to mention an alternative proposal to that

    1799
    in the Bill and also to that contained in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It has already been mentioned at an earlier stage. It was ruled out of order then, but Mr. Whitley indicated that it might be mentioned in the course of this more general discussion. I suggested, in an earlier Amendment, that that security could be obtained if, instead of offering a bounty to the farmer, he were given a firm option of selling the whole produce of his land to the Government at these prices, provided he exercised his option before a certain date. That is an alternative method of giving security. There can be no doubt that it does give security. It is possible that there might be some, farmers who have been left out of account—we were told that farmers preferred security to speculation—who would reject that option and who would prefer to speculate on the chance of obtaining higher prices in the future. Why should we give them the opportunity of this speculation combined with a Government guarantee against any loss if they enter upon that speculation? Let us give them the full and ample security involved in an option of selling to the Government at these standard prices, and, if they prefer to go in for speculation on the chance of getting higher prices, let them eater upon that speculation at their own risk. I suggest that to the right hon. Gentleman as a clear alternative method, as one which ought to be considered, and as one which the right hon. Gentleman ought to give the Committee his reasons for rejecting in preference to the proposal contained in the Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs has suggested another very clear and definite alternative, namely, that the bounty should be given, not on the total production, not on the production which would have taken place, in any case, whether or not there had been any guarantee, but on the production in excess of the normal production—in fact, that it should be given upon new production. The President of the Board of Agriculture, while appreciating the point of that suggestion, has submitted that a proposal confining the bounty to new production would not serve to maintain production at its present level, that it gives no security to the farmers who are doubtful about maintaining their present level of production, and that if all that were done were to give the guarantee
    1800
    proposed by my hon. Friend, there might be a danger of a considerable reduction of what we have come to regard during the War as normal production. I submit that there is no risk of that kind. With prices at their present level, or their prospective level, there is no danger, so far as price is concerned, of any reduction in production.
    Captain Sir B. STANIER: How many years will you guarantee that?
    Mr. SCOTT: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend how many years of a guarantee did the farmers have in 1915? There was an increased production then. Not only that, but the prices which obtained then, when no one was certain how long the War would last or that prices would reach their present enormous level, served to secure then a certain production in this country. That is not theory, or what my hon. and gallant Friend might term science, it is practice. Those price a obtaining in the open market, with all the risks of the market, served to give that area of production during the War. What reason is there—if at that time prices were lower, when we know now that, according to all the economic conditions of the country and internationally, and having regard to all the restrictions upon shipping which must prevail for years after the War, and which must limit the importation of wheat and corn to an enormous extent, when we know that prices must be maintained at a considerable level—what reason is there to suppose that if things are left alone, that there should be any reduction in production which can be cured by a guarantee in regard to prices. It may be pointed out—some hon. Members no doubt will point out—that in comparison with 1915 there has been some reduction in the past year. Was that reduction due to prices? Was that reduction anything of a kind which can be cured by a guarantee of prices lower than those which have prevailed during the past year? No. Anyone who has practical knowledge of the industry knows that that reduction in production took place chiefly on account of labour difficulties—difficulties which are increasing, and which will not be cured by this Bill. You may guarantee even higher prices than those guaranteed in this Bill, but if nothing is done to secure for the land the amount of labour which is required, not merely to increase production but to maintain it at its former level, the objects of the Bill will. fail to be secured.
    The CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out to the hon. Member that the only question open on the present Amendment is the nature of the bonus, and on what basis the bonus should be given. The question he is raising will come up when we come to the Question that the Clause stand part, whether the Clause has beer, amended or not.
    Mr. SCOTT: I appreciate that point, and I hope I have not strayed too far. My remarks were directed specifically to the leading argument of the President of the Board of Agriculture, who, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs, pointed oat that this proposal to limit the bounty to excess production will altogether fail to secure the maintenance of existing production, I thought it was germane to the immediate subject of discussion to point out that if that was not secured by prices at the ordinary level, in view of the economic circumstances of the case, it would not be secured by the Bill even as it stands. The last point I desire to make is with regard to the security which is to be given to the farmers, and which we all agree ought, so far as possible, to be given. I am afraid, in advance, that I may be ruled out of order, and I will endeavour, also in advance, to meet the point. The Clause in its present form gives a large bounty to farmers where there is no excess production. It gives a large bounty to farmers who have done nothing whatever to meet the national emergency by producing any excess of their former production, and my hon. Friend has proposed that the bounty shall be limited to the excess production, giving them security with regard to that. One of the chief elements in security must be the attitude of public opinion towards the farmers. There can be no security to the farmer unless the provisions which are adopted in this House have behind them the support of a strong volume of public opinion which will give it permanence. I think that support of public opinion would be given if the proposals took the form which was suggested by my hon. Friend, but if the proposals take the form which is suggested in the Bill I am very doubtful whether there will be that support of public opinion. I have the very gravest doubts of it already. We can see public opinion forming at present in a very hostile manner, a manner which is very ominous to the agricultural industry. We know that with prices at their present
    1802
    level farmers are making large profits; we know that they are making excess profits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] One can only put one's own personal knowledge and experience against other Members'. I cannot be expected to produce here accounts showing what they are, but from my own personal knowledge of the farming industry during the past three years they are making large excess profits, and they are exempted altogether from Excess Profits Duty. But that is not all. In a large measure they are exempted from Income Tax. They do not pay Income Tax on the profits which they receive. On account of this there is the very greatest hostility growing up in the country, and it is felt that this is an industry which is already privileged and is drawing profits which have been permitted to no other industry, and with the proposals embodied in this Bill that hostility will be still further increased. The only means of giving to the farmers the security which is desirable and essential is the method proposed by my hon. Friend, or some other method which will confine the reward to the performance of something in addition to what has been performed in the past.
    Mr. CLANCY: I do not suppose it will be considered unreasonable if I say a few words at this stage from the point of view of an Irish Member. I am somewhat embarrassed by not knowing what the Government's intentions in regard to Ireland generally are, but I suppose the proper thing for me to do is to assume that this Amendment will be carried and to state what our position would be regarding it if it were carried. After the speech of the Minister for Agriculture, I suppose it may be taken for granted that it will not be carried, but still I think it is desirable and expedient in the highest degree to say that it would affect Ireland very gravely if it were carried and that my hon. Friends would vote against it to a man. While the Bill confers some benefits upon Ireland, they are far smaller, comparatively speaking, than the benefit it confers upon England. In fact, it might be described as a Bill for the encouragement of the English wheat grower. I suppose I should be out of order if I entered into the proofs of this assertion, but there is one fact which will prove what I say. It is proposed later on in the Bill to give a bounty or bonus in respect only of corn sold. If that stands, there is not the slightest doubt that Ireland, as compared with England, would be grossly

    1803
    injured. The large majority of Irish farmers are small farmers, and a great proportion of them consume their own produce, and under the Bill would get nothing at all, no matter now much they had done to provide food for the nation in this time of crisis. Of the 500,000 farmers in Ireland the great majority already have their land under tillage, and they cannot add materially to it, especially after the great increase of tillage which has taken place within the last year. The Minister for Agriculture in Ireland has stated, I have no doubt on good authority, that the increase m corn growing land in Ireland has been about 700,000 acres. That is not only relatively, but absolutely, larger than the increase in England. That reduces still further the margin of land which may be added to the tillage area of the country, and the result of the Amendment if it were passed would be that all these people would get no bonus or bounty at all, while their fellows in England, because they are large fanners and in past years have not broken up their grass lands, would pocket all the millions which will be granted them tinder this Bill. I should not envy the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Minister for Agriculture who would have to meet the cry ' from the small farmers of Ireland that once more they had been tricked and deceived, and had been contributing their share of the taxation of the country, but had got none of the benefits of the War expenditure.
    I assume that the Chief Secretary, even if the Amendment were carried, would move to alter or wipe it out altogether as far as Ireland is concerned, and, of course, if it is carried the Irish Members, with whom I act, will certainly endeavour to take that course. The Amendment is one of a series which, if carried, would aggravate the position of the Irish farmer, and make it worse in comparison with that of the English farmer, and that without any excuse whatever. It may be said, for instance, that this Bill is intended to produce food in addition to the present resources of the country, and that the Irish farmer ought not to get a bounty because he does not add to the tillage of the country. In my opinion the man who grows food on his own land, even if it only contributed to his own support and the feeding of his cattle and stock, is doing as much for the nation, in his own way and to the extent of his opportunities, as any
    1804
    other member of the community, because if he did not do this someone else would have to produce it and he would be buying. It might have to be imported, and there might not be ships to bring it in. As long as this man produces all he can out of his own farm, even though he consumed it all himself, he is leaving so much more for those who cannot cultivate any land or have no land or are dependent upon imports for their food. I do not anticipate that the Amendment will be supported by the Government or by the Committee; but, if it is, we will certainly oppose it, and will endeavour to make our voices heard afterwards, with a view to inducing the Chief Secretary to strike the Amendment out as one detrimental to the food-production policy in Ireland and to peace and order in that country.
    Mr. ANDERSON: The hon. Member does not really understand the scope of the Amendment, because it is quite clear that any extra food supplies brought into the market from Ireland since 1914 would come under the scope of the Amendment and the Irish farmer would benefit accordingly. The great argument urged in favour of the Bill as a whole is that it is going to give security to the fanner. We are asking, however, whether there is going to be any limit to the price or to the bounties which arc going to be paid to the farmer, and whether, with security to the farmer, there is going to be any protection for the public as a whole. If there is going to be this minimum price, is there going to be any maximum price at the same time, or are the artisans of the towns to be called upon, in view of the high taxes which they will have to pay in any case, to meet what will be a purely artificial increase in prices? The first point in favour of the Amendment is that we ask why the nation should be called upon to subsidise what is going to be grown in any case.
    This matter can be defended from the standpoint of war emergency, where you are trying to encourage extra production and extra, cultivation. But if that is so, the encouragement should not be given in the way proposed. I think, as the Bill stands, it is the beginning of Protection for the agricultural interest, and I am. convinced that the more it is understood, especially in the large industrial centres, the less popular will this measure be, and the only justification for it at all is that it shall be so limited as to make it plain

    1805
    that you are only encouraging the growing of wheat and other things where they would not be normally grown on the less fertile land by giving a guarantee to the farmer that he is not going to lose there. That is one argument that might carry something in the nature of more general support. But I am sure, to go beyond that, you would be doing something which will be very unpopular and entirely indefensible. Why should the farmer, who has grown nothing extra, be suddenly given a guarantee of prices reaching over the next six years? That is no more defensible than to give guarantees to every other interest in the country, and it may be that parties will begin and try to bribe the various interests of the country, thus beginning to bring in a bad and corrupt element into politics. I am convinced personally, and I want to see the largest amount of food production. The whole House is in agreement on that. I do not believe this is the best way in which it can be done, and when I hear the hon. Member who has just spoken saying that they want to share in the benefits of this War, surely we are not going to have claims put forward by the landed interests in the various countries that this War has got great benefits, and that they must be bestowed all the way round ! Surely there could be no worse argument than that. I am convinced that the limiting Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Kilmarnock is an Amendment in the right direction, and, for my part, I hope he will carry his Amendment to a Division, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall be very glad to vote for it.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The discussion this afternoon has covered a good deal of the ground which was dealt with in the Second Reading Debate on the Bill. But that was quite justifiable, for the issues which were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kilmarnock, were issues on which we were prepared to join issue with the Government, and if the Committee will allow me, I should like to emphasise much of what he said, though I fear I cannot do it with his freshness or his wit. Every Member of the House must have heard his speech with gratification and remembered the days when his noble father used to address the House, with much the same verve and tone, with which we were delighted this afternoon. My hon. and gallant Friend put three points to the Committee. First of all. that it was better to give whatever benefits were given on
    1806
    an acreage basis rather than on a quarter-age basis; second, that uniform method of dealing with the whole problem, and using the wheat scale as the measure of benefit, was a better and simpler way of dealing with it; and, finally, that whatever benefits may accrue under the Bill should be given in respect of new efforts, new till age performed, by those who were to have their prices guaranteed. Those were the three points which were discussed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. But I observe that the right hon. Gentleman in replying to my hon. and gallant Friend stated the case for the Bill on new grounds to-day. We have had many speeches made in support of the Bill, and many have been made by my right hon. Friend himself. But I would like to point out that on the first occasion when the proposal came before the House, we were led to believe that it was based on the Selborne Committee's Report. On the next occasion when it was discussed here, my right hon. Friend assured me across the Table of the House that it was based on the Milner Committee's Report—two entirely different proposals; and now to-day we hear of a change in the agricultural policy of the Government, during the War; they are not going to press on with the ambitious scheme of trying to set three million acres extra ploughed; that is not so much their ambition, as an extra production from the land already ploughed.
    Those are not inconsistent explanations of the policy of the Government, but on each occasion they have been new, and I think it would be for the benefit of the House and Committee if we might be told, finally and authoritatively, what are the real objects which the Government have in view; what aims the agricultural statesmen in their various localities are pressing on their farming friends, and that we should know exactly what basis the Government is going to adopt, or whatever payments are made, for the benefits which would accrue to the nation as a whole. This is the doubtful support which from time to time has been given to the Bill, but I have no desire to indulge in any dialectical discussion during war-time. We have much more important business on foot, and I would, therefore, address the Committee purely from the point of view of how we can get the largest amount of food produced in this country; how that production can be brought about by a

    1807
    system which will appeal to the general good sense and public policy, as understood not only by statesmen who sit on the two Front Benches, and the Members in various parts of the House, but by the general public as a whole. I would venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that the worst service he can do to the agricultural community, for whom he is the guardian, would be to embark on any scheme which leaves behind it a sense of injustice in the great mass of the British population. Let us decide, once for all, that we are going to make a definite payment for services rendered by the farmers. I think the House is agreed that we are prepared, at the present moment, to make a payment which on purely business lines in normal times we should consider as uneconomical.
    We are living in times of stress, and have to pay large prices for everything, and if we have to buy a larger proportion of our foodstuffs, produced in this country, we are ready to do it. But those who criticise the proposals of the Government are not fairly treated if it is suggested that they wish to restrict the output of food from our own soil. Those who have supported the Amendment from the first are prepared to pay for benefits received from the farming community. How far is the proposal in the Bill likely to bring that about? There is common ground between us that in making that payment we want to get some scheme which will induce the farmers to do what, owing to the reasons of their trade, owing to the shortage of their labour, and other causes, they would not be induced to dc without support. If you ask the farmer to plough up land which he knows, and. as the right hon. Gentleman said, while it is in grass would provide him with a steady, if smaller, income, if you ask him to take the risk and plough it up, and embark on a four years course, I think we are quite justified in making a payment for that purpose. I doubt if there is anyone who will dispute that fact, provided we get the value for our money.
    I do not believe anyone, will dispute the fact that the main necessity is a larger supply of wheat, oats, and potatoes—and here, let it be observed, the Government scheme makes no provision for potatoes. I noticed the right hon. Gentleman criticised the tillage basis as suggested by my hon. and learned Friend in the Amendment, but on the tillage basis the
    1808
    reward has this justification: it would give potato growers an inducement, which in this season, at all events, would have been to the public advantage. Therefore, it is common ground between us as to the necessity for extra production of wheat, and not only wheat and oats but also potatoes, and I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman has been well advised in depreciating those smaller forms of production which all go to augment our diet, and have the most beneficial effect on our health. Whatever may be our main object, how far do we get in the Government scheme? As it stands, and as it is defended by my right hon. Friend in its present form, it provides for a payment not only of farmers who make an extra effort, and those who produce more, but it gives a guarantee, and may in the course of years give a direct benefit, to those who have made no effort whatever to employ a single extra man in the ploughing of their land, may not have used any of the mechanical appliances at their disposal, and who delibertely ploughed up less; they will receive in proportion benefits under the Bill.
    That is where we join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. Let it be clearly understood that we do not object to production being aided by the State. We are prepared to make the fullest possible payment for value received, but we are not prepared to make payment for services which in the ordinary normal course of business farmers would perform without any inducement whatever. The criticism offered by the right hon. Gentleman on the acreage basis for the purpose of calculation would presumably have been better reserved for the Amendment proposed either by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner) or one of the Members for Liverpool, and I observe that in the discussion it has been said, by my hon. and gallant Friend who proposed the Amendment, that the President of the Board of Agriculture criticised in advance the transfer of the basis from quarterage to acreage, for he said you will admit to rewards not only those who would be growing wheat and oats, but those who would be growing roots and various kinds of fruits, and he specially mentioned hops. I do not know how the hon. and learned Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) likes the exclusion of hops from the scheme, and I hope he will take the opportunity of explaining to his constituents that, in the view of the Presi-

    1809
    dent of the Board of Agriculture, the brewing of hops is not of national importance
    Mr. PROTHERO: What I said was we had been obliged to restrict the cultivation of hops; we had cut it down by one-half.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not resent the good-natured reference—
    Mr. R. McNEILL: May I say that the hop growers have never found much of a friend in the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman).
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only say that the hop growers certainly behaved very well to me, and I have no complaint to make of them. The point made by the President of the Board of Agriculture was that these various forms of cultivation were not those which are the most desirable. What is the objection to limit the Amendment that it shall apply only to wheat, oats, and potatoes? That is exactly what is done in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lichfield, on which the right hon. Gentleman looks with a more or less kindly disposition. If some limitation could be applied to the Amendment, the whole of the objection raised by the President of the Board of Agriculture could have been provided for. He made a great deal of the Pease of the farmer who had ploughed up his land for the purpose of temporary grass. Exactly the same reply applies to that. He is going to limit the benefits of the Amendment purely to those who grow wheat, oats, potatoes, and temporary grass. In no case would they be damaged on an acreage basis. His next objection was that it would involve a great deal of inspection. Whatever basis you adopt, inspection will be absolutely essential. It would be interesting to know how much money will be spent in Ireland on inspection and whether it will be done efficiently with the present staff. I very much doubt whether 500,000 claims for bonus, if the bonus ever becomes operative in Ireland, will be accepted by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland without the closest scrutiny. That is equally true in England, Wales and Scotland. Inspection is absolutely essential on the Government side and is equally as essential, under the scheme of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield. How are you
    1810
    to provide that the profits from ploughed out land shall go only to those farmers who grow wheat or oats on it, as provided for in his Amendment, unless you have inspection to find out whether wheat and oats are actually grown?—and an Amendment has been pus down by the President of Agriculture which would in itself require inspection, namely, to see that the wheat is not mixed with other cereals, on the very grounds that it might be possible so to adulterate or mix it with other crops that the State might be swindled. Whatever scheme is adopted you must have inspection. Therefore there is no importance to be attached to the objection to the Amendment that inspection might be necessary.
    The only objection in his mind, I gathered, was the last point, namely, whether or not payment should be made on all wheat grown, or only in respect of the excess which we are now requesting our agriculturists to produce for national purposes. The case that was put by the President of Agriculture was that of two extreme farmers, one most efficient and the other most slack, and the slack farmer he said might quite conceivably get for his corn a great deal above the average sum ruling for the year, and the man doing his best might quite conceivably, owing to physical causes, get below the average price for the year, and the distance between the two might be so great that actually the slack farmer might be getting higher payments for his produce than the efficient, farmer. The total gross income drawn by these two farmers, one from the market and the other from the Exchequer, would be in the inverse ratio to their merits. That is equally true under the Bill as it stands. That very objection was urged by me, I think, on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, and now I know it to be true, because I have got the support of the President of the Board of Agriculture. The farmer who has done his duty in the past, has done it for business reasons. It is a great mistake to imagine that farmers are different from other business men. They are not different from a manufacturer, or a stockbroker or a merchant or a shipowner in respect of the one thing which keeps them all in business. They go on doing business not for its own sake, but for what they can get out of it.
    Mr. FIELD: The shipowners do.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly, I never heard anybody meeting any shipowner who made large sacrifices deliberately. That is equally true of farmers. They do not carry on business for any other reasons except that they can make a livelihood out of it. Some prefer to make their livelihood in that way, and some prefer to make it out of shipping, but in each case I am perfectly sure that it is business reasons which have induced them to remain in it. Those who have done their duty in the past, as it has been said by some people in the course of this controversy, are those who have found the growing of corn pay them, or, perhaps I might put it alternatively, those who have found the change over from growing corn to some other system of farming too costly to undertake. But in any case, what they could get out of their farming was the deciding factor in regulating what they should do. How far is it necessary to give them benefits in the future if benefits do accrue under the Bill? It is a strange confession for the President of the Board of Agriculture to make, after many months of propaganda work, a great deal of it conducted with the greatest skill and enthusiasm by county committees and Ministers of the Food Production Department, private Members and public-spirited men everywhere, that now he has to justify his present scheme on the ground that it is only by his present scheme he will be able to keep the present production up. That must come as a grave disappointment to those who have great hopes of getting move wheat out of the 3,000,000 extra acres under the plough which were promised to us in this House by the Prime Minister. I do not think that the House will be surprised if we object to making payment to those farmers who have continued to grow wheat right up to the present time, or, if the present time be not regarded as a fair test, right up to either the year 1913 or 1914. The Amendment suggests the year 1914, but there would be no objection to making it the year 1913, if necessary. The House cannot be surprised if we object to make payment to all these farmers who have not lifted a finger to increase production. Those who have put down nothing extra are to get exactly the same benefits as those who may, on the instigation of those who are carrying on propaganda among them, embark on the risky business of getting rid of their grass and turning their soil over.
    1812
    I will not go into the technical questions discussed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the law of diminishing returns, except to say in passing that he ought not to speak of the law of diminishing returns with regard to agriculture as a whole or farming as a whole. As I understand the law of diminishing returns, it must apply to acre by acre, and could only be true in respect of acre by acre. I pass all those technical points by and put to the Government the broad question, Are they well advised, at a time when legislation by agreement is of the first importance, in pressing this on the House, a most reluctant House, I venture to say? [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Yes, I repeat it, pressing it on the House which has been told by the Leader of the House that whereas they would be prepared to consider proposals which might be made in Committee, it must be clearly understood that the Government, having initiated and enunciated their attitude, would not depart from it. He even went so far as to suggest that Amendments which might be proposed in Committee could scarcely be accepted, because they might be regarded as a breach of faith. But when this is pressed on the House, is it not a mistake so to present it as not to carry the whole House with the Government? It can be done. Already the President of the Board of Agriculture realises that there is a very strong feeling in favour of making this an acreage basis instead of a quarterage basis. Here I would suggest to my hon. Friends from Ireland that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Clancy) who spoke last has entirely misunderstood the Amendment. Under the Amendment every one of the Irish farmers who have ploughed out the extra 700,000 acres of land would be eligible for benefit. Under the Government proposal of a quarterage basis whatever benefits may accrue to them will accrue much more largely to those who have the better land and the larger production in England and Scotland. The proposal that is put before the House now by my hon. and learned Friend actually brings in potatoes. Let the Irish Members go back to their constituents and say, "We have voted in favour of the scheme of the Government which excludes potatoes." That, I venture to say, they will not care to do. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend actually includes all tillage, and among those foodstuffs which will undoubtedly be benefited will be potatoes, which are grown so

    1813
    widely in Ireland. I am really surprised that my lion, and learned Friend, who is one of the shrewdest men in the House of Commons, and is a very experienced Parliamentarian, should have so misread the proposal now before the House.
    The President of the Board of Agriculture goes some way when he says that he will adopt the acreage basis as against quarterage. That gets rid of an objection which has been pressed from the very first. I remember referring to it myself far back in February, and it has been mentioned in every Debate that, under the Bill as it stands, the men with the best land and the best produce would be getting the largest amount of benefit. Now we come to the possibility of uniformity. That I will not press. I do not feel as strongly about that as I do about others. But when it comes to the question of excess, the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Government not only place themselves, but they place the House, in a very difficult position. Let me describe first for a moment—and I do it perfectly fairly—the relative positions of an agricultural member and of a town member. The agricultural member, who may feel the justice of this Amendment as proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, and who may feel that it is the only fair way of distributing public money, is driven by the Government to go into the Lobby in favour of the Government proposal, and will do so because of his constituents, whose interests lie is supposed to look after here, and he does it against his sense of justice. He puts the town Member in this position, that he must look after the interests of the taxpayer as well as of other people. He may have no agricultural constituents at all, and he therefore may be, and, if he is thinking only of his constituents, will put that first. How is it possible for a town Member to go down to Glasgow, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, or Liverpool, and say that the farmers, who are not excluded from the denunciation which takes in all men who make, profits as profiteers, have actually asked the town representatives to vote in the House of Commons for giving to those who are now getting magnificent profits—the biggest they ever got in their life—a permanent guarantee, which may become operative even at a time when taxation will press most heavily on those who dwell in towns, and for no national advantage in return.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: What about the time limit?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is a limit there, but I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to make too much of that point. I observe that the President of the Board of Agriculture, speaking at Exeter, said that this must be regarded as a principle adopted permanently. I hope that I have mistaken what he said.
    Mr. PROTHERO: What I said was that I myself should have preferred it for a longer period; and I meant, if I may explain, that ten years at a lower price would have been equally attractive, or more attractive.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that I also remember reading in my right hon. Friend's speech that what he said as to a longer period was said by him on the authority of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. PROTHERO: No.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very glad if I misread that, because I remember that on, the Second Reading of the Bill he prefaced has remarks by saying that we should accept this purely as a war measure, and it is only as a war measure that many of us accepted such a thing in any form. I accept the Second Heading statement, arid I am glad to sec that that is his faithful account of the measure as it stands. look at the position of the town Member ! He is actually asked to go down to his constituents, to these great towns, and to say, "I have voted in the House of Commons for giving a guarantee for four, or five, or six years, whatever the period may be, to those farmers who have been making handsome profits—I have done it actually for that class of farmers who may not have lifted a finger to increase the-production of food."
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: Is it not a question of the supply of food for the people?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: What is most important is to increase the supply of food. We are being invited by the Government to vote for the proposal not only to increase the supply of food, but actually to give a bonus, if it becomes operative, to those farmers who, anyhow, supply it now. I press this point. I am sure the Government do not wish to put the House in a difficulty. I can assure them that they

    1815
    would greatly embarrass a very large number of their own most faithful supporters in asking that there should be payment for benefits not received. They are telling town Members to go down to their constituents at the very time that democracy is really agitated about what they call profiteering, although I cannot accept many of the definitions of what is called profiteering that have been given, and which would certainly prove very poor guidance for Lord Rhondda. At the very time the public are agitated about it we are invited to support what my right hon. and learned Friend wittily described as "Statutory profiteering." I press on the Government that there should be a reconsideration in respect of that one point. They would never have thought of doing it if they had acted on the Milner Report. They would not have dared, if they had really taken that Report, to come to the House and say that every farmer, whether growing wheat or not, or j even if he reduced production is to have the benefit of the guarantee, Let me quote the Milner Report, signed by Lord Milner, the Chairman, by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, by my right hon. Friend here (Mr. Acland), and by a number of gentlemen who are probably among the first authorities in this country on agriculture. The Milner Report says:
    "It might be possible to give the guarantee in respect of the whole quantity of wheat produced—"
    That is the Government proposal—
    "and at the same time to make sure that the country is getting a substantial quid pro quo for the liability under-taken by the Exchequer."
    That does not appear in the Government proposal. The Report goes on:
    "One method of doing this would be to confine the guarantee to those farmers who were able to show that they had made a reasonable effort to increase the production of wheat."
    That is the recommendation of the Milner Committee on the subject, of my right hon. Friend opposite, and my right hon. Friend near me. The Report goes on:
    "If it was decided that any fanner claiming the benefit of the guarantee would have to show that he had fulfilled one or other of the following conditions, we believe that the double object of limiting the liability of the Exchequer and ensuring an adequate return for the risk undertaken by the State might be achieved."
    The two conditions referred to do not appear in the Bill, and both of which, I regret to say, the right hon. Gentlemen rejected this afternoon, when they were
    1816
    put to him by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland). The first condition is:
    ..(a) That a Farmer should have increased his area under under arable cultivation by at least one-firth over the similar area in October, 1913; or in the alternative,
    (b) That, at least, one-fifth of his total acreage under grass and annual crops should actually be under wheat."
    Both of these stipulations, I am informed, were rejected this afternoon. If the Government are going to press on with this proposal without any alternative, and none of the stipulations suggested by the Milner Committee, signed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, if they are going to discard the proposal made by my hon. and learned Friend, it would be impossible for those of us who wish to support the Government, and free it from embarrassment, to do otherwise than vote deliberately against the proposal as it stands in the Bill, in order that we may carry out the wishes of our constituents in the broader spirit—that there should be the largest amount of food production and the best possible use of public money, with no unfair advantage to any one industry, and at the same time securing to agriculturists who do their public duty full reward. Otherwise it would be impossible to give support to the Government in the passage of the Bill through the House. I very much regret that I and my Friends should be under the necessity of voting against the Government. It is not our fault. We are driven to that course by the refusal of the Government to limit the benefits under this Bill to those who actually give value to the nation.
    The CHAIRMAN: Before the discussion proceeds further, I desire to state that I have had a manuscript Amendment handed in to me by the right hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mt. Acland) to insert a proviso at the end of the Clause on the subject of limiting the Clause to producers who can show one-fifth increase of arable cultivation. I thought it right to give the information to the Committee that this particular matter might come on subsequently.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: Does the Amendment include only one stipulation or does it include also the alternative stipulation that one-fifth of the total acreage under grass and annual crops should actually be under wheat?
    Mr. ACLAND: When I handed in the Amendment I did not understand from the President of the Board of Agriculture that

    1817
    he had definitely and absolutely turned down anything in the nature of the Milner stipulations. In order to make the matter clear, I thought it right to put down an Amendment containing these two stipulations, to be inserted in the form of a proviso.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have nothing to do with the merits of the Amendment; my only duty is to mention the fact that I have received the manuscript Amendment, and so prevent any misapprehension that might arise. It appeared to me that it was a matter which would come up in due form later on.
    Whereupon, the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod having come with a Message to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  Tht House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

  1. Royal Naval Volunteer Reserves Act, 1917.

  2. Gaming Machines (Scotland) Act, 1917?.

  3. Trade Union (Amalgamation) Act, 1917.

  4. Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917

  5. Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act, 1917.

  6. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1917.

  7. Lanarkshire County Council (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Act, 1917.

  8. Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Act, 1917.

  9. Haslemere and District Gas Act, 1917.

  10. London Corn Exchange Act, 1917.

  11. Lancashire Power Construction Company, Limited, Act, 1917.

  12. Hemel Hempsted District Gas Aet,1917.

  13. Lea Bridge District Gas Act, 1917.

  14. Gas Light and Coke Company's Act, 1917.

  15. Kenilworth Gas Act, 1917.

  16. Cork Improvement Act, 1917.

  17. British Waterworks Act, 1917.

  CORN PRODUCTION BILL.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'wheat,' stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. PROTHERO: I would like to clear up one or two points which have been raised before I come to the real substantial one. I have said, and I repeat, that this Bill is based on the Milner Report. May I read two passages from that Report which show what I mean when I say that.
  "We believe that many farmers would be disposed to make efforts to increase the production of wheat, if appealed to in the national interest. But in order to ensure a general movement hi that direction we consider it essential to guarantee a minimum price for home-grown wheat, for a period of several years."
  That is the principle upon which we proceed in this Bill. That Report then goes on to discuss the amount which should be fixed, and says:
  "The best consideration we have been able to give to the matter lends us to the unanimous conclusion that a guarantee of a minimum price of 15s. a quarter for all marketable home-grown wheat for a period of four years would lead to a very substantial increase in the area of wheat harvested in 1916 and to a further increase in the succeeding year."
  There is obviously a difference between the two scales of minimum prices. That is entirely due to the enormous rise in the cost of production since July, 1915, and the present year. At the time when we made that Report—I remember the discussion extremely well —we had to consider what the market price at the moment was and to fix our minim urn price at something which would still be an encouragment to farmers when so fixed on that scale. We then go on to say:
  "We recommend that any payment to the farmer under the suggested guarantee should be regulated by the difference between 45s. and the 'Gazette' average price of wheat for the year in which the wheat is harvested, the farmer being left free to dispose of his produce in the open market."
  That is the principle of the present Bill. Therefore, when I say that it is based on the Milner Report I state what I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite never doubted what is the exact truth in my mind.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Of course, I accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I said so, but what I pointed out was that the safeguards of the Milner Report were entirely omitted from the Government proposals.
  Mr. PROTHERO: We carefully considered the point whether it would be possible to make any recommendations

  1819
  and these are our recommendations, which would secure to the State, to use the phrase which has been used, some quid pro quo,some return with increased production for the minimum price guaranteed. We considered one way to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) told us he was originally attached. We discarded that, and we then go on to say this:
  "Another proposal having the same object in view appears to us of a more practical character. It might be possible to give the guarantee in respect of the whole quantity of wheat produced and at the same time to make sure that the country is getting a substantial quid pro quo for the liability undertaken by the Exchequer. One method of doing this would be to confine the guarantee to those farmers who were able to show that they had made a reasonable effort to increase the production of wheat. It is difficult to device a test for that purpose.…"
  We found it so difficult to devise a test that we stated the problem and made no recommendation. There is the fact. We made no recommendation. I distinctly remember the great difficulty that was raised by the suggestion that at least one-fifth of the total acreage under grass and annual crops should actually be under wheat. The point was this, What was to happen to a man who had taken over in his farm a very large area of grass? Could you possibly ask that man to put one-fifth of his area under corn? I do not think you could. I am most willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman in any Way that I can over this point, and from that point of view I am quite prepared to consider very carefully whether there is a test which we could possibly apply so that we can confine the bonus to the man who made an effort to increase production. I could not accept without careful consideration over again the suggestion of the Milner Report, because we who sat on the Milner Committee were not so convinced it was a workable principle as to venture to recommend it to the Government of the day. Therefore I could not, and I hope the House will understand the reason why I could not, here and now say that I would accept that proposition, but I will, I can promise the House, give it my most careful consideration, because I feel now, as I felt when I sat on the Milner Committee, if we could devise a test by which we could take care that nobody got this bonus who was not doing something towards increasing the food supply of the country, we ought to have the test. As I say, I will do my very utmost to devise such a test. At the same time, I should like, further, to let this be under-
  1820
  stood; that so far as we are concerned we cannot possibly confine the benefit of this allowance to excesses over 1914. We cannot do that on the ground that I have already stated, that before you can increase production you have to maintain it, and if you say that only excess production is to be rewarded you run a grave risk, and to my mind an inevitable risk, that production elsewhere without the offer will drop. What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is that as we meet him on the question of the acreage, as we have promised most carefully to consider whether it will be possible to devise any test by which farmers who claim the benefit shall be bound to show that they are doing something to increase the production of the country, I am afraid I cannot meet him on the point that the benefit should be confined to increased production. I think he will readily understand that that is a position which, from what I said before on the Amendment itself, I feel bound to take up.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that you are going to get this wheat or this corn out of the farmer anyhow, that he was already doing it and that he would go on doing it. That entirely begs the question. The question is, will he go on doing it?—and the argument I ventured to address to the House to-day, on the point of the farmer who has to buy his fertiliser in the year 1917 for a crop that he was not going to get any money on until 1919, shows the danger that you are going to run if you base this entirely upon increased production. It must be remembered that this is not merely a question of fertilisers; it means a question of employing labour. The man will not employ the labour required to keep his land clean unless he has this security. He can also always skip one or two of the operations of farming which are necessary to secure the maximum crop and so cheapen his production to the great loss of the nation in this emergency. It is no use relying on continuing to get that production from the large farmer, because? by doing it you bog the whole question, and I do not think that is a safe thing to do. There are various other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but if he will forgive me, as I have dealt with the main points, I will not weary the Committee by dealing with the smaller points.
  Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask what certainty or what security there is that the

  1821
  benefits that are promised to the farmer and that the pledges given will be carried out? I ask this question because the pledges given to the shipowners, although embodied in an Act of Parliament, were broken.
  Sir B. STANIER: I am very glad that the President of the Board of Agriculture has taken up the point that was made on the other side of the House, that wheat will be grown anyhow. I do not believe that wheat will be grown anyhow unless something is done on the lines of the Milner Report and this Bill which is now before us. I have noticed that those who have spoken this time in the Committee this afternoon have been chiefly lawyers who have not had to do with the actual and practical growing of the wheat itself. I happened to farm in 1904 and 1905, and we grew at that time a large quantity of wheat. I know to my cost that I did it at the loss of about £1 a quarter. That means to a young farmer, as I was in those days, a very serious loss, and it is those losses made with growing wheat that for ever stick in the minds of the farmers and will never be forgotten. There are Members on the other side who throw that on one side, but I should like to remind those who do that that the Prime Minister, speaking in this House on the 23rd of February, put the very point that we here to-day are advocating. He said:
  "There is no memory as tenacious as that of the tiller of the soil, and the furrows are still in the agricultural mind. Those years have given the British fanner a fright of the plough, and it is no use arguing with him. You must give him confidence, otherwise he will refuse to go between the shafts. Now the pin ugh is our hope. You must cure the farmer of his plough fright, otherwise you will not get crops. What does he say? The farmer thinks in rotations; he is not thinking merely of what will happen this year. When he is cutting up his pasture he has got to think of years ahead. otherwise he is a loser,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February 1917. col. 1600, Vol. XC]
  That is exactly it; and the reason why we are asking for a higher rate during these years is that, not like other trades, you cannot put that arable land back again into turf. I will ask those lawyers who made those speeches in the House: this afternoon whether they have ever put arable land back again into turf? Do they know what it costs to do it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, and do they know what time it takes to do it? I have had one or two friends who have told me that you can always put this arable land back into turf, and when I told them what it costs to do it they
  1822
  were dumbfounded and said, "Absolute rot! "It is not rot al all, and I do beg those who think on those lines to go into that question, especially at the present time, when permanent seeds are practically impossible to get, and must be for many years to come. The truth of what I say has been very clearly demonstrated in the last year or two. When first war broke out, in 1914 and 1915, farmers in this country were asked to plough up more land and plant more wheat. They did it, and fairly did it. Why did they do it? They did it because they knew that the price would rise to a certain height that would make it pay. But there was more than that. They used up the best quality of the wheat lands, those easily ploughed tip, and those that were suitable to their fanning to be ploughed up.
  In the following year, 1916, there was practically no rise in the amount of land that was sown with wheat. An hon. Member opposite said that the great reason of that was labour. No; it was not altogether labour. Labour was one of the points made, but undoubtedly there wore other reasons, and that was the reason that the farmer has not any more confidence in going further into this great question. Then came the Prime Minister's speech of the 23rd February. Again he told this House and the country that confidence must be put hack again into the farmer. Confidence from that speech was given to the Farmer, and this year morn land again has been broken up. If you do not treat the farmer with confidence, however, you will not get it in the future, and if you do net get it in the future the whole of your great scheme will break down. There is a line of thought that I should like some of the Gentlemen, who I regret are not hero in the House at the moment, who have been making those speeches to have heard. There was another point that they made, that there is no maximum price for wheat in this Bill. Do not they know that there is a maximum price for wheat at the present moment, and that if wheat had been at the price now that it reached before the Food Controller put it down it would be 90s. today at least? The Food Controller put it down to 75s., and therefore the price of wheat is controlled. I think that is a point that can easily be remembered and maintained in the future, if it is so required. In that way you will see that

  1823
  while the person who grows wheat is safeguarded by the Bill, so also in the same way is the consumer who eats the bread. There is another question that I should like to put before the Committee, and that is, that this Bill is here for one purpose and one purpose only.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: No.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir B. STANIER: It is all very well to say no, but that is the truth. The Bill is absolutely for production. At the Central Chamber of Agriculture to-day this Bill came up, and the practical farmers who were at that chamber of agriculture condemned this new idea of making the payment according to acreage and not according to quantity. There was a very full meeting, and there were only two dissenting voices in the whole of that meeting. I believe myself that that meeting was right, and that the practical agriculturists are right and the theorists, whether they may hold themselves practical or scientific in this House of Commons, are wrong when they say that farmers ought to be paid according to acreage and not according to quantity. I believe that if you pay for this wheat according to acreage you will help bad farming. You will do more than that, you will make bad cultivation, and you will also in many case? use the land for the wrong purpose. The whole idea of bringing back again the payment on the quarter or the bushel on the acreage is, in my opinion, a deep retrograde movement. If I may say so, with all sincerity, I believe that this is a most unpatriotic movement, and one that will be-deeply deplored if it is ever taken up in the future. What will happen? The farmer will come along and he will not care about the far future in some cases. He will plough up a lot of land, but he will not work it properly, and if you do not work it properly you will not get a proper crop. He will scratch that land, put in a few seeds, some of which may not even be good seeds, and then he will reap the same reward as the man who has worked his land, put in proper seeds, and grown a good crop.
  This afternoon, several speakers have told us that you cannot grow a good crop of corn during the first year on old turf. I have done it many times in my life, and I am doing it at the present moment. I
  1824
  am growing corn crops at the present time on land which this time last year was absolutely old turf. How was it done? It was not done by merely a rough ploughing and a little scratching. It was done by cultivation last autumn, by breaking up the land and leaving it to the frost to kill the wireworm and grubs, and other abominations; then by ploughing again with lime; and then by working the land in a thorough manner. I should not mind or be ashamed. I should be delighted, to show any hon. Member of the House those crops, and I do not think he could find better crops anywhere in the Midlands. Yes, but the reason is that the land has been properly worked. If you pay according to acreage, and not according to the bushel, you will be asking the farmers, and you will be enabling bad farmers—who are the people against whom we must guard—to scratch that land and put the seed in, and to claim the same as a man who has made a thorough cultivation of his land. If my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture takes this question up and advocates acreage and not quantity—that is, the quarter or the bushel—I shall denounce him up and down the country as unpatriotic—[An HON. MEMBER: "No!"]—in a friendly manner. I believe that if we can, we ought to take this absolutely on quantify and not on acreage.
  I must answer the hon. Member who said that nothing was being done for wages in this Bill. Whoever makes a statement like that is totally ignorant of the Bill. There are Clauses to enable the wages to be brought up to the level of a living wage—and quite rightly—and I think such a statement as was made in this House this afternoon was most erroneous. There was another statement made, I think, by our friend the late President of the Board of Agriculture, who told us that excess profits had been made by the farmer. He went on and, I think, used the word "tremendous" excess profits, or a word equivalent to that. I believe he is farming himself, and I am very glad to hear it, if it is a fact, that he has made these excessive profits that he claims, for, what with shipping and farming, I think he is doing very well. I do not know what are those profits that he has made, but he is evidently judging the whole of the country by himself. I believe I should be right in saying that in many parts of

  1825
  England these tremendously excessive profits will not be made this year. The reason I say that is because farming, taken as a whole, is one long gamble. You cannot have the weather absolutely to fit the crops, and we also have the great difficulty of labour, to say nothing of the high wages for that labour. With all due respect, also, I would say the farmer does pay Income Tax
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Not on his profits.
  Sir B. STANIER: I did not say profits, but he has to pay Income Tax, and it was thrown across this House that he does not pay Income Tax.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: He does not pay any tax on his income.
  Sir B. STANIER: I know perfectly well what he pays, because I had to pay on two farms, and I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend—
  The CHAIRMAN: We really cannot go into that; it really is hardly relevant. I would remind the Committee again that, for the purpose of this Amendment, we are assuming that a guarantee is to be given, and the only matter open here is the nature of the guarantee and the basis on which it is to be reckoned.
  Sir B. STANIER: I do beg of the promoters of this measure that they will stick to the Bill as it is and not give way to those new-fangled ideas, and I say that, as we are out to-day for quantity, and for quantity only, that the surest way of getting it is by giving these sums of money for the crop as it is put on the market and not for the acreage which is being grown.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I think this is a most admirable Amendment, because it brings out exactly the true inwardness of the Bill before the House. The Amendment limits the bonus to be given to what is described as the agricultural interest to any additional production that it may be induced to make by reason of the War. It would possibly increase the production of food supplies in this country, and it can be defended as a war measure. I will not say that I myself would be in favour even of that, because I am one of those people with an old-fashioned prejudice in favour of allowing people to do as they think best for themselves. I am inclined to think that what
  1826
  is best for the farmer is probably best for the community as a whole, and that any State direction as to the Hue on which his production should be developed will probably be misdirected direction. But, at any rate, there is something to be said for a plan which does definitely give a bonus to those people who increase their food production. That is a position which it is possible to defend, not only in country districts but also in our big manufacturing towns. They might be getting some of the increased supplies at cheaper rates. On the other hand, you have the Government attitude; the support they give to a scheme which may not increase by a single bushel our wheat supply, but which nevertheless guarantees the farmer against loss, and guarantees him a certain fixed price. That is not a war measure, that is a definite desire—a desire which has been frankly admitted to-day—to safeguard the farmer by ensuring him against loss. When I hear right hon. Members on the Front Bench supporting a measure in time of war because it guarantees one particular set of individuals against loss my mind goes back to my own Constituency, where the people are not guaranteed against loss, to the people whose one-man businesses have been broken up without any guarantee against loss, and to the men who have lost jobs which they can never get back again, and who have gone out, not merely taking smaller profits than they used to before the War, but sacrificing their lives at the front. There was no guarantee for them, and my Constituency will know, and will hear frequently, and I think those of other hon. Gentlemen will hear it too, the tale how this House guaranteed the farmers against loss and forgot the one-man businesses and the men who have actually gone to the front and sacrificed their lives.
  Emphatically, this is not a time to bolster up the farming industry at the expense of the community. It might be the time to accept the Bill with this Amendment in it, but without the Amendment I say it is a most ill-advised and ill-timed measure. The people of the towns know perfectly well the prices which they are paying for food at the present time, and they know who are getting the benefit of these high prices. It is no use for hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies and interested in land to say that the farmers are not making profits at the present time. Everyone with any

  1827
  intelligence in his head can see that they must be making the profits, because the price of agricultural land is rising, even though the value of money is rising so tremendously at the present time. Profits are being made, and these profits are being paid by the working classes in the towns, and now is the time when you come forward and say to the working classes in the towns, ''It is true we cannot guarantee you against any of the disasters that war brings on mankind, but we are asking you to guarantee the men who are making money out of those disasters." So outrageous a demand has never been made on the taxpayers of this country. It is not even as though the farmer had played up to now a patriotic park in this War—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is really a speech on the Second Reading, or, at any rate, on the Clause standing part of the Bill. I have already indicated to the Committee that, on this Amendment, we must assume, for the purpose of this discussion that the guarantee is to Vie given, and we are only dealing with a limitation and the nature of the guarantee.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I noticed that the speaker who preceded me in the Debate touched upon every subject with which I have been dealing, and I am merely replying to him.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is true enough, but I pulled him up.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Then I will pass to the question of whether it will be particularly popular to give this Grant to farmers at the present time. I will refer to the real reason why the Government cannot accept this Amendment. The Government do not accept this Amendment because, if they accepted it, the measure would be only of temporary and partial benefit, and would not give to the farmers as a whole, but only to those who increased food production; it would not do what the measure is intended to do, benefit the whole agricultural industry of this country, and do something to mitigate, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture pointed out in his Second Reading speech, the enormous falling of rent that has taken place during the last thirty years. He drew a terrible picture of the sufferings of the agricultural industry because rents had gone down in that thirty years. This measure was held
  1828
  out to us, forsooth, as some mitigation of that. It was a restoration in part of the old position that the agriculural industry—it is always described as the agricultural "industry"—was prosperous because rents were high. That, as it seems to me, is conclusive reason why the present Government cannot accept this Amendment. I noticed, however, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Horncastle in his speech added strength to the position of the Government. He said that not only is this measure in the interests of the agricultural industry, not only will it stop the lamentable falling of rent, but, he said, we had for it the clearest possible support from Prince Bismarck in relation to Prussion agriculture. Prince Bismarck, he said, knew what he was about in relation to agricultural interest. No doubt he did. Prince Bismarck laid down the admirable rule—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going against my ruling. This is not the Second Reading of the Bill. We must remember that we are in Committee, and we must deal with the Amendments as they arise.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I am endeavouring to deal with the arguments-used by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Horncastle.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Horncastle was pulled up by the Chair.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: No!
  The CHAIRMAN: I think so.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Not on this subject.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon, and gallant Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech, and I appeal to him not to follow a bad example, but to follow a good one.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I intend to answer the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member. You can rule me out of order if you like or you can turn me out of the House. It is simply because I happen to be a Radical and not a Tory landlord.
  The CHAIRMAN: I trust the hon. and gallant Member will not proceed on that line of making allegations against the Chair. If I made a mistake and it was allowed to pass the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to answer the argu-

  1829
  ments put forward. But I would ask him, first of all, to withdraw what he said a moment ago.
  HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear !
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Yes; I will withdraw what I said, Mr. Whitley. I am very sorry I was carried away with a feeling of injustice which was perhaps not apparent to other hon. Members. The hon. and gallant Member pointed out that Prince Bismarck showed clearly—he read the extract—that if prices fell below a certain point the agricultural industry would suffer, and anarchy would be the natural result. If prices fell too much, according to Prince Bismarck and the Junker doctrines—which have now been imported into this country—there would be anarchy. But I warn the Government that if prices do not fall too much, if they keep at their present height, there will be anarchy, which will be a different kind of disaster from that looked forward to by those who are with Prince Bismarck. The idea that you can come forward at this time and say that agricultural prices must be kept up in the interests of the country lest terrible things should happen seems to me an argument which can only be brought forward by a man who was absolutely out of touch with the feelings of the country, and absolutely out of touch with his own constituents.
  Colonel WEIGALL: I did not think that ever by a single word did I say—I certainly did not intend to say—that you would have to keep prices up, or land up, in order to maintain order in the country. All I did wish to say, in answer to an hon. Member, was that the real reason for all this, for this Amendment to the Bill, was that unless you had agricultural prosperity you would not have national economic security.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member read the extract from Prince Bismarck perfectly clearly, and an argument which he was prepared to use, and that came into it. All I can say is that that sort of argument will not go down in this country in 1917. Further than that, I would say that to bring forward a measure in 1917 which is intended to benefit the agricultural industry, which, as everybody here knows, inevitably translates itself into increased rentals, into increased money in the pockets of the Junker class, is one of the most unpopular things that could have
  1830
  been brought forward in the best interests of the good government of this country. We know perfectly well that that is the real reason why the Government cannot accept, this Amendment. The agricultural interest does not mean the labourer, not even, generally speaking, the farmer, but the landlord interest. The agricultural interest rushed the Prime Minister at the beginning of this year. They rushed him by holding the potential starvation of the country like a pistol at his head. They made him give that pledge. But that pledge by no means binds any single Member of this House. What it comes to is this: that that pledge is read so as to prevent any single Amendment to the Bill. It is read so that that Amendment is brought forward, not by people like me, who are apt to treat any piece of Government interference as a crime, but by reasonable, sensible, legal, gallant Members of this House with some experience of political economy. They bring forward a scheme which no one in this. House can deny from the point of view of a war measure which is infinitely superior to the plan of the Government, an Amendment which deliberately says: We will only give a bonus to those of the farming class who do increase their production; we will not otherwise sanction giving a bonus to a single member of the farming class. When we see an Amendment like that turned down and thrown over by a Government which, if the House wore free to vote as hon. Members like, would be thrown out to-morrow—[An HON.MEMBER "To-night! "]—when we see that sort of thing done, we realise that times-have changed with this House. We realise that free public opinion has abdicated its position in this country. We realise that we are now under an autocracy, which it will be the first business of the country to upset as soon as they get a possible chance, in order to put in office people who do not represent one interest in this country, and one interest only, and that the Junker class of Tory landlords.
  Sir W. NUGENT: As one who has got some interest in agriculture, I should like to say a very few words. My hon. Friend the Member for Dublin stated, in his opinion, that if the Amendment were carried the Bill would be of very little use to increase production either in this country or in Ireland. With that I entirely agree. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench seemed

  1831
  to have the impression that there were enormous profits made out of farming. But every man who knows anything about farming knows that no farmer ever makes any profit. The only difference that this Bill, if it passes, will make will be that the farmer will lose a little, less than he did before. Some hon. Members seem to be obsessed with the one extraordinary idea that the farmers are trying to rob the country. One hon Member said they pay no taxes. I speak as an Irish farmer, and I certainly have to pay mine. I think there is no class in the community so heavily pressed in the way of taxes as landowners and farmers. Once the suggestion is thrown out about anything being the thin end of the wedge of Protection, then people, who on all other subjects are perfectly sane, go stark, staring mad. Any suggestion of Protection in the most roundabout way seems to cause a large number of men who describe themselves as Free Traders to lose their heads. When I heard some of the speeches to-day I felt sorry for those who made them. I would like to urge upon the Committee the desirability of looking at this Bill in a broad and generous spirit, and not to regard the farmer as a robber, trying to do the State. The farmer's life is not at the best of times a bed of roses, and I am sure no class in the community is more anxious to increase the food supply of the country than are the farmers. The Irish farmers have shown that they will do their part; I think they have done already more than the farmers of this country. I do ask the Committee to consider whether, if the Amendment is accepted, the Bill will be worth having either for this country or Ireland. For farmers it would be absurd and ridiculous. There is an Amendment lower down which suggests a more generous treatment based on the principle which the Minister of Agriculture said he would accept; and which is one which would be probably accepted not only by farmers in this country but in Ireland, but to suggest that no bonus should be paid except for surplus produce over the last three years would mean practically nothing. They have to buy seed at a very high price, and it is almost impossible to get fertilisers, and you must guarantee that in the next two or three years farmers will at least have some prospect of being reimbursed for their outlay. I hope, therefore, this Amendment will be rejected.
  Sir JOHN AINSWORTH: I would just like for a moment to carry the Committee back to the time when this movement for extra food production was started in the country. The whole question brought before the country was extra food production, and therefore every class of useful food produced by agriculture ought to be included in the Bill. I would like to tell the Committee what has been done in Scotland. There was at first a large number of public meetings, and other means were taken to bring the whole matter before the attention of the country. The Committee generally perhaps is not aware that the whole system of local government in Scotland is infinitely superior to anything in England. Every county in Scotland is divided into districts, every one of which is a sensible, practical unit presided over by its own committee. Every district in Scotland immediately appointed a food production committee. The result was that, as soon as this was done, the Secretary for Scotland was able to communicate by the next morning's post with every portion of Scotland. You can therefore understand that the whole idea of food production was started at once over the whole country. I have the honour to be associated with a committee of that kind. One of, the things which the Scottish committees began upon at once—and this is a point which seems to have escaped the notice of people here who talk about food production—was the provision of feeding stuffs and fertilisers not only in reasonable quantity but at a reasonable price. They also arranged, in order to get additional agricultural labour, with the body dealing with National Service. They immediately applied to them to find farm labour, and in a great many cases, I am glad to tell the Committee, unsuccessful as they have been in other places, they were able very largely to find agricultural labour wherever it was wanted by the food committees.
  It seems to me that if we try to do something to help on this kind of thing, we shall be doing good, and if it has been done in Scotland why cannot it be done in England? In Scotland we have broken up, or shall break up, 50,000 acres, but that is a small matter to what my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir T. Russell) and his Board of Agriculture in Ireland are able to do. They are breaking up, or will break up, 750,000 acres. These things have been going on for six

  1833
  months, and yet we hear people arguing to-day in this House whether it is desirable to break up grazing land without serious loss. Though it is being done in. Scotland to the extent of 50,000 acres and in Ireland to the extent of 750,000 acres, yet we, as the Imperial Parliament dealing with the question of the food supply of the United Kingdom, are actually told to-day that it is no good breaking up grass land. That is what the English Board of Agriculture said in the House to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] That is what I certainly understood some- on to say. The Board of Agriculture in Ireland is the only Board with a representative constitution in the United Kingdom. It is composed of two Members sent by every county—
  Sir THOMAS RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Council of Agriculture.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has to do with the Amendment.
  Sir J. AINSWORTH: I thought we were here to deal with the production of food. However, I will only say that I sincerely trust that the Board of Agriculture for England and for Scotland will try to put themselves on the same footing as the Council of Agriculture for Ireland. What is the position now? I do not hold the same view as right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have no doubt from childhood been brought up to believe that a fixed duty on corn is a sure step towards prosperity. We are now in the middle of a great war, and everybody on this side desires to keep the present Government in power—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—because we do not want a change and consequently we have to submit to a good deal in agreeing with the measures proposed. We are anxious to keep all these controversial questions in abeyance in order to help on the War. The Chief Secretary for Ireland some months ago, when the question of payment of Members was brought up, made a speech in which he said, "Why throw the bone, the stinking bone of political controversy, on the floor of the House of Commons?"
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment.
  Sir J. AINSWORTH: The question for us to consider is whether we can put the
  1834
  present Bill in such a form that we can conscientiously accept it, believing that it will do something for the country in the way of the extra production of food. Let it include all articles of food. I sincerely trust that hon. Members on the Front Bench will be able, by giving a little earnest attention to the matter, to put this Bill into such a shape that the House of Commons will be able to accept it. It is only a few days ago since the Government came into contest with the House of Commons and had to give way, and I think they ought to give way here. I sincerely suggest; to the Government that they should try to come to a settlement on a question of this kind, and assist us an coming to a reasonable decision. If they do that, we shall see what we all want to see, an increase in the food supply of the country, and surely that object can be achieved without raising obsolete political questions which do no good but harm, and which prevent us from giving our whole attention to the prosecution of the War.
  Mr. ARCHDALE: I am not in accord with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and I agree with what has been said by hon. Members from Ireland in opposing this Amendment. I myself know a good deal about farming, and I consider that this measure will be a very great benefit to the farmers. This Amendment would do a great deal of harm in Ireland, more especially to the quality of the stuff produced. We want to produce wheat and oats which is fit for food and not for feeding fowls. One hon. Member said the people of Scotland are brought up on oatmeal, and if they do not produce good food they will not produce good men. Since the year 1870, according to the Selborne Report, 4,000,000 acres of land have gone out of cultivation, and yet it has been stated that farmers have been making money all their lives. I have farmed for the last thirty or forty years, and I know that during all that time there was mortal little money made to pay Income Tax on. The Selborne Report recommended payment by the quarter on the whole production, and that is what we want in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said the small farmers in Ireland produced food for their own cattle and did not sell so much of their produce, and really that is helping the country, because it does not necessitate buying Indian meal and feeding stuffs from abroad, which only increase the profits of the shipowning gentlemen.

  1835
  The Selborne Report wanted a bonus paid on the whole production of the farmer whether he sold it or not. The hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White) said that this is going to be a rent production Bill, but may I point out that Clause 6 prevents the raising of rent, and there is no rent production about it. It is entirely corn production. Some hon. Members talked about paying a bonus for nothing. It must be remembered that you are practically making a man to cultivate his land in a certain way in order to increase the food supply of the people, and is that paying a bonus for nothing? Then this measure fixes a minimum wage. The hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) is a great man about the minimum wage for working people, and I think the minimum wage provision in this Bill is one of the greatest benefits the working people have had for many years. We want a living wage, and at the same time we want the farmer to have a reasonable profit. I am strongly in favour of the Government proposal, and I am against the Amendment
  Mr. MORRELL: The Debate on this, Amendment has been very interesting, but it has illustrated the fundamental and radical defect of this Bill, that it is going to guarantee public money, and very likely pay public money, without any security whatever that we lire going to get good value for the money so guaranteed or paid. It has been clearly shown that under the Bill you may have a farmer not only who does not increase his corn production, but is actually every year diminishing the amount of corn he produces and allowing his land to deteriorate and who is not applying fertilisers and is not working it in a proper way, and who is producing less corn than he was before the War, and yet he will, if lie produces any corn whatever, get a bounty under this Bill. That is a gross and scandalous waste of public money. This Amendment, as I understand it, would at least prevent that abuse. The main and important part of the Amendment is that it does limit the guarantee so that it will only be paid in respect of the extra corn that is produced since the War. That, roughly speaking, is what the Amendment amounts to. A man will only receive a bounty in respect of the increased corn which he has contrived to produce. If this is really a war emergency measure and if its only object is to secure an increased production of
  1836
  corn for the duration of the War, then the arguments in favour of this Amendment are unanswerable, and they have never been met. There is one argument against it. It is that although the Amendment might encourage one farmer to increase his production it would not do anything to see that another farmer kept up his production. You might have one farmer increasing his production and laying himself out, so to speak, in order to secure the bounty, and you might have another farmer who knew that he could not increase his production of corn and who was so little moved by patriotic motives that he actually allowed his production of corn to be decreased during the War. That argument really will not bear looking into. It is quite inconceivable that any farmer who is worthy, while the War lasts and while high prices rule, will allow his production of corn to be seriously diminished. The production of corn will be maintained by itself. The only question is whether the production will be increased, and I say that for the purpose of increasing the production of corn during the War as a war emergency measure the limited guarantee proposed by this Amendment ought to be sufficient, and will be sufficient, if the guaranteeing of prices is of any purpose at all.
  The fact is that hon. Members who support the Bill as it stands do so by arguments which really apply to making a permanent change in our agricultural policy. Every argument which has been used since I have been present in favour of the Bill as it stands and against this Amendment is an argument which might perfectly well have been used in favour of the Corn Laws of fifty years ago. People say that corn production does not pay and that the farmer will net undertake it unless he has security and stability, and that therefore a in ere limited guarantee such as is proposed by this Amendment would never induce him to undertake extra production from his land. I know something of farmers, and I doubt whether any real security or guaranteeing of prices in any event is going to do much to increase corn production. I am certain if a man farms badly—and there are a good many bad farmers in this country—if a man is lazy or unenterprising, if he has got old at his job—and there are many farms held by men who are unfit for their jobs—then the mere knowledge that he is going to be guaranteed his price whether he cultivates his land well or ill

  1837
  is going to do nothing to make him farm better than he did before. That is what the Bill as it stands suggests. We have heard a great deal about the necessity of breaking up grass land. If a guaranteed price is going to do anything to assist the breaking up of grass land and to increase tillage, then the guaranteed price as limited by the Amendment will be sufficient for the purpose.
  My own experience is that the great difficulties which farmers have with regard to the breaking up of grass land is that they cannot get either the labour or the machinery to do it. I am a farmer of some 300 acres, and I went the other day to our local agricultural committee and said to the secretary there, "I am anxious to 'break up some twenty acres of grass land immediately, and some more later on. I have absolutely no labour. My horses have been taken, and my neighbours' horses are being taken now. What can you do to help me What about a motor tractor and some extra labour?" His reply to me was: "As regards motor tractors, I am sorry to say that they have been an entire disappointment, and I can not promise you at present any motor tractor. With regard to extra labour, all I can promise is that you can have a soldier by applying at the barracks." Then I made inquiries as to what had been done in that respect, and I found that some of my neighbouring farmers had had soldiers from the barracks of such a quality that they had had to send them away immediately. In fact, a farmer of my acquaintance told me of two brave soldiers who came to him and who ran away at the sight of a small calf. They had never seen a calf before. They came out of the town, and they were absolutely useless for any agricultural work. I only give that as an instance to show that the Government is not helping us as they might to break up grass land and to carry out that policy of increased food production which we all want to see.
  It would be out of order for me to go at any length into the question of what policy ought to have been adopted in order to enable us to grow more corn in this country. It has been indicated in various Reports. Very briefly, one may say that if the Government had taken advantage, as they might have done, of the present demand which is everywhere being made for increased fertilisers and increased machinery, all the difficulty, or most of it,
  1838
  would have been got over. It might have been perfectly possible to have invented a scheme to have allowed fanners to have had fertilisers provided for them at the public credit and for the amount to have been repaid afterwards out of the increased crops which those fertilisers would have given. I am certain that guaranteed prices alone are not going to largely increase our production. There can certainly be no greater waste of public money than the guarantee which is proposed by this Bill unless it is limited by this Amendment. I am opposed entirely to the scheme of the Bill. I say that frankly. I believe it is an unnecessary Bill. I believe it is a corrupting Bill. I believe it is going to have a reactionary effect upon British agriculture. I believe it is going to have a disastrous effect upon British agriculture. So far as the Bill can be improved, it would be improved by this Amendment, and, for that reason, if we go to a Division, as no doubt we shall, I shall certainly support it.
  Mr. TURTON: I should not have expected to hear very much in favour of this Bill from the last speaker, but one would hardly have expected that he would use such phrases as
  "A corrupt Bill."
  and that
  "it is a gross and scandalous waste of public money."
  He went on to suggest that the State would get no value by supporting this Clause.
  Mr. MORRELL: I did not say the State would get no value by supporting this Clause. I said it would get no value from the guarantee unless it was limited by this Amendment.
  Mr. TURTON: Precisely! I submit that we are going to get the best value possible because we are going to get sufficient food for the people of this country and render ourselves immune, I hope, from any submarine peril we may have to face. That may be a matter of small importance to the hon. Member, but I hardly think the majority of the people of this country will agree with him when he says that we are going to get no value when, in fact, in view of the deadly submarine peril, we are doing everything we possibly can to safeguard, the people of this country by securing for them a proper allowance of food. May I say one word with regard to Ireland? Everyone must have heard with great pleasure the speeches of the

  1839
  hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) and the hon. Member for South Westmeath (Sir W. Nugent). We have—and it is greatly to our credit in Ireland—ploughed up something like 750,000 extra acres. All those people in Ireland who have ploughed up that extra quantity of tillage are going to be taken into account and also those who have tilled the land in the past. A large quantity of the land is used for small holdings, the produce of which is never sold because it does not go into the market. It would be intolerable to suggest that they should have to go through the farce of asking a neighbour to give a certain price for the corn grown on land that had previously been tilled, because another man who might be selling in the market is going to get a high price for his corn. It is only fair that there should be some uniformity of treatment in this matter, and that all should be treated on exactly the same footing. Therefore this guarantee should apply to all, whether the land is to be ploughed up this year or whether the land has been under tillage in the past.
  The last speaker recounted his difficulties with regard to the county war agricultural committees and the question of labour. I will not follow him into that, because I take it that it would be entirely out of order. I quite agree that at the present time we have to put up with many difficulties as to labour. Men are being taken away, and farmers are carrying on their work under the greatest possible difficulty. You are generally told by the county committee that if you are in trouble at all you had better have a woman, and that she will get you through all the trouble and make up for the deficiency of labour. To come back to the Amendment, I do not hesitate to say that with it the Bill will not be worth having. It would be very unfair indeed. Speaking as a representative of an agricultural county, I say we will not touch this Bill at any price, and we will ask you to leave us alone, unless you apply it to everyone who tills the land, whether the land has been tilled for generations past or whether it has been ploughed since the year 1913 or 1914. I am glad that we shall have the support of our Friends from Ireland, who are in sympathy with us in this matter. As to the hon. Member who spoke last and those who generally act with him on this question, we know what their attitude is
  1840
  in regard to it. They say they are looking forward to a permanent change in out-agricultural policy. So am I, because I do not want this country ever again to De put in the same deadly peril in which it has been in the past. This exceptional legislation is necessary at the present time because they have been so against us in the past. They have done all they can to hinder the agricultural interest, and have always suggested that it was the landlords who stood in the way.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: So it is now !
  Mr. TURTON: Speaking as a Member for an agricultural constituency, I tell the President of the Board of Agriculture that if he gives way on this point we who represent agricultural constituencies will tell him quite frankly and openly that he can take the Bill away, because it will not be worth having and we will not give twopence for it.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I can quite understand the views expressed by the last speaker. We are living to-day under a Tory administration in effect and this is a Tory landlord's Bill. Therefore, it is quite appropriate that an hon. and gallant Member representing an agricultural constituency should have quoted Prince Bismarck, the chief of the Junker party of Germany. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman introducing this Bill I said to an hon. Member sitting by me: "He reminds me of a German professor speaking before an agrarian union, explaining to the Junkers how German culture could only be based upon high prices for food and high rents for landlords." That is the whole basis of this Bill. It is to extend the dole system for landlords.
  Mr. FIELD: There are no doles to landlords in Germany, because the people own the land.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Do they? The hon. Member knows very little about the German system. If he knew something of it he would know that the high prices which have been secured in Germany for the great grain growers have been the destruction of the peasantry of Germany, and have limited the number of peasants on the soil of Germany because—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member not to be drawn away from the Amendment by these interruptions.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am only going to make one reference to a statement made by one of the Irish representatives, I think it was the hon. Baronet the Member for South Westmeath (Sir W. Nugent). He submitted two grievances of a somewhat contradictory nature. In the first place, he pointed out that he was an agriculturist himself, that a farmer persistently and always made a loss, and that all that this Bill would do would be to lessen the annual and everlasting loss. His next grievance was the high Income Tax he had to pay upon the profits he made in pursuit of farming. The arguments seem to be somewhat contradictory. Both he and the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. Archdale) expressed the hope that this Amendment would be defeated. This is a new development in the views on the land question expressed by Irish Members. It is somewhat significant and worthy of notice. They are out to get the largest possible amount of plunder from the Treasury. This Amendment will limit the amount of plunder to be got. They have no regard whatsoever for the general interests of the people or for the great industrial communities of this country who, in the end, will bear the burden of taxation that such a measure as this will inflict. I noticed the other day a different expression of opinion as regards the land question in Ireland. There is a very much published speech I read with which I have more sympathy. It was the statement of a politician, I believe a Sinn Feiner. expressing the hope that the day would come when they would have a republic in Ireland and then they would put the landlords up against the wall. That seemed to me to be more a genuine expression of Irish opinion than the expressions which have come from these benches this afternoon, which only evince a desire to plunder the people of this country for the benefit of landlordism. The hon. Member opposite, who rather scorned the view of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dundas White) that this was a measure which would ultimately find expression in a rise in rents, takes a very short-sighted view when he opposes that aspect of the question because he says there was provision made in the Bill for that, but there is no adequate provision. There is nothing to prevent in the end a rise of rents.
  But I particularly wish to emphasise this point: that the object of the Amendment, as much as the Bill itself, is to secure the increase in production that is required.
  1842
  At the same time it will limit the amount that the Treasury has to pay by way of bonus to the producer of corn. I know for the moment that is not a consideration of any weight or moment whatsoever in this House. When we are spending money on War at the rate of some £8,000,000 a day, when all sections of the community who had anything to sell are out to plunder the people and make as much as they can during this arduous time of war, to plead for economy in any respect is to plead to deaf ears indeed. All Members representing agricultural constituencies or farming interests have said they desire this Bill because it will give security to the farmer. If you do not accept this Amendment, if you allow the Bill to stand as it is, so much the worse for security to the farmer. The conditions of to-day are not going to last, I trust they are not going to last very much longer. Then there is coming a day of retribution, there is coming a clay of reparation, of restitution and of indemnity as regards those who, during war-time, have been engaged in plundering the people. The class to whom public attention will most of all be directed will be the; landed interest, the farming interest, the people who during war-time have made great profits out of the high prices of the food of the people during this time of distress, and whilst as regards other profiteers their extortionate profits will cease after peace, the landed interest, calling themselves representatives of the farmers' interest to-day—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This does not relate to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I was desiring to point out that there is no security to the farmer in a measure which inflicts a great injury upon the community at a time when it will not be able, through economic circumstances, to bear that injury, and that the Amendment, by limiting the amount of plunder got by the landed interest, is really giving greater security to those farmers, to whom alone we desire to give security, who increase production and give some benefit to the State. From my own point of view I desire to see great changes in the conditions of landholding in this country. Desiring to see a great fundamental and revolutionary change, I welcome this Bill because I know it will enable us to secure it. We know it will bring about a hatred of the landed interest in this country such as has never been

  1843
  seen before, when year by year people see paid out of the Treasury this vast plunder secured by the landed interest in time of war. You may have your Bill, but there will be a day of retribution for the landed interest in this country.
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDE: I hope after the eloquent speech he has made the hon. Member will vote in favour of the Bill, which he thinks is going to do wonderful things for his particular agrarian programme. I do not know whether it will or not, but as far as that agrarian programme is concerned he will find very little support in Ireland. In that country we believe in private ownership of the land and we have fought a great many years to obtain it. We do not believe in dual ownership or in State ownership. Whether this Bill is going to bring about State ownership in England I very much doubt, and as far as Ireland is concerned that aspect of the question does not trouble us in the least. The hon. Member used some very strong language. He told us that the agricultural interest in these Islands was out to plunder the country. If the agricultural interest is doing its best-under considerable difficulties to come to the country's rescue and provide it in a great emergency with a proper and adequate food supply, I do not think that can be justifiably termed trading on the necessities of the nation. As far as profiteering is concerned, I am certainly with him. I should strongly oppose the farmer profiteering just as I should strongly oppose the shipowner. Profiteering in lime of war is a most indecent proceeding, and all right-minded people would set their faces against it. But I do not at all understand how this Clause is going to enable profiteering on the part of the farmers or anyone else. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) made a very clever speech, such as we are accustomed to hear from him. If anything it might be a little more clever than usual. But I have a very vivid recollection of the speech he made on the Second Reading, which I am afraid was not altogether friendly to the measure. I saw in it the appearance of the cloven hoof, which I imagine came from somewhere near Manchester. I should have thought that ancient questions would be put on one side just now, and that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to debate an urgent war measure from quite a different standpoint from
  1844
  that of ancient views and differences. Apparently there is an idea in certain quarters of bringing us back to pre-war times. We cannot afford to go back to pre-war times just yet. It will be quite time to go back to them when the War is over. At present what is really needed is something to enable the people of this country to be properly supplied with a larger measure of home-grown food. We are all trying to relieve ourselves from the gigantic danger and difficulty under which we have been for the last three years through relying for the great part of our food supply on foreign sources. Now that the German submarines have so infested the Atlantic that is not as easy as it was-for our shipowners to bring food supplies to this country, it is obviously a sensible and practical thing for the people of these Islands to try, by the easiest and the quickest methods they can command, to increase their home-grown supplies.
  I should not be in order in discussing Bismarck or Stein, and Hardenburg or the German land system, but it is my firm conviction that if we had had the German land system in this country for the last five years we would not be in our present difficulties. There is no doubt whatever about that, and as far as the agriculture of Germany has suffered from the application of the laws of Stein and Hardenburg, through the administration of Prince Bismarck—I know something of German agriculture, I have been many years there —there is no doubt that it is far more pressing than ours. Now perhaps I may be allowed to come to the Amendment. We have discussed so many things that it takes some little time to come to the bedrock of the Amendment I think the Amendment is a very good one, and I would vote for it because it would suit me much better than the proposal of the Bill. This Amendment, as drafted, of course I do not say it is so drafted intentionally, is in the interests of the big farmer and against the small farmer. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. Anderson) ought to look seriously into this matter. If you are going to pay according to acreage, obviously the big man will handle most of the money, and get most of the plunder. The bigger farmer gets most of the plunder. In my country we are concerned mainly with the small farmer, and the small farmer, as well as the big farmer, has been compelled by the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland to cultivate more land. The right hon. Gen-

  1845
  tleman has coerced us in Ireland. We are living there under martial law, and he has made us plough more land than we would have done. We are mainly small farmers. The average farm is about 25 acres, and these small farmers have had to increase their acreage, and if we pay on an acreage basis they will not get half as much money, relatively, as they would get if you paid them on the basis of the produce of their crops.
  Another matter which I commend to my hon. Friends interested in State ownership is that this Amendment is not so conducive to good farming as the Bill, because the good farmer will get the largest return from his land. But according to this proposal, no matter where he tears up his land, starts a motor plough, sows it very badly, puts no manure on it, makes it look like a broken up prairie, according to acreage he will get public money. That is a bad thing in practice, and as I say. if I were concerned only with my own district, I certainly would vote in favour of the Amendment. When we consider that the object is to increase the food supply and do something for the small farmer, as well as for the big Farmer, both in the interests of the food supply and good farming, this Amendment is a very bad one. It is a landlords' Amendment, and it is conceived in the interests of the capitalist and the big farmer, I was amazed at the attitude of lion. Members on these and other Benches, and also of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman), and I hope they will seriously reconsider their position. The Amendment is good for the big farmer, but very bad for the small farmer. It will encourage bad farming, because the man who puts the least into his land puts in bad seed, a less amount of artificial manure, will get the biggest amount of the plunder.
  There is one point in connection with this Amendment which affects me very deeply, and on which I have some doubts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury was most eloquent on the subject of potatoes, and he touched a very tender chord in all our hearts in mentioning potatoes. If I were perfectly certain that this Amendment would include potatoes, I might reconsider my position, although it is still the big man against the small man. I do not at all see why potatoes should not be included in the Bill as it is, and now that
  1846
  we have some responsible person on the Government Bench, in the Minister of Agriculture, I hope he will consider this point. He is now escaping, with the assistance of the Irish Members, from a dangerous predicament. We would be inclined to vote for the Amendment on the question of potatoes, and we consider that potatoes ought to be somehow or other included in the Bill, because they are a fundamental product in the food of the nation.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with this.
  Sir T. ESMONDE: I am much obliged, because that makes me quite determined. I thought they were included.
  Mr. MORRELL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is correct to say that the Amendment has nothing to do with potatoes?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As far as I can see, the whole of the Debate seems to have run on the question of oats and corn and. matters of that kind. It may be that some reference to other things has been made, but the Debate has run largely on those lines.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On the point of Order. May I point out that one of the grounds on which we support this Amendment is that we hold the view that we should not regard wheat and oats as the only form of tillage for which benefit ought to be given, and in your absence I pointed out to the House that one of the advantages, from the Irish point of view, was that it applied to potatoes as well as to wheat and oats?
  Mr. PROTHERO: On a point of Order. May I point out that potatoes do not depend on a rotation of six years; and that undo: the existing arrangement potatoes have a minimum price of £6 per ton?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is one of the disadvantages of having what is practically a Second Reading Debate. I am afraid the Committee must also take the disadvantage of having Chairmen who have to have meals. [Air HON. MEMBERS "Potatoes?"] I do not want to take any pedantic view of the situation, but looking at the Amendment on which this Amendment depends, it refers rather distinctly to wheat. I will take no pedantic view of the situation, but I hope the hon. Member will direct his remarks as closely as he

  1847
  can—I have given him a large amount of latitude—to the particular Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On a point of Order. May I point out that the only reference to wheat in the Amendment is that the wheat scale in Clause 2 of the Bill is to be used as the measure of the benefit which is to be received per acre for the new tillage which is the result of the operation of the Bill.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the suggestion which I have thrown out will be observed by the hon. Member. I do not want to take any advantage.
  Sir T. ESMONDE: As I have had an opportunity of making up my mind on the Amendment, I shall vote against it.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: Hon. Members below seem to imagine that all farmers are great capitalists. They have always posed, quite sincerely, as champions of the under dog. I want to put to them how this Amendment will affect the very smallest farmers in the United Kingdom. I am thinking more particularly of the small holders in the congested districts in Ireland, but I imagine that the same thing probably would apply to the crofting counties in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury said that one of the worst things that could be done by Parliament would be to adopt any position which would create a sense of injustice in the minds of any great section of the people, and he suggested that that would be the effect of opposing this Amendment, because large numbers of town dwellers would feel that they were being asked to pay out of the taxes large sums of money to farmers in order to add to the profits which they were already making in the ordinary course of their business, without requiring from them anything in return. When you say that if a farmer does not plough more land you are requiring nothing from him in return, hon. Members forget that by a fundamental provision of this Bill the farmer, whether he is ploughing more land or only the same amount of land, is equally required to pay increased wages to all his labourers, and therefore if you are going to limit the scope of your benefit to those farmers who till a greater acreage you are going to do a very serious injustice to all those farmers who equally will have to bear a very largely increased
  1848
  burden, I think quite rightly, in the shape of increased wages. It is only the very smallest farmers who do not employ labour, but wherever you are dealing with farmers who pay wages, what I say applies.
  I was for the moment dealing with the general case of the farmer who did not increase his tillage, but who was required to pay additional wages. I now come to the case of the small holder in such places as the congested districts in Ireland. Compare the case of two farmers in Ireland itself under this Bill. Take in the first place a man with a holding of, say, 500 acres, which he has had for years past wholly or almost wholly in grass. That man has been doing nothing for the State all these years. He has given practically no employment; he has allowed his land to run down. He has been a byword and a. scandal to the whole neighbourhood. Now what happens? The Board of Agriculture in Ireland require that man to till a minimum of 10 per cent. He tills 50 acres, not willingly but compulsorily, but, because he is compelled to do so, with a minimum of labour, under the proposal of this Amendment equally as under the Bill itself, he is to receive the benefits which the Bill promises him. Contrast that with the case of the people in the mountains, where you have, say, 500 men on poor land, who have got little holdings of from 3 to 10 acres each. Just imagine the position of those, men under your Amendment They look down upon this large grazier. They see him obtaining benefit from the State for action which he has taken under compulsion of the State, and 'hey who all these years have been producing the very maximum that their holdings will allow, because in those cases I know of my own knowledge—and the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, who knows the class of men of whom I speak, will bear me out—they cultivate every foot of land which can possibly be cutivated; and, if I may use what is called an Irish bull, they are tilling more than all the arable land. They are tilling a great deal of land which in no other country in the world would be regarded as arable. Therefore, those who are suporting this Amendment must have forgotten what the effect of this Amendment would be, or I cannot believe, holding the principles which they do, they could agree to a course the effect of which would be to benefit the large man at the expense of the small.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: I recognise very clearly the difficult questions raised by hon. Members in reference to which you have pointed out that the Chair has been good enough to consider that some more than ordinary latitude might be allowed in the discussion of this and its cognate Amendment, in order that the ground might be cleared, and that in subsequent discussion some closer adhesion might be made by speakers to the details of the Bill, and as I do not want to transgress the ruling of the Chair upon this matter in any way, I propose to make a few comments upon the speech made by the President of the Board of Agriculture and the two representatives from Ireland who have preceded me in this Debate. With regard to the latter, I would like as an English Member and a Member for an urban constituency to point out one or two facts which seem to me to answer their contentions. For instance, the hon. Baronet said that we have to increase our food supply, and that that is the object which this Bill seeks to secure. I take it that, if the problem before us in this proposal could be narrowed down clearly to that one issue, could be established upon that basis, nobody would have a word to say against it, and cur Debate would not have lasted so long, and everybody in this House would have been glad to let it go through without a Division and by general consent. But this Bill does not set out to do that. It was stated in Debate, and I am not sure that it was not inferentially stated by the President of the Board of Agriculture himself, that it was conceivable that in certain cases the bonus would be paid to men who actually next year produced less corn on their holding than they produced this year. If that be so, the Bill seems to be established on a fraudulent basis. This country has been told that this is a Bill to stimulate corn production, yet the stimulus of hard cash and other advantages are to come out of the taxpayers' pocket without any increased production being ensured. The object of the Amendment is that increased production shall be ensured, and that if it is not ensured no bonus shall be payable. I take it that even the stiffest Free Trader in this House, if any such remain, would not at all object, in these strenuous times, to waiving for awhile his previous convictions in favour of the expedient of giving a substantial benefit to anybody who will make two
  1850
  ears of corn grow where only one grew before. And that is the point upon which we base all our arguments.
  I did not understand clearly what was meant by the right hon. Gentleman's supporting the fallacy—as it seems to me—with which I am contending, when he spoke of diminishing returns. I read some time ago the most startling public paper that it has been my privilege to read for some years past, namely, Mr. Middleton's Report on German agriculture. It was a perfect staggerer to anybody who had watched, as I had, and who had largely cherished the idea that the British agriculturist was the finest agriculturist the world knew. It showed clearly to me, in the words of the hon. Member for Horncastle, that we have failed to combine that I "practice and science," which is the motto of the Royal Society of Agriculture. If we could work on the same lines as Germany, if we could bring our agriculture to something like the success that has been attained in Germany, then there would be something to say for our system. But this Bill is not going to do that. The last speaker (Mr. Hugh Law) was good enough to say something about potatoes. I am fond of potatoes, and I could wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been firm in his advocacy of the humble but necessary tuber. At any rate, when I asked the representative of the Irish Board of Agriculture to facilitate the entry into this country of Irish potatoes, he was unwilling to relax his grip of Irish potatoes. The hon. and learned Member also said that this Bill would enable the farmer to pay higher wages. Does that necessity only now arise? Could not higher wages be paid out of the increased prices which are obtained? Can there be any doubt that there has never been a time in which the agricultural interest has had anything equal to the profits of the last half-dozen years? Indeed, you are making this proposal at the very time the patient is recovering, and it should be recollected that you are not dealing with the state of things that existed thirty years ago. You can now afford to pay higher wages under the natural condition of the market. The townsmen will feel very strongly about the matter if you offer a bonus to farmers to do that which it is obviously already their duty to do, and also their interest to do.

  1851
  I have one or two questions to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. He said the proposal is to pay a bonus upon arable land already under cultivation, and to stimulate keeping land clean. Is there any necessity to do that by the means now proposed? He takes powers in Clause 7 to enable him to enter upon a man's land, to find fault with his methods of culture, and to make him, to use the phrase, "come up to the scratch," and conduct his business in a common-sense manner and on sound business lines. In this country agriculture has not for many a long day been conducted on business lines; it has been the handmaid of pleasure, luxury, and a whole lot of other things. Until it is conducted on sound business lines it will not pay adequately those engaged in it, and until farmers deal with cultivation in a manner conducive to their own and the national interest, agriculture will be a sickly creeper, disappointing to everybody concerned. The President of the Board of Agriculture bases his proposal on corn sold, and if a man consumes all his corn he gets nothing. Take two small Irish farmers in Ireland, who meet at the local hotel or at their club, or wherever they may foregather. One may produce 1,000 quarters, and the other 1,000 quarters, or each may produce 100 quarters, and each may consume the whole of what he has produced. In that event, is neither to got the bonus? Irishmen are shrewd, and do you think they will not claim from the Exchequer this reward? Of course they will. Each will sell his crop to the other, and buying anew each will claim the bonus offered on the sale.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The Bill would not let them.
  Sir W. ESSEX: Let the hon. Gentleman read the Bill.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: If you look at the Bill you will see to whom it does apply, and to whom it does not.
  Sir W. ESSEX: We have no Lord Lieutenant here.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: You stick to the English side, and let us alone to manage ours.
  Sir W. ESSEX: You try to manage ours, and that is our trouble. The President of the Board of Agriculture said
  1852
  this bonus was given that it might divert-land from the cultivation of chrysanthemums and other flowers which have a market value in this country. Is the method now proposed the better way to do it? Why not issue one of your multifarious orders under the Defence of the Realm Act to cut down the production of these things, and devote the land to the production of food for the people? I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is strong enough to stand alone. He went on further to say that he wished to establish and fortify agriculture. So we all do. We look to him as an expert to see that that comes about. If he could disentangle himself from the embraces of, I almost said, but I do not like to employ too hard a term, so let me say, of a too self-regarding interest, and look it this matter from a national point of view he will see that the steady rise of prices, which will not come down for many years to come, for reasons which I cannot enter upon now, and which are obvious to everybody, and he will find that the working of those laws will do all he needs if the Government will come to see and give us the opportunity of putting agriculture upon a sound basis, and on a basis founded upon an appreciation of economic laws which cannot be lightly disregarded by any Government. If he does so we will have reason to be proud of his work, and succeeding generations will wish to raise a monument to the memory of one who rescued an industry, well-nigh discredited in the eyes of the townsmen of our country, to a high pitch of efficiency, credit and profit.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must express considerable disappointment that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board has made us no concession whatever. He said that he would make a concession in the matter of acreage, but that is really a concession to his own Department, because he has found that the machinery which he proposed to set up in the Bill was extremely complicated, costly and difficult to work. Therefore, I think I may put aside the concession on the point of acreage entirely because it is no concession in the view of those of us who think that this is an indefensible proposition. The right hon. Gentleman, in paying a well-deserved tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Shaw), finished his compli-

  1853
  ment with a little sting in the tail. He said he would not choose him for a tenant farmer. That is the spirit in which the whole of this Debate is conducted by some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. It is being treated as purely a question of the tenant farmer. My hon. Friend the Member for Dublin told us charmingly how he lived on the losses. He reminded me of an Irishman I once met in Cork who made a similar statement to me about the smallness of his profits, and entertained me with lavish and most kindly hospitality. I found it quite difficult to credit that remark, and I suppose we ought to take it as a sort of jest, when the hon. Member told us that this would only go some way to mitigate the losses. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board has not softened in any way to meet his opponents, and as a matter of fact his whole career in this matter has been a career of hardening. He is far harder than the Milner Report on which he bases his Bill. If he had not told us, and of course we can believe every word he says that he based himself on the Milner Report, we never would have suspected it. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Milner Report did attach conditions, and one of them a good condition, and the President of the Board I think accepted those conditions. The Milner Report only proposed 45s. per quarter as the price of wheat and only proposed it for four years. The right hon. Gentleman begins at 60s. and then 55s., and for six years, and other hon. Gentlemen behind him propose to extend it to ten years. The right hon. Gentleman himself says "I should like this if it was for a longer period, I should prefer it for a longer period." This policy of the Government is not a consistent policy. It is not consistent in several respects. In the first place, it was advocated by the Prime Minister and it was advocated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland on the ground that we were to get new land ploughed up, and the country rang with the 3,000,000 acres of uncultivated land and grass land which was to be put under tillage and used to produce wheat and oats for the people. What did the President say to-day? He said that for the harvest of 1918 we must rely on the present arable land.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I did not say that.
  Mr. WOOD: For wheat?
  Mr. PROTHERO: For wheat, yes.
  Mr. WOOD: I was talking about wheat and oats.
  Mr. PROTHERO: Ah, and oats.
  Mr. WOOD: That does not disturb my argument in the least.
  Mr. PROTHERO: It has disturbed your facts.
  Mr. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman says that the matter cannot be dealt with in this way. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Sir J. Ainsworth), I think, put forward some considerations which are of very great importance, tie pointed out what she Government could do most substantially to help the farmer was to assist him in the matter of labour and with fertilisers. Any proposal of that sort would meet with support from us. We would be prepared to assist it and to spend money in that way. Last Friday the House of Commons showed itself very earnest on the question of finance—very earnest indeed. I could not help thinking of that when the right hon. Gentleman the President taunted my hon. Friend as not being a desirable tenant. It is not only farmers who are interested in this matter. The body of the taxpayers have a very keen and lively interest in this matter, as my right hon. Friend and the Government will find out in a very few years. The town population are just as much interested in this matter as any other part of the population. Look at the inconsistent position of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Food Minister has set to work to reduce the price of food, and how is he going to do it. He is going to examine profits, and to see that nobody gets more than pre-war profits. He is to put down—to use the word the Prime Minister is so fond of using—profiteering. Another Member of the Government is coming forward to see that the profits of another class of the community, notoriously extremely high, are to be secured at a high level for years to come.
  Mr. ROYDS: What evidence have you of that?
  Mr. WOOD: Does anyone deny it?
  Mr. ROYDS: Yes.
  Mr. WOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman investigated the prices?
  Mr. ROYDS: I have investigated the farmers' profits.
  Mr. WOOD: The idea that farmers' profits have not been good for the last two or three years is a most extraordinary proposition, and those profits are to be maintained by novel and artificial means. I cannot help regretting that a contentious subject like this should be raised at the present, moment, and that no attempt should be made to meet us by any sort of concession whatever. We are told that you must give an inducement to the farmer who has been producing wheat and oats arid potatoes and living upon that production for a great many years, and who is not producing any more. Surely there is sufficient inducement to the farmer under present and prospective prices to do the best he can with his land which he has already undertaken, and with the high prices, to produce as large a crop as possible. The farmer, when he gets these high prices, as the House appreciates, gets them without any diminution. Unlike the commercial classes, he reaps every penny he gets; he does not have to pay 80 per cent, of it away in taxation; there is no Excess Profits Tax and no Super-tax for him; and he only pays a fraction of the Income Tax which other classes pay. He needs no further inducement in the shape of a bounty.
  Sir C. WARNER: He does pay Super-tax.
  Mr. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how many farmers pay Super-tax?
  Sir C. WARNER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that one does, because I have paid it.
  Mr. WOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman wish the House to understand that he reaps all his income from farming?
  Sir C. WARNER: No; I think the statement made was that the farmer did not pay Super-tax. That is absolutely incorrect, because the farmer's profits have to go in for Super-tax.
  Mr. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that my general statement is perfectly correct. There may be rich people who do a little farming, but they do not pay the Super-tax out of the farming.
  Sir C WARNER: They pay on it.
  Mr. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman does not wish me to believe that he pays Super-tax on his farming?
  Sir C. WARNER: I pay it on the money I make in the farming. I have returned money in my return this year, and so have many others, that I have made on farming this year, and we pay Super-tax on it.
  Mr. WOOD: I think the House can judge on this that, the farmers' profits neither pay as much Income Tax as the commercial classes nor, as a rule, pay any Super-tax at all—
  An HON. MEMBER: They do not make the profits !
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. WOOD: They do not declare the profits, I know that. Let us look at this proposition. We are offering to do all the Government originally asked for. They said that they wished to increase food production. I do not pretend that I like this bounty system at all. Personally, I do not altogether like my hon. Friend's Amendment because it admits a principle of which I am not very much enamoured, and which, I think, is dangerous. We do, however, recognise the importance of increasing food production. What we do not recognise is the justice of taking large sums of the taxpayers' money, or, at any rate, involving the taxpayer in a huge contingent liability, for the support of people who are making excellent incomes at the present time out of their business. I cannot regard this as a war emergency policy at all. To my mind it is perfectly evident from the desire that has appeared to extend it over ten years, from what the President of the Board of Agriculture has himself said, that we are face to face with a new agrarian policy, which is a new agrarian policy that will benefit the farmer in the first instance and ultimately the owner. This has already been reflected in the value of the land. It cannot tend to cheapen food production. It is bound, by increasing rents, in the long run to heighten the cost of food production. I am not at all sure that this bounty is going to induce people who are already growing wheat and oats at a good profit to exert themselves more than they are doing at the present time. I do not know that experience shows that if you make a man absolutely certain to earn plenty of money without much exertion he finds that an inducement to exert himself unduly. You do not find people who hold monopolies of any kind working very hard. I do not think it is at all a sound argument that you have to do it. They have an induce-

  1857
  ment in the prices, in the demand for their products, and in the diminution of foreign competition; and we know that these must last for a number of years. I think we have done all we need to do to meet the case. We have offered to compensate the man who breaks up the land and does that service to the community. I think the Amendment is a very generous Amendment, but we must resist attempts to put upon the general body of the taxpayers a burden like this for the benefit of a single class, and must point out the grosss inconsistency of limiting the profits of those dealing with food and then increasing them for one particular and favoured class by the artificial system of bounties. It is not merely a question of large payers of Income Tax. The men who will pay this money will be the working classes as well as the richer classes. They will pay not only in Income Tax, but in duties on tea and tobacco and everything else on which there is taxation. I do not think that the Government will find, if they insist on this extensive programme, which is much more extended than the Milner Report even proposed, that they will meet with unqualified approval from the people of this country who want food to be made more plentiful, it is true, but who also want it to be made cheaper.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has given us perhaps some interesting facts, but the one which appeals probably to agriculturists most is that after all his diatribes against the excess profits of those interested in agriculture, he, at all events, admits that they never make enough profit to come within the Super-tax income.
  Mr. WOOD: I said they never declared enough profit.
  HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !" "Withdraw!" "Shame !"
  Mr. WOOD: Really, that, is a most ridiculous view to take. Has the hon. Member forgotten that a farmer may pay on his rent, and does not need to declare profits at all?
  Mr. HARDY: I think the House has quite in its recollection what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I will, therefore, leave it in that position. All I wish to maintain is that the farmer, or the agriculturist, is in no way exempted from the
  1858
  payment of that tax, and if his profits were of this character which have been described he certainly would come within its limits. The right hon. Gentleman admits, however, that they do not come within the limits that bring the farmer up to that amount. The right hon. Gentleman—and I think the hon. Member in the speech which preceded his also—must make some of us connected with agriculture remember some expressions used in this House only some few days ago. We were told, with emphasis and enthusiasm, in reference to another Bill coming before the Committee that really agricultural Members need not hesitate to diminish their numbers, because the town Members were so enthusiastic for agriculture that they would preserve its interests. I cannot say that I think this discussion we have had on agriculture in any way creates the impression that that Eldorado has been reached; and I do think, after the very lengthy Debate we have had, that we-might get back to somewhere near the point where we ought to have started. After all, this is part of a solemn bargain which has been offered by the Government, of this country in a moment of great national stress. The Government has told us that it is absolutely necessary to reconstitute ! our great national interest of agriculture on a sound basis as soon as possible. We have desired, and I believe most fanners would desire to go on on the old free system that was described by the last speaker but one, but I did not hear him say that-to was very anxious that we should be free from minimum prices. I did not hear him say he wished for maximum prices. I do not think he quite realised that if we are left to the free play of market we might, at all events, be very well satisfied with the position. He wished us to avoid the danger of loss, and not to give us the advantage which might come from the other end, the danger of profit. We have been told again and again to-day of our great profits and other things, but do not let the House imagine that this is put forward in any way as a tenants' or owners' question at all. We have been obliged to come to this matter on account of national emergency. This Bill is only part of a general bargain, and without the other things that are connected with it, it is, of course, useless. We have to enter on a new phase at the moment when it is most difficult to do so. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken spoke of the farmer as if he were

  1859
  leading a lazy, casual, easy life, and making his profits without turning round, whereas everybody knows that the life of a farmer at this moment is one of the most arduous that can be undertaken. He is short of labour, he has to meet enormous prices, and he has very great difficulty in getting the material for the needs of agriculture and is working for the national interest as hard as he can. Yet he has been spoken of in the House of Commons during the whole afternoon as if he were a mere selfish being, thinking of his own interests, leading a lazy life, and profiteering at the expense of the people. I believe he is doing his duty at the present time under the most difficult circumstances. It is almost impossible for him to calculate how he is to take part in this movement which may now come. He has not the time, the labour, the implements, or the material, in many cases, to carry it out. The State has laid it on him, and he says, "If the State will help me and give me due security, I will try and undertake my side of the bargain." Is the State going to do it? If the proposal which is the subject of this Amendment is accepted it will cut at the very root of this Bill, and will make the measure practically useless so far as any progress in this matter is concerned. We are obliged to press the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture on this occasion to stick to his guns in the very firmest way, because the whole Bill, in my opinion, depends upon it. Personally, I think that we have got to a very critical point, and I hope the speeches to which the right hon. Gentleman has been listening will not persuade him to depart from the attitude he took up in his first speech, when he riddled the whole proposal contained in this Amendment. We want to get back to a consistent proposition for agriculture. We heard just now some allusion to Mr. Middleton's paper, which was issued in connection with Germany and England. But I think, perhaps, the speaker forgot the analysis of that paper in the Selborne Report which, after all, was not issued so very long ago, in which, while advising that the country should study Mr. Middleton's paper, they went on to say that—
  "Nothing in agriculture can be done by the wave of a magician's wand. Results can only be produced in the United Kingdom as in Germany by a, constant and consistent policy.… They must be plainly told that the security and welfare of the State demand that the agricultural land of the country must gradually be made to yield its maximum production both in food-
  1860
  stuffs and timber.… The State must adopt such a policy and formulate it publicly as the future basis of British agriculture, and explain to the nation that it is founded on the highest considerations of the common weal."
  It is because a consistent policy was followed and agriculture was not abandoned in the bad times, but was helped forward, that we are able now to see that in other countries they have advanced farther than we have in this country. In my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring, by this Bill, to take up now a consistent attitude. I hope he will adhere to it and will not be diverted from his position by the arguments of those who come to this House with the determination, not to help forward this matter of national emergency, but to revive their old attacks against those who are connected with agriculture.
  Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I desire to make just one or two observations in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I do not think it is questioned by any hon. Member of this House when I claim that those of us who are opposed to the Government proposal that we, equally with them, recognise the urgency as well as the importance of an increase in the whole food supply of this country. I think it would be well if the Committee would keep that fact before their minds. I think I am entitled to make this further observation, because, from some of the speeches that have been delivered, it has been implied that those of us who are opposed to the Government's proposal are not only not sufficiently interested in the urgency and importance of this question, but that, even in pre-war times, we were indifferent to the importance of agriculture. I am entitled, therefore, to remind the Committee that some of us at least who are opposing the Government's proposal have, for many years, in peacetime, been endeavouring to educate public opinion and to urge upon the attention of statesmen and politicians the great need that there was for fundamental changes in our whole system of agriculture in this country. Although this is not the time to bring before the House some of the proposals which some of us have been advocating for more than twenty years. I think I am right in claiming that if this British House of Commons had taken heed to the appeal, and had regarded the urgent requests that have again and again been made to them, agriculture in this country would not have been

  1861
  in the degenerate state which we found it on the 4th of August, 1914. It is beyond question or doubt that in agricultural circles there has not been that right and intelligent application of science and intensive culture that there might have been, and I am therefore warranted in saying that if, in pre-war times, we had given due consideration to the importance of scientific and intensive culture we would not have suffered to the extent we have during the perilous days through which we are passing.
  There is one other point I desire to bring before the House. The President of the Board of Agriculture, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, and in endeavouring to rebut his arguments, referred to the type of farmer who, if he were not assisted, would not follow the processes that were imperatively necessary to get out of the land its full value. It is, I respectfully suggest, to the right hon. Gentleman an established economic fact, even in the domain of agriculture, a sound business proposition to put into the land all the acquired knowledge and skill possible. In my own part of the country the farmer frankly says: "What you want out of the land you must put in." That type of farmer, I suggest, who knows the different processes, the need for clearing his land, and so substantially adding to its productivity of his land, is not only doing himself an injury, but is doing an injustice to the State in preventing the land producing what it is capable of by a wise application of labour, acquired knowledge, and scientific cultivation generally. I suggest that one of the very great disabilities from which we suffer at this time, and have suffered for a long time past in agriculture, lies in the fact that we have had too many farmers who were content to put into their land the minimum of effort rather than the maximum. In other words, they have failed to recognise that it is a sound business proposition, even in agriculture, to put the maximum into their efforts for production.
  An hon. Member who spoke a little while ago, I think the representative of an Irish constituency, put, as one of his strong arguments in support of the proposal of the Government, that it embodied the principle of the minimum wage to the agricultural labourer. I do not know that need remind the House
  1862
  that I am, and have been for a very long time, an advocate of the principle of the minimum wage—and something more. The minimum wage is not an act of justice only, but is is a sound economic and business proposition. I would respect fully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that the farmers should lay hold of the acquired knowledge, not only of their own country, but of agriculture in other countries, and apply it to their own farms, and, in addition, should be willing to pay good wages. Those who have done so are amongst the most prosperous farmers in the country. I refuse to accept as a reason, why, far too long, so many agricultural labourers have been paid a starvation wage—
  Colonel WEIGALL: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. Is not the speech of the hon. Member more appropriate to Clause 4? Is he dealing with the Amendment row before the House?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Debate has perhaps taken a wider turn on the Amendment than I anticipated. It has been very difficult, without constant interference, to keep the matter as close as one would have desired. Perhaps, however, it has not been a bad thing, for we have made more rapid progress than would otherwise have boon the case.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: I will endeavour to keep within the regulations of the Chair. I concluded I was in order in making one or two observations in reply to a point put by an hon. Member opposite who was supporting the Government proposals. I did want to make the observation that it is a matter of common knowledge that those farmers who have cultivated their land with an honest, sincere desire to get out of the land the best results are the very men in agriculture in pre-war times who paid much higher wages than obtained generally in agriculture, and there are some of us who know districts where agricultural labourers in pre-war times received a higher wage than the figure of 25s. that is named in the Bill. Whatever reason is submitted to the House or the country as a justification for this Bill, I do ask the exponents and supporters of this Bill not to trade upon the gullibility of the British public by giving as a substantial reason that it embodies the principle of a minimum wage. Agriculture on its face value would be

  1863
  able to pay that wage, and I do suggest that, whatever other justification there may be for this Bill, the appeal that has Been made for support of it on the pretext that it embodies the principle of a minimum wage for the agricultural labourer is not a substantial one. But the Committee ought to recognise, as i hope they will, that the Bill embodies proposals that mark a revolution in our agrarian policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury referred to a speech delivered in Exeter by the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, and suggested to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that the Bill would become something of a permanent nature, and I think that we are entitled to recognise the frankness, at least, of one or two Members who have spoken who have unhesitatingly said in plain speech that they expect this is only the beginning of what is to be a permanent policy on the part of the British Government as affecting agriculture in this country. I personally think that the principles in this Bill are not sound, and that the policy that has been advocated is reactionary, and one which will bring about results which Members of this House will have cause to regret and question the wisdom, if not now, at a later date.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): The Committee has listened to a most interesting Debate, and we have been discussing for a long time an Amendment introduced in a most interesting and able speech by a Member whose first contribution to our Debates, or, at any rate, the first to which I have had the privilege of listening, gives great promise in future contributions. I hope it will be recognised in all parts of the House that it has been the desire of the Government to realise, first of all, that we do approach this point in the Bill recognising that a difference based upon real principle has emerged between those who have spoken on the one side and those who have spoken on the other. The second point which I think will be freely admitted is that it is the desire of the Government, realising that this is a point upon which a lengthy discussion might not be inappropriate, that there should be the fullest opportunity for discussion in all parts of the House, and no attempt has been made to prevent the fullest discussion. I think the Government and all sections of the House have
  1864
  profited by the well-informed and moderate discussion which has taken place. Having spent a whole day on one Amendment, I hope it will not be thought unreasonable if I suggest that the different views which have emerged have really received adequate discussion and that we are at this moment very nearly ripe for a decision. I do not propose to deprive my observations of any value which they otherwise might have by setting n bad example at this late hour, but the House will perhaps allow me to summarise the points of view which I have-formed, rightly or wrongly, because in these days we move in every sphere in which decisions are called for in dark and unexplored parts.
  I am one of the few who have attempted to take part in this Debate wholly uncontaminated by any expert knowledge of agriculture, and I am therefore able to say freely that in agriculture, as in almost every great subject which it. has been found necessary for us to deal upon novel lines, nobody can recommend a new departure with that dogmatic confidence with which we used to argue in pre-war days. We may be right or wrong. I have-been much impressed by many of the arguments to show that we are wrong, but all those can do who have responsibilities in the matter is to make the best examination you can of the difficulties, weigh the arguments—very often powerful arguments—used on the one side and the other,, and then arrive at a conclusion between them. After listening to this Debate with great impartiality, I have formed the conclusion that there has been a tendency to ignore the supreme necessity which produced these proposals and which alone afford the slightest justification for them.
  With regard to the speech of my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench opposite, a great deal of it was directed, I will not say to an attack upon farmers—I am quite sure he is far too acutely conscious of our obligations to them, which is a matter of history, to make an attack upon them, and I am satisfied that his object was not to make an attack upon farmers—but he discussed these proposals as if they could be discussed upon their merits as making subventions or grants to farmers. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood), who spoke with some heat but with a lucidity and a sincerity which we all recognised, said: "Take the case of a constituent of mine who has a one-man busi-

  1865
  ness. He is receiving no subvention, and I tell you that he will not understand the giving of these subventions to farmers." Those arguments would not only be well founded, but they would be overwhelming in their cogency if anybody had attempted to give these subventions to farmers as a kind of benevolence that was called for by the position in which farmers find themselves to-day. I assure the House that the Government have been guided, rightly or wrongly, by their view of what is the minimum necessary inducement which at this moment will lead the farmers and the agricultural community generally to make the contribution which is imperatively required not for national convenience but for national safety.
  I was a Member of the late Government, and I had the honour of being a Member of the Cabinet of the late Government. I accept the fullest responsibility, of course, I am bound to accept the fullest responsibility for everything that was done and for everything that was left undone by the Government, and I am as chargeable for all that was done and for all that was left undone as any other Member of that Government, but I had one special branch of activity with which I was chiefly concerned, and a very exacting one, and I could not pretend, and I do not pretend, to any very exact knowledge of these things or, in general, to any gift of prophecy. Therefore, I did not foresee, as my colleagues did not foresee, the full development of the submarine menace. We did not do so for two reasons: First of all, on the psychological side, and, secondly, on the purely commercial side of the construction of submarines. Certainly, I did not believe, and I was wrong, that the Germans would put the -submarine possibilities to the supreme test which would involve them in a quarrel with the United States of America. I was wrong, and I think others of my colleagues were wrong. Many of our fellow countrymen who had the excuse that they had not so much knowledge as we had were equally wrong on this point. In the second place, I say frankly, knowing the enormous demands made upon the German nation, both for manpower in the field and for the manufacture of submarines and munitions, that I did not believe—and it appears that I was wrong—that they would be able to make such a great effort in the direction of building submarines as would create the menace to our food as has developed in the last
  1866
  twelve months. Holding these views, as I believe all my colleagues held them, we did not at that time think that a measure of this, kind was demanded by the necessities of the country.
  We have all learned since then. Every candid and sensible man who has had the responsibility of Government in any one of the great belligerent countries is not going about saying, ''I have always been right," or ''I have been generally right," "No, if I was right once it is wonderful, because this is a war which has rendered bankrupt and has beggared the experience of all previous wars." Learning this lesson, what have we, I hope, learned in the last few months? We have learned, first of all, that, psychologically, whatever the explanation may be, the German nation has made up its mind to challenge this quarrel and to carry it through. They not only do not care if the United States comes in against them, or if the whole of the neutral world comes in against them—that is the only inference to be drawn, because otherwise their action is completely inexplicable—but they have decided, either that their own interests or that a cool view of their military and naval prospects demand that they should make the effort. Of course, that has revolutionised the whole outlook on affairs of every Minister who has been responsible. I say that the Ministry of which I was then a member, and of which many lion, and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-day were members, if they had known then all that we know to-day, it would have been criminal if they had not taken some such measure as we have taken.
  There may be great differences of opinion as to method. This Amendment discloses great differences of opinion on that point. The Amendment before the Committee proposes that we should deal with this matter by providing that the guarantee or subvention shall be given in respect of an excess of production. Anyone who has listened to the whole of the Debate, and who has carefully considered the arguments which have been used, will see that that is a position which no Government with the responsibilities of this Government could possibly take up. What does it really mean? We have spent, as one of my right hon. Friends has pointed out, every effort of which we are capable as a Government and as a nation in the last few months to persuade the persons—farmers and others—in-

  1867
  terested in agriculture not only to increase the area which can be made useful for arable purposes, but to maintain every acre that is at the present moment in use for arable purposes. Private effort, public effort, the patriotic work of various institutions, which need not be more particularly mentioned, have all been used for this purpose. Is it really to be suggested at this moment, when many persons, relying upon an express statement made by the Prime Minister when he first opened this Bill, not always to their profit, but often demonstrably to their loss, have maintained land under arable cultivation, that we should say to these people, "In spite of what the Prime Minister said, we are only going to grant this guarantee to those who have an excess in future." It would not only be a direct breach of the pledge given by the Prime Minister, from which it is quite evident all the Government are responsible, for which, indeed, we accept the fullest responsibility, but it would be impolitic in the last degree. I cannot see on what ground we should be justified in making such a differentiation.
  There is a second ground of very great importance. We are told—indeed, it is obvious—that if such a scheme as is proposed were adopted that a system of inspection on an immense scale would become almost immediately necessary. The Government, I am well aware, has many faults, and our Friends have frequently, and quite rightly, tried to remind us of them. One of the principal faults charged against us is the multiplication of Departments and officials. It may be that that is, in some cases, supported by the facts. Here it is proposed, at a time when you cannot even find men to till the land, that you should find a great army of inspectors to go down and report upon the numbers of people who are to receive assistance.
  An HON. MEMBER: Why increase the cultivation if you cannot find the men?
  Sir F. SMITH: The answer to that is that the national interests demand the increase, even if you have to find women and children to effect it. Almost the last observation upon this point I would suggest to the Committee is this: Has anyone really put forward a single rational or intelligent ground upon which you can distinguish between wheat and oats? It would be the greatest error in policy to confine your attention to oats and not
  1868
  think of all those other crops which are at least equally important. We have reached a point upon which obviously a difference of view is entertained in different sections of the Committee. We cannot pretend that we have maintained the absolutely true view. All we can claim is that we have applied the best intelligence of which we are capable to this question and have taken the best advice that is accessible to us, and that we have satisfied ourselves that the course which we recommend will at least secure our object and will relieve this country of great anxieties and perils in the year that lies in front of us. I do not know whether any course can attain that object. It may be that the Amendment would do it. I do not know. But we have satisfied ourselves that the course which we recommend will secure that result. We have charged ourselves with the responsibility of making that recommendation to the House and country, and I would earnestly ask the Committee to consider before it decides that it is unable to support the Government in a view so deliberately formed after consideration of every material factor.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I think those of us who have listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech and are unable to follow the arguments by which he arrived at his conclusion are justified in putting to the Committee the necessary comment which it seems to us ought to be made upon that speech. The right hon. Gentleman's argument, I think, was this: The country had passed through a period of considerable stress and considerable privation. It was necessary to maintain at the highest productive pitch the supply of wheat and oats, so as to enable the country to face the coming winter and spring with less distress and difficulty than it had done in the past, and it was necessary to give a reward to those occupiers and cultivators of land who, at a loss—and I lay stress upon those words—had maintained the existing production of wheat and oats. I do not think that is an unfair summary.
  Sir F. SMITH: Unintentionally, it is very unfair. I have seldom made a statement so stupid as that all persons who had maintained the existing cultivation of corn had done so at a loss. I said there were demonstrably some cases in which reliance upon the word of the Prime Minister had had that effect, and I should be pleased to give instances.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I find myself in this position. I am a representative of a large urban constituency and I am bound to justify my vote on this matter to the people, who themselves, not being producers, but being consumers of corn, have got to contribute their quota to the coat of this experiment.
  Mr. ROCH: It is a guarantee which may not mature.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: If it is a guarantee which may only contingently mature, there is very little value in the concession. But if it does, and it is evidently clear in the minds of most Members that it will, then it will be really of no value.
  Colonel WEIGALL: It is an insurance.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Then somebody has to pay the premium, and the persons who pay the premium on the property are the urban residents of this country. I find myself in this position. I am, on the one hand, a producer of wheat and oats, and under the circumstances in which I find myself, not likely to be benefited more by the Amendment than by the original proposal of the Government, and therefore to that extent, I hope I may claim some measure of impartiality in this matter. But I have to justify my vote to my Constituents, who are urban residents, and what I have to justify to them is this: that I have to show that any burden laid on them, and on the general taxpayers of the country, is going' to produce in the future more corn crops than they have enjoyed in the past. That is the whole burden of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that there will be a greater measure of production in the future than in the past. That is precisely what the Amendment says. If you produce an excess crop from an excess acreage, then you will receive in respect of that excess crop, produced on the excess acreage, payment. The Amendment goes much further than that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Excess profits."] I will deal with that. We will leave out of count altogether the question of the multiplication of officials. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney-General) made some effective remarks on that point so far as the Debate is concerned, but as a matter of fact there is an army of inspectors under the existing circumstances and there must be an army of inspectors under the Government proposal. There
  1870
  will not be one single official more required under the Amendment than under the Government Bill. That is not disputed for one moment.
  Sir F. SMITH: Oh, yes; it is clearly disputed.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: No figures have been given by anyone.
  Sir F. SMITH: When I said a new army of inspectors would be required I meant a new army. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he informs himself he will find that these further duties will be performed by the inspectors of the Board of Agriculture.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. and learned Friend could not have been present when the President of the Board of Agriculture made his statement, for he did allude, specifically, to the new army of officials it would be necessary to bring into being in order to discharge the new duties. There is no dispute about that between us; that part of the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes by the board. The question between us is not a question of landlord and tenant, or a question as to the industry and indolence of the farmer; I do not think any of that sort is in the mind of anybody. I have been brought up amongst the farming class and know them as well as anyone in any part of the House. Many of them are my personal friends and I am acquainted with the industry as well as any Member in this House, and it is absurd to say there is any question here of the industry, or want of industry, on the part of the cultivator of the soil, or any question between us of landlord and tenant. It is a question whether, by one means or another, you are going to produce in this country most easily and most speedily an excess production of corn. That is the whole difference between those who support the Amendment and those who support the Government proposal. Let us get down to bedrock. That is, after all, the real question between us. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has practically agreed to the suggestion that we should proceed by way of acreage.
  Mr. PROTHEROMdissented.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: He said in his speech this afternoon that while he could not agree to all that was contained in the Milner Report, he would attempt to meet

  1871
  the views of those opposed to the present proposal of the Government in some respects.
  Mr. PROTHERO: That I would give them most careful attention and sympathy.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: An extension of his action might have an influence upon the Division which must shortly take place. I would desire to get from him, if possible, a more explicit statement in connection with that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Divide!"] We do not want upon this subject an acrimonious Debate. We are trying to settle a practical question by practical means. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let us have a Division !"] There may be considerable differences of opinion between us, but both of us are trying to get an excess corn production, which is required by this country, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. We think we can only do it most easily, effectively and cheaply by means of an acreage basis. He has conceded the question of quarterage. We desire that there should be some extension on his part of the principles we advocate, and trust that the right hon. Gentleman will still be in a humour to give some more latitude in that respect.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I am sorry to intervene for a few moments between the Committee and the desire for a Division, but, after all, Ireland is an agricultural country, and not too much has been said for it in the course of the Debate. There seems to be some misapprehension as to the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) in the course of the discussion. The Amendment before the Committee will have a certain effect in that it does not apply to tens and hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers. I will, in the few moment left, endeavour to explain what I mean, and I shall do so from the terms of the Bill itself. It is proposed that the basis of remuneration, if I may use that word, shall be on the acreage and not on the production of corn—that is to say, there shall be more tillage and less grazing land. I come to the provisions of the Bill, and I find that
  1872
  the word "agriculture" is synonymous with "tillage." I find in Clause 11 that "for the purpose of this Act the expression 'agriculture' includes the use of land as grazing, meadow, or pasture land." I want to say a word for hundreds of thousands of small farmers in Ireland who cultivate a portion of their land and graze another portion. Take a small farmer with 50 acres, who cultivates 25 acres and grazes the rest. If from patriotic or other motives he cultivates the pasture portion, under the terms of this Bill that does not entitle him to any reward because the whole of the 50 acres is devoted to agriculture even when it was devoted to pasture; so that if a small farmer in Ireland changed the form of his agriculture from grazing and pasture into cultivation and tillage he will not be entitled to any benefit under this Bill. I listened to the Attorney-General, and I have no objection to the high tone of his speech, not the smallest, but he said nothing at all to meet this case. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture to say whether the Amendment if accepted would affect Ireland, and I am not aware that he said anything in reply. Therefore, if he accepts this Amendment, or if the Committee should accept it, the effect would be to disqualify hundreds of thousands of farmers in Ireland from any benefit whatever under the Act. Is that going to be allowed? Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say, if this Amendment be carried, and hundreds of thousands of farmers represented in this House are disqualified absolutely from receiving any benefit? If he places this upon an acreage basis he will disqualify them. I have only to refer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who proposed this Amendment. He stated in the course of his Speech that if this Amendment were carried it would have that effect, and I insist that the Irish farmer will be disqualified. I shall not pursue that argument. I have intervened because the position of the matter as it stands is most unsatisfactory, and I protest against it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'wheat,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 100.

  Division No. 68.]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nugent, Sir W. R. (Westmeath, S.)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Geider, Sir W. A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  O'Malley, William

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

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

  Astor, Hon. Waldorf

  Greig, Colonel. J W.

  O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Balfour, fit. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Barnett Captain R. W.

  Hacked, John

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Giouc,. E)

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Beach, William F. H.

  Hanson, Charles Augustin

  Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chester)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Slake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Boland, John Plus

  Hodge, Rt. Hon, John

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Bridgeman, William Clive-

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Royds, Edmund

  Brookes, Warwick

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W.

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Home, Edgar

  Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Butcher, John George

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Cator, John

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)

  Scanian, Thomas

  Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Fdk. (Prestwich)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Spear. Sir John Ward

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Keating, Matthew

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H. (Asht'n-u-Lyne)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Kilbride, Denis

  Stewart, Gershom

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col, Archibald

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Ches., Knutsfd.)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire Crewe)

  Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Taibot, Lord Edmund

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowther, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Appleby)

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tickler, T. G

  Crumley, Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Currie, George W.

  Mackinder, Hallord J.

  Turton, Edmund R.

  Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

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

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McNeill. Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Denniss, E. R. S.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Doris, William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Weigall, Lieut.-Col. William E. G. A.

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marriott, J. A. R.

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford. N.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Worthington Evans. Major Sir L.

  French. Peter

  Meysey-Thompson Colonel E. C.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Field, William

  Molloy. Michael

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fitzpatrick. John Laior

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Younger, Sir George

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nolan, Joseph

  F. Guest and Mr. J. Hope.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

  Clough, Willitm

  Goldstone, Frank

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Gulland Rt. Hon. John William

  Anderson, W. C.

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Heime, Sir Norval Watson

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines. Louth)

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Barton, Sir William

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

  Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

  Bontham, George Jackson

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Hinds, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

  Bliss, Joseph

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Hogge, James Myles

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Bryce, John Annan

  Finney, Samuel

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fleming, Sir John

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  1874

  1875

  Jones, R. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Sutton, John E.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Parrott, Sir James Edward

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Partington, Hon. Oswald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kenyan, Barnet

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Tootill, Robert

  King, Joseph

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

  Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk.B'ghs)

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas F.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Williams, John (Giamorgan)

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

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

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Scott, A. MacCailum (Gias., Bridgeton)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Millar, James Duncan

  Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Morgan, George Hay

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Morison, Hector

  Snowden, Philip

  Shaw and Mr. Wiles

  Morrell, Philip

  It being after Eleven of the 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 Tomorrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.