AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS. (Hansard, 1 July 1918)

HC Deb 01 July 1918 vol 107 cc1493-533 1493

§ Mr. ROCH
I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Some ten or twelve days ago I took an opportunity which offered itself on the Adjournment after eleven o'clock of calling the attention of the Minister of National Service to the serious effect which his policy of combing out the agricultural workers was having upon agriculture, and upon that occasion I restricted myself more particularly to the county which I represent, the circumstances of which I knew best. Indeed, at that time I was not aware how general, how far-reaching, and in some ways how disastrous was the policy which was being pursued by his Department. Ever since that day I have been inundated with correspondence from farmers, not from Wales only but from the counties, the Home Counties, Lancashire, and even as far north as Scotland—an unending deluge of correspondence, giving me the most piteous accounts of this comb-out, and the disastrous effect it is going to have on the coming harvest. Indeed, we had some opportunity last Thursday—a limited opportunity only—in the case of the Vote then down for the Ministry of National Service, to raise this question in a tentative fashion, but upon that occasion naturally the attention of the House was called to the perhaps more important matter which was affecting the calling up of the older men. In the course of that Debate, when the Under-Secretary for National Service was challenged on this matter, I think he showed, perhaps owing to the duplication and overlapping of Departments, that so far as the Ministry of National Service was concerned they were under a complete misapprehension as to the way in which their policy 1494 was being carried out, and were unable specifically to tell us in what way and on what basis the quotas allotted to the different agricultural districts had been arrived at. In the course of that Debate, when my hon. Friend was challenged on his policy, he stated, in reply to a question, that My hon. Friend knows that we may be actually calling the men up, but the men are being found by the war agricultural committees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1918, col. 1359.] That is a complete misapprehension on the part of the Ministry of National Service. It showed that, so far as they were concerned, they were working under a misapprehension that this quota had been agreed to by the agricultural committees throughout the counties, that they had agreed to it and were willing parties to the arrangement of calling up these men. That is a complete misapprehension. The exact position, as I think the Ministry of National Service ought to have known and as I am sure the President of the Board of Agriculture knows, is that the agricultural war executives have no responsibility whatever for fixing these quotas or for saying anything other than that it would be nothing but disastrous to allow that quota to be called up. The exact position was this: When the new Proclamation was enforced and what is called the clean-cut was made from eighteen to twenty-three, the power which the war agricultural committees had to vouch men and so exempt them was abolished altogether, and the sole power of the war agricultural committees was of recommending people and allowing them to go to the county tribunals. I lay stress on that point because, of course, the Ministry of National Service is responsible in that matter. It was made perfectly clear at Question Time to-day that the war agricultural committees are really powerless in this matter. That we knew before. My right hon. Friend opposite has often called attention to the genial characteristics of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Prothero), and has ventured to say that he was quite unfitted to deal with such a pushful and forceful person as the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him (Sir A. Geddes).
I will make very shortly the point I wish to urge upon him. First of all, let me say that I am reluctant to press the poor Minister of National Service. He has had a hard time, and it is only because the 1495 matter is urgent and because I am sure he does not appreciate it that I have taken the opportunity of again pegging away at a much harassed Minister. This quota of 30,000 was arrived at by some means or other, and I hope that whoever replies, whether it be the Minister for National Service or the President of the Board of Agriculture, will tell us how that quota was arrived at. We are told, on the one hand, that it was fixed on a basis of acreage, and, on the other hand, that it was fixed on a basis of population; indeed, various reasons have been given as to how this quota was arrived at. For myself, so far as I can form an opinion, it is that this was fixed on a basis of acreage, and I would point out to my right hon. Friend that while it might work justly in some cases it is bound to work unjustly in others. This would work, above all, most unjustly in the case of my own country, for in most of the counties of Wales some 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the holdings are made up of small holdings, so that to take acreage as your basis—which might work well and be a fair basis in an English county with large areas of land of 300 or 400 acres under one holding—when you come to small holdings the fixing of a quota on the basis of acreage alone will be to denude some farms almost entirely of their labour. I venture to submit to my right hon. Friend that the whole basis of fixing this quota, unless some justification can be given, was wrong, is one that cannot work justly, and can only end in the disastrous effect which, I think, has been shown in the last few days.
The second point I wish to make about the reason for this 30,000 men is this: Of these 30,000 now in the present state of agriculture some 80 per cent., if not more, must be skilled men, skilled ploughmen, skilled harvesters, skilled in the care of stock, and in the knowledge of machinery, most difficult in any circumstances to replace So the effect of this policy in combing out these men 1s to take suddenly from an industry which is now of the most vital importance practically all the skilled men which are urgently needed. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that in the course of the last year a special effort was made throughout the counties to plough up additional land. Some 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of additional acreage has been ploughed up, and in the feverish campaign then being carried 1496 out by the Food Production Department, their agents, perhaps too zealously—I am not suggesting it was necessarily on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman—certainly gave the farmers the most specific assurance that if they went in for this increased culture their labour to reap the fruits would be safeguarded to them. That, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, was given in the most specific way, not in one case, but all over the country—that their labour would be safeguarded. The success of that policy has been shown, because the Food Production Department has been able to issue a statement of its work and to say that four-fifths of the food supplies of this country would be produced at home. It may be that the arable land has been ploughed up to this extent, but the effect of the National Service Department calling up men in the middle of the harvest is such that a large part of the labour may be flung away and that the four-fifths supply may be an empty dream. Indeed, I would like to emphasise on the Board of Agriculture that, while crops have been plentiful in some parts of the country, the promise is thin in others. There is not going to be this bounteous crop which at one time it was hoped to get, and it therefore behoves the right hon. Gentleman, as the custodian of the food production in this country, to watch with a jealous eye that such as there is shall all be safely gathered in.
If it is necessary to emphasise that point, it is only necessary to look at the returns of submarine sinkings for last month, and to see that the hopeful prognostications that were made that our shipbuilding was going to increase rapidly, have, unfortunately, not been realised, so that the policy of food production at home is falling more and more on the right hon. Gentleman, and it is his duty to safeguard it to the best of his ability. With regard to these men, we were told that substitutes were going to be found. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what substitutes are being found? Will he tell us that in some hundreds of farms hay has been cut, and the farms have been denuded of their labour, in some cases not a man being left. The hay is lying on the ground, and what prospect is there that the corn will be garnered also? Many farmers have written to me telling me that unless labour is forthcoming it will be necessary to turn their cattle in the harvest field, and it may be even in the 1497 corn, and graze it—not as a process of obstruction, not to make difficulties for the right hon. Gentleman, but he will be the first to admit that, if there is no possibility of gathering in the hay or the corn, that is the best use they can make of it, and surely my right hon. Friend will not think it worth while, for the sake of 20,000 or 25,000 men for a month or two, to run the terrible risk the country will run if some step is not taken! It is hardly necessary to emphasise the point that the position is serious. Indeed, we had an indication of how serious it was from the fact that it was announced in the public Press that this matter had come before the War Cabinet, and I find in the "Times" of Thursday last this heading, "Harvest in danger. Prime Minister's call to the women." and in a manifesto, the tone and substance of which we could all support, the Prime Minister used these words: These men must go; women will be first to say it. But the harvest is in danger for want of the work these very men would have done. Once again, therefore, as often before, I appeal to women to come forward and help. They have never failed their country yet; they will not fail her at this grave hour. There is not a moment to lose. With that manifesto we shall all agree, but there is an authority even greater than the Prime Minister with reference to agricultural matters, and that is my hon. Friend who controls the Sugar Commission, and sits for one of the divisions in Wiltshire, and he wrote a letter to the "Times." He is, if I may say so, a man who is not likely to criticise the Government unnecessarily—a man who would only do so if he felt compelled to do so. This is what he said: Women are proving invaluable, but the limit of their utility in executing the more onerous tasks of arable industry is already reached. Those are the words of a practical man, and I need not remind my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, at all events, that there is work which women—be they ever so willing, be the manifesto of the Prime Minister never so inspiring—cannot possibly at this late hour fulfill. There are horses to be broken. There are now, owing to the depletion of horses for the Army, younger horses being used for agricultural machinery, for carting the hay, which requires thoroughly experienced men, and which women cannot possibly perform. There is the care of the agricultural implements and agricultural machinery, work 1498 which women hastily sent down to the different areas cannot possibly fulfil. I do, therefore, ask, is it worth, for the sake of these 20,000 men, to run the very serious risk the right hon. Gentleman is running now?
There is another point. Troubles on the farmers have never come singly. My right hon. Friend knows—no one better—that excellent work has been done by sending men from the agricultural battalions to the farms—work which has been going on for many months past—and these men, after the infinite trouble taken by the farmers in trying to make skilled men of them, have to some extent become skilled. But what is happening now? The Ministry of National Service steps in again, and these men, who were in a low-grade category are now being graded 1, and they will be shortly taken away from the harvest. I can assure my right hon. Friend, if that kind of policy is going to be adopted towards the farmers, not only will the farmers lose heart, not only will they be disgusted, not only will they feel they are being humbugged about, and that all the promises, assurances, and fine words said to them amount to nothing, but they will not be able to carry on at all, and they will not, believe me, take these men at all if they are going to be taken away from them in that way. That is the general case which I put before my right hon. Friend. As a result of the agitation which has been carried on, we have had some small concession from the Minister of National Service, to which I should like to call attention. This concession, as I understand it, amounts to this, that notices calling up men as from 27th June will not operate until the harvest is over. I should like to ask, whoever replies in this Debate, what exactly is the meaning of this? Many hundreds of notices have been sent out since the Debate and this agitation. They are dated 26th June, but the postmark shows that they were only posted on the 27th. Does that mean that the Minister of National Service is trying to get behind a concession he has given, or what is the explanation of it? Will he tell us exactly what this concession means? Does it mean that notices sent out in that way will operate? Will it be the date of the notice or the date of the postmark? I hope he will make it clear exactly what the concession is. But I should like to point out how utterly unfair and unequal that concession is. The way 1499 it will work is this: Those districts which have been backward in getting their quota of men, those districts which have been fortunate enough in having some delay in having their calling-up notices will benefit; so that those districts which have done their duty will be penalised, and those which have made no real attempt to comply with the requirements will be put at an advantage. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether that is his intention, and whether that concession is the right way to do it? It is not a mathematical, scientific way of giving a concession, for it pays no regard to those localities on whom the burden is lying most heavily, and it will do nothing for those men who have tried to do their duty. Really that concession cannot stand as it does at present, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put it on a more logical and fair basis before the close of this Debate.
I will repeat once again the proposals I most strongly and urgently urge on the President of the Board of Agriculture. The urgent need for gathering the hay harvest does not require to be underlined; it does not require to be argued. Let him suspend the notices to all these agriculturists until the harvest is over. It cannot, I suppose, amount to more than from 20,000 to 25,000 men. It is all very well for tribunals and Members of this House to lose their heads almost, and say, "We must have men." Of course, men are wanted, but the Minister of National Service, at all events, knows how many thousands of men he has raised in the last three months—many, many thousands of men—and he really cannot seriously say that to delay the calling up of these men for a couple of months can really have any effective effect on the military contribution that is necessary this year. One does not require to have great military knowledge to know that 20,000 men who will be available in the late autumn for military service will have no really effective part in the protection of this country, or, indeed, in the campaign of this year. While those men can be of great value to the Army later on, their value now is not only as great, but it is greater than any service they can perform in the Army. I beg him, therefore, as a reasonable man, as a man who balances the risks and has to choose which risk is the one which he is least entitled to face, to say that the risk which should not be allowed at the 1500 present time is to the food supply of this country and the in-gathering of the present harvest. That is the first suggestion I would make.
The second suggestion I would make to him is this: I believe that this quota in many of the agricultural districts is too high. I believe it is not a fair one. I believe that is particularly so in many of the Welsh counties. I believe that no quota can be fixed on any arbitrary basis that will do justice. But if you are going to have a quota it can be got upon a fairer and better basis than at present. The effect of this drastic combing out, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, fixed by an arbitrary age-limit, is not working fairly as between farmer and farmer. It has taken from those farms which have no accommodation, or, rather, are entirely dependent upon young and unmarried men for farm labour—it has fallen more heavily than it ought to have done upon them—while in respect of farms which, fortunately, have more accommodation, it has, in many cases, really not affected them at all. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman allowed the agricultural executive committees to get as many men as they reasonably could get, and from as large an area as possible, he could get them with greater justice as between farm and farm, and without any loss of effective strength which they will contribute to the Army I invite him to do so. In many cases, I assure him, the agricultural executive committee have done their best not only to preserve their own industry, but to get him men. They have not been consulted about this quota. Their powers have already been taken away from them. They have not had a voice beyond getting him such men as they could in the best possible way. I invite him to reconsider his policy in this matter. Let him suspend these notices. Let him send the representatives of his own Department to the agricultural executive committees, and let them do their best, with him or them, to get that reasonable quota such as is in their power. These are the principle points to which I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. There are hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies in various parts of the country, and who feel more deeply on this matter. One does not like to attack any Department at a time like this. It is only because the policy which is being followed is one that is leading to disaster, is one which is not 1501 wise, is one which is now such a risky policy for the Government to follow, that I, at all events, have ventured, as I now do, to move, "That the House do now adjourn."

§ Mr. HINDS
I beg to second the Motion.
The House, I think, will agree that my hon. Friend has put the case in a most reasonable manner. I am sure that we have the sympathy, in this matter, of the Minister for Agriculture. We have had several deputations, especially from Wales, during the last few days, and I must, on behalf of those deputations, thank the right hon. Gentleman for the cordial and sympathetic manner in which he received those deputations. But the matter, after all is said and done, is a very important matter to the small farmers in Wales. Wales is a land of small holdings. It is quite different in this respect from England. The farmer himself is a working farmer. Our land in Wales was denuded of labour long before the War, simply because, especially in my own county of Carmarthenshire, we are so near to the industrial districts that practically all the men were carried away to the colliery districts and the other industrial parts of Glamorganshire prior to the War. Our people are not unpatriotic. When the War broke out they gave of their men to the very utmost of their ability. Some of us went up and down the country getting all the men we could, and the men came out splendidly. In regard to volunteers, as Lord Lieutenant I went through the county and got thousands of men to volunteer. We know that you require men to join the Colours today, but the simple point we are bringing before the Minister for Agriculture, as well as before the Minister for National Service, is the taking away of the men at present. We do not want to shield the young men from twenty-three to thirty-one, but the farmers have put corn into the ground, and, the matter having arrived at this stage, it is necessary that they should have sufficient labour to gather that corn. That is all we want—labour sufficient to get the corn in. In this matter we have not had very much satisfaction, if we have had any satisfaction at all. The right hon. Gentleman when we introduced to him on Saturday a deputation from the Welsh Union of Farmers took a great deal of trouble to point out that he was most sympathetic with regard to their difficulties, amongst other things in regard to their 1502 implements, for we cannot use the implements they do in England. We cannot take your implements even for ploughing, and so on. Our mowing and ploughing have to be done by hand. Welsh agriculture is quite different to English agriculture in that respect.
Here is this Order to comb out, suddenly, after the men have cut up the land, and the harvest is upon them. No wonder that they are up in arms! They feel aggrieved because they urge that a pledge was given. It is said that you cannot give a pledge in war-time—that it is impossible to give any pledge—but it is only 15,000, 20,000, or 25,000 men we are asking for, and only asking for them to be left to the end of the harvest, so that the harvest may be gathered in. It is a very reasonable thing we are asking at the present time from the standpoint of the food of the country. We require the labour badly. We only want the men to be sent where the corn has been put in so that they may get the fruits of the ploughing or whatever the crop is that is there. In regard to the future—for we must look to the future!—after what has happened this year it will make these men—I refer to the farmers—that they will not plough up a single acre of land next year. You have got it into their minds that they have not been fairly treated. When you get that into the mind of a farmer, though he may be very slow-moving, you may try any method or even imprison him, but you will not get him to move, whatever you say, or whether or not you try to convince him that there is a national emergency. It is from that standpoint that we have brought forward the plea that we have to-day. I think I understand the position of the Minister for Agriculture. But what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lambert) said on one occasion is perfectly true. The right hon. Gentleman has not got enough "devil" in him to fight the War Office in matters of this sort. It is for him to stand up and protect the rights of these men so that the harvest may be secured. In respect to the quota in our county we had to get 500 men. We have done our level best, but have only been able to find 440, and it makes us think that sufficient men have gone from the county on previous occasions. I do not understand how the number in the quotas was arrived at, but I believe that there was taken into account those who were previously taken from the county. It is not satisfactory. The pith 1503 of the whole matter is that we do feel the emergency of the present time, and we do not want to shield these men and keep them under this umbrella, but we do think it is more important at the present time to keep these men until the end of the harvest, so that the harvest may be gathered in the interests of the food supplies of the country.

§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero)
As President of the Board of Agriculture I very much sympathise with much that has been said about the present position, but I should like to get the House back to what is the real reason for the change that has been adopted. It is that there is at the present moment a predominant, overmastering need for men for military service. There are certain essential industries of this country which must be maintained. The Army and the Navy have their demand to make, the Minister of Munitions has his demand, the Minister for Agriculture has his demand, and the Minister of Transport, under which I include railways and shipbuilding, has his demand. Man-power is short all the way round. Five into one will not go, and from time to time some predominating demand comes into prominence which must, if we are to continue this War, be met, and at this moment the men are wanted for the Army. Acting on that principle, the Government has decided that all these essential industries have got to yield up a proportion of their man-power. As the War goes on this pressure is felt necessarily with increasing severity. Every industry from which we demand men says, "We cannot at all events be asked to render this amount of man-power up for the Army," and if you allow on each occasion such demands to be made and to be responded to, it ends in your not having the number of men that are required. May I just remind the House of General Haig's appeal to his men in April, 1918: There is no other course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man. There must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall, and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight it out to the end. The safety of oar homes and the freedom of mankind depend alike upon the conduct of each one of us at this critical moment. There is no appeal for this country to send out more men, but just because there is no no appeal I venture to think that the appeal is stronger to everyone of us. Do 1504 we not feel that the men there realise that they may be overwhelmed by overmastering forces? Every man, not only that agriculture can spare, but every man that can be sent is needed there and needed now. It has been said these men will come too late. That is not the case. The men who are taken now will be in the fighting line between the middle of September and the beginning of October, and it may be that that will be the very critical moment, and we cannot really—

Mr. KENNEDY JONES
Do I understand my right hon. Friend to mean that men are going to be sent into the firing line after three and a half months' training?

§ Mr. PROTHERO
That is exactly what I do say. These men will be in time for the most critical period of the year. If you put off taking them until after the harvest, it will probably be too late, because that carries us on into the winter months. Therefore, if they are to go at all, they must go now. We must remember this, that it is one of our misfortunes in agriculture that a German offensive is probably imminent at the very moment when our harvest is being gathered in. You cannot get away from that fact. The summer months are the months in which the fighting is done and in which the harvest is gathered in. In view of that fact, the Government recognised that there was an overmastering need for men, and that need overpowers every other consideration, even that of food. They decided that all exemptions on occupational grounds should be withdrawn. You speak of me as a weak Minister, but you must remember this fact: The moment that decision is taken, all agriculturists are at the mercy of the Minister of National Service, and nothing I can do is of any avail.
What did we do, which after all are the lines upon which the two previous speakers have proceeded? We proposed that we should be allowed, through our war agricultural committee, to find the men ourselves. Instead of setting a machine in motion which would have taken every man according to certain groups and ages—first every man of nineteen, then every man of twenty, quite irrespective of the nature of his employment or of his value upon the farm—we did secure that the war agricultural executive committees should have the power to allow certain men an opportunity of an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal. Then as to the others who were 1505 sent up from twenty-three to thirty-one it was agreed that we ourselves at the Board of Agriculture should distribute those 30,000 men which it was decided to call up as fairly as we could between the various counties, and that when a quota has been given to a county the war agricultural executive committee itself should find the men to make up that quota. That is the course which has been pursued. It was accepted by the Minister of National Service, it was approved and endorsed by the Cabinet, and that is the proposal which is now in force in the country. In fixing the quota—not of 30,000 men, because that does not come into the question—that was to be contributed by each county to make up the 30,000 men, we did this: We took the number of men actually upon the farms between the ages of nineteen and thirty-one; we took the actual arable acreage in each county, and we took the number of men who had been recruited for the Army in each county in past times. On the basis of those three sets of figures the quota was fixed, and I may say that I think every county in England and Wales has complained that the quota is unfair for it and over fair for its next-door neighbour. The conclusion I draw from that general disapproval is that the quota is reasonably fair all round.

§ Mr. ROCH
May I ask whether, in fixing that quota, the right hon. Gentleman had regard to the number of small holdings, because surely it was a very relevant consideration?

§ Mr. PROTHERO
Certainly. Take the case of Merionethshire. Merionethshire, I believe, has something like 2,000 small holdings.

§ Mr. HAYDN JONES
No, 2,900.

§ Mr. PROTHERO
Well, we will say 3,000. It will be just the same for my argument. I believe on one occasion one man obtained exemption from the war agricultural committee—it may not have been in Merionethshire—because he had a holding of ¾ acre. You have 3,000 small holdings. If Merionethshire is to contribute its proper quota, those small holdings for the time being must be lumped together. There is no other way of doing it. I know that a man may dislike it, but after all compare for one moment what we are asking the men on the farms to do to-day and what we are asking the men at the front to do. The men at the front have every day to go 1506 down into a veritable hell and face death in its most appalling form, but whatever they are asked to do they do with a simple, unquestioning courage and self-sacrifice which would put many of us here at home to shame. Compare their conditions with the conditions of the men on the farms, working in their own familiar peaceful surroundings, not risking their lives, their limbs, their eyesight, and their health for all time. After all, what is a few pounds out of their pockets or a few hours of fatigue for their bodies? We must remember that what we are asking from the men on the land is as nothing compared with what we are asking from the men whom we send to the front. I quite admit that agriculturists may quite fairly say to us, "You have induced us to plough up grass."

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Ordered!

§ 9.0 P.M.

§ Mr. PROTHERO
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. His interjections are rather loud. "Ordered us," if you like. But I will say that out of about 100,000 "orders" that have been issued, probably there are only about 500 cases in which it has come as an order. It has been done cheerfully and willingly from patriotic motives. It is a sacrifice, an undoubted sacrifice, that we have asked them to make. We have asked them to incur the greater liabilities and the greater anxieties and the greater cost of arable cultivation in the country's interest, because, mind you, they are sacrificing their profit as well. No man can expect to make a profit the first year that he ploughs up grass. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, I fully admit that we have gone to the agriculturists of this country and said, "We do not deny that we are asking you to make a sacrifice." The sacrifice also applies to the landowners, who have sacrificed the capital value of their land. "We do not deny that we have asked you for a great sacrifice of money and that we have asked you to incur anxiety and responsibility." I have never made a single speech inside or outside this House in which I have put it on any other grounds. I know agriculture so well that I know if I had put it on the ground of profit it would have been an absolute fraud. I have put it to them on patriotic grounds, and throughout the length and breadth of this country the farmers have made the sacrifice and have made the effort. They have done it, no 1507 doubt, on the pledge and the guarantee that they would have the labour left to them. If they say that they are betrayed, I am bound to say that they have that amount of justification, that we did guarantee them the labour. The Cabinet in June, 1917, decided that the men employed whole-time in agriculture at the beginning of June, 1917, should not be taken from the land unless they were allowed to go by the war agricultural executive committees. I want to put it to the House that an overmastering necessity has arisen, and that we have got to take the men. I have found, in my own experience, that there has not been a single farmers' deputation that has come before me—and there have been many during the last ton days—who, when the point was clearly put before them, did not say, "After all, we are bound to let the men go." I think the hon. Member who seconded this Resolution will bear me witness that was the feeling of the deputation which he introduced from Wales. The patriotic feeling was strong. They had the Welsh vision and imagination to realise what was going on on the Western Front, and they themselves said, "Well, if the men are bound to go, we are willing to send them." They could not spare them. There was no question of sparing them.

§ Mr. HINDS
I think the view of the deputation was that the right hon. Gentleman had put the case so strongly that, "If our land and our country are going, well, if you want these men, we will have to let them go."

§ Mr. PROTHERO
That was what I was saying. It is the fact that I put it to them the other day, that this is no question of an ordinary war. We are really fighting for our very existence. If we do not pull through this War and we make a wretched peace, we will leave behind to our children and our children's children an unending heritage of war, because it is not a question as between nationalities; it is a question between two big principles which are irreconcilable. It is a war between military despotism and ordered democratic freedom. The one is a perpetual menace to the other, and until we fight it out to the end there will always be war to the end of the world, and the big cause of freedom is bound to win in the long run. 1508 I put this point to these Welsh representatives, and, as I say, they accepted the principle. They did not say that there were not cases almost inconceivably hard, but war is a hard thing, and cases must be hard, and will go on increasing in hardship until the end comes. The real point they made, as I understood it, was that of the harvesting of the present crop. That was the main point. If we could get in the harvest and save the harvest for them, then, while they did not accept, they acquiesced in the nation's necessity. The question of getting in the harvest I dealt with in an answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) to-day. I cannot be expected to say with absolute confidence that we have provided the right number of men in order to save the harvest. I cannot say that. When you reflect that practically every one of these 30,000 men is a skilled man, and that a great number of them are the key men of the industry, the men without whom a great mass of unskilled labour will be but an unmanageable crowd, you cannot expect that I should say that I am absolutely confident that we shall get the harvest in. But I do not think we shall lose much of it.
I should like to remind the House what this demand for labour from agriculture really means in point of figures. It means something like 4 per cent. of the total male agricultural labour on the land today. If you add to that labour the German prisoners and the soldiers, agriculture to-day has more male agricultural labour than it had in November, 1916, even when the 30,000 men are gone. Here is the really vital point from the agricultural point of view. There is in this country a certain number only of men between the ages of nineteen and thirty-one. You may take it, roughly, that 30,000 men between those ages take 25 per cent. of that labour. The number of Grade A men among the whole number of men who are between the ages of nineteen and thirty-one was surprisingly small—unexpectedly small—and the result was that the choice was so limited that, as I have said before, it fell on the key-men of the industry, Even then, the fact remains that agriculture will have on the land more men than it had in November, 1916. It is quite true that many of them will be old men—the old age pensioners and men of that class. Still, they are men of some experience by now. They are growing in experience. The old age pensioner has 1509 probably more experience on the land than anybody else. After all, the men who are now on the land are men with some amount of experience. They are not the key-men—that is the worst of it—nor are they the horsemen. May I point out to hon. Members from Wales who have spoken that one of our greatest difficulties is to get Welsh farmers to accept any form of substituted labour. For instance, in Cardiganshire we offered then 120 skilled German ploughmen. They did not use one of them as skilled agriculturists. We tried to get them to take women labour. I know how difficult it is in Wales, owing to the lack of accommodation, to take women, but still they will not try it.

§ Mr. ROCH
May I tell my right hon. Friend that in my own county we have not refused a single offer of women, but there is no place for the women to sleep.

§ Mr. PROTHERO
That may be as regards my hon. Friend's own county—of course it is so, as he says it—but it is not our experience in other parts of the country. I have already admitted that the difficulty of accommodation is particularly great in Wales, still there is that difficulty that they will not use in Wales the labour we have offered. I know quite well that in Wales where you have not only to mow with a scythe, but even to thresh with the flail, that you cannot use machinery such as is usable in other parts of the country. But may I add that in fixing the quota as we did, we took those facts into consideration. We took into consideration the fact that on the Welsh hill farms you could not employ machinery. I believe the quota was reasonably well fixed. As to the notices that have been issued since 26th June, provided that they were issued after the receipt of the National Service telegram which was sent off on the afternoon of 26th June, they are invalid, and the Ministry of National Service has cancelled those notices and the men will be restored.

§ Mr. H. JONES
Would a notice dated 26th June, written on the 26th, with the postmark of the 27th, and received on the 28th, be invalid?

§ Mr. PROTHERO
You go by the postmark and it would be invalid. There is no doubt about that. Instructions have been sent down with that object. I have tried to deal with this situation quite frankly. I have placed it twice before the Government, who are perfectly well 1510 aware of the hardships that are being caused in country districts, but who feel that they have no choice in the matter and that the men have got to go. I may say—perhaps it is a personal note which I ought not to strike—that I have not only pleaded the cause of agriculture, as is my official duty, but I have pleaded it with my heart in it, because this change, this obedience to the overmastering necessity of the moment, means to a great extent the wrecking, or at all events the imperilling, of all the work I have tried to do for the last eighteen months. Therefore, the House may rest assured that the agricultural case has been presented to the Government, that they are aware of it, and that nothing but their sense of the absolute need of the men would ever have induced then to take the step they have taken, and, having taken that step with due deliberation, with all the facts before them, I feel that it is the duty of agriculturists, however reluctant they may be and whatever the personal loss that it may be to some of them, to try their best to meet the new situation with the same cheerful courage and patriotism with which they have met many previous difficulties.

§ Mr. G. LAMBERT
The House will, I am sure, agree that we have had a sympathetic, a patriotic, and an honest speech from the right hon. Gentleman. Far and away the most startling fact that he has announced is that these men who are to be called up at the end of June will be out in France at the end of September. Three months' training! That is a horrifying prospect to any of us.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law)
Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to remove, if I can, the impression which has been created by that? My right hon. Friend was talking of all the men from agriculture who were brought under this Act, who have been taken in the middle of June. He said they would go to the line between the middle of September and the middle of October. That does not give, in any case, less than three months.

§ Mr. LAMBERT
Even three months to face perfectly trained German troops! It has horrified me.

Sir H. DALZIEL
In Scotland we have had boys of nineteen and twenty-one in the line within six weeks. I drew attention to it six weeks ago.

1511

§ Mr. LAMBERT
Then there is something wrong somewhere, to my mind. To even realise that the right Hon. Gentleman has made the announcement that these men are to be sent out to face these perfectly trained German troops after three months' training is unthinkable. That is the only word I can use for it. I pass from that because it is too serious for any discussion on an Adjournment Motion. My right hon. Friend has gone out of his way over and over again to allude to the hardship to the agricultural industry. If it will help those fellows out in France you may put every acre of land in the country out of cultivation; you may sacrifice every acre of harvest if it will help them. Therefore I hope we shall hear no more of this question of hardship. It is not a question of hardship. The right hon. Gentleman talked about farmers being a few pounds out of pocket. Does lie really think that weighs with the farmers of the country? I hope he has a better opinion of them. The farmers of this country will cheerfully bear their burden. They have proved that they will bear it. A good deal of ridicule and contumely has been levelled at young farmers staying at home. There may have been cases where farmers have kept their sons at home and sent their labourers. Those are selfish farmers, and deserve every condemnation. But that is not the general run of farmers. What I, and I am sure my hon. Friend (Mr. Koch) are here to ask is this one simple question, Do you want the harvest of 1918 or do you not? If you want it, we must have the men to harvest it. If you do not want it and are prepared to face the risk, the risk and the responsibility must be yours. The right hon. Gentleman proved a little too much. He said there will be only 4 per cent. fewer men as the result of this cut than there would have been had it not taken place—that is to say, these 30,000 men taken only reduce the aggregate of the agricultural population by 4 per cent. He told us there was more male labour on the land than there was in 1916. He said these labourers were getting more experienced, and he instanced the old age pensioners. The old age pensioners in our villages do not want experience; they want strength.
But the problem is a very serious one. The Food Production Department wisely congratulates itself on its efforts in having broken up so much land in the country. There is something like 40 per cent. more 1512 acreage of wheat than there was in 1916, yet if the amount of male labour remains the same, how do you think you can harvest it? Machinery was in vogue in 1916. You cannot improvise machinery for the harvest. [Interruption.] I am afraid I know a little about agricultural machinery and harvesters. It is quite impossible that this corn can be cut by manual labour. It is quite impossible that it can be cut by the old-fashioned reaping machines. It must be cut by the self-binding reaper. Where are you going to get the labour to drive these self-binding reapers? Where are you going to get the men to use three horses in a self-binding reaper, especially on a field that is not too level? When the right hon. Gentleman talked about the labour he was getting at Question Time to-day—convalescent soldiers, war agricultural volunteers, schoolboys from public and secondary schools, women from the Land Army, local authorities and chief constables to release as many men as possible, the Air Board and the Admiralty to send instructions to men to volunteer to assist local farmers wherever their services can be spared, and German prisoners—there is no guarantee that any of these classes will be able to drive a self-binder. You have taken the young skilled horsemen. I do not complain of it if you say you are prepared to risk the harvest, but I warn you that you are risking the harvest. May I give an experience of my own? I was driving up from our local station the other day and I saw a Government corn drill beside the road. I inquired what had happened. A young fellow had got hold of the drill and put a pair of horses into it. He did not know the horses and the horses did not know the drill. The consequence was that away went the horses, and the poor fellow dropped off and cut his head open, and the drill was smashed almost irretrievably. Is that the kind of thing you are going to get with your self-binder, and is this the kind of labour you propose to send down to drive three horses in these machines? The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the labour on the land to-day is absolutely insufficient to get in the coming harvest, especially if it is at alt what we call in Devonshire a catchy one Where are the men coming from to drive the carts? Where are they coming from to make the ricks, and where are they coming from to thatch the ricks? These are all practical questions. I do not want to put them if the Government says we must 1513 sacrifice the harvest. The responsibility must be yours, but do, for Heaven's sake, know what you are doing and realise what you are doing!
It was said by the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of National Service that the executive committee have had a chance. The executive committee have had no chance whatever. The Executive Committee for the county of Devon, of which I happen to be a member, had to find 950 young men. There was no choice about it, and we had to take men who were absolutely irreplaceable and indispensable for the land. The county of Devon and other counties have obeyed the behests of the Government quickly and promptly. Do you mean to say we are to be penalised because we have done our duty, and that you are going to leave those to go scot-free who have not done so? Is such a thing as that possible? Can it be tolerated? Our men were called up before the 26th of June, but because other counties have been slack in carrying out your behests you are now penalising us. Is that fair play to the counties which have done their duty? I am not going to labour this point, but I do put this to the Government frankly, Do not go out of your way to talk about farmers' profits. Do not talk about their being out of pocket. This is a national question. If you do not want the food; if you are prepared to risk the food, well and good, yours must be the responsibility.
But I would point out that this food question is not yet entirely settled. We are having beautifully warm sunny weather now, but there is the winter coming, and then there will be a different state of affairs. I think it our duty to warn you that in this matter of food production you are running grave risks. Let me give the House two or three figures showing what the submarines have done. In 1917 we built about 1,180,000 tons of shipping, but we lost nearly 4,000,000 tons. We were, therefore, 2,800,000 tons down. This year in the first five months we built 629,000 tons of shipping, we have lost 1,146,000 tons; we are 517,000 tons down. Thus in the two periods I have mentioned we have a total net loss of over 3,000,000 tons of shipping. Now shipping is all-important to bring over the great American armies which are gathering in the United States and which we hope soon will be on the Western Front. I hope the Government will realise the responsibility of gathering in the harvest, 1514 and I would suggest to them that it would be well, if they want to get the harvest in, to allow these young fellows in agriculture—the executive agricultural committees will be able to point them out—to allow them to come home for a month in order to secure the corn harvest of 1918.

§ Captain Sir C. BATHURST
I find myself in no small difficulty to-night, because although I was for something like six or seven years a most active critic of the Minister of Agriculture, and I think I can truly claim that during this War whatever I may have felt I have done my utmost in no way to embarrass the Government on agricultural topics, yet I say I feel myself in a difficult position because, as part of the Government machine, I may be deemed to be one who necessarily accepts what the Government decide, and does so in no critical spirit. The difficulty I find myself in is this, and I fancy it applies to a good many others for the time being who are working in this War in a voluntary capacity. I have, unfortunately, a conscience, and I could not conscientiously approach my Constituents, as it will be my duty to do in the course of a few months, and say with perfect honesty and with a clear conscience that I have done my best to study the interests of agriculture, and through them the interests of the nation, if I had remained absolutely silent in this House, to which as their representative I have been sent, when I have felt deeply conscious that the policy of the Government is not altogether wise so far as agricultural production is concerned, and if this country is to be fed, and adequately fed, during the remaining period of the War. I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me if I venture to say that to me at any rate the extremely patriotic and inspiring speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture has failed to carry a full measure of conviction. Of course, I realise most fully the magnificent work which the Minister for Agriculture has done, not only in maintaining a largely-increased production of food, but by his stirring appeals to the farming community, to the patriotism and unselfishness of a community, which I think all must admit has in the past shown itself to be amongst the most patriotic people in this country, he has inspired in them a degree of patriotism and self-sacrifice which it is wholly impossible to imagine 1515 in any other industry in the country. It is mainly owing to the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman that these sacrifices have been made.
I regret the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to refer in the course of a Debate like this to the amount of profits which the farmers may make or lose as the result of the Government's policy, or to refer in any way to the personal standpoint. I think those considerations are absolutely irrelevant So far as I am aware there is scarcely a single young man of military age employed in farming who is not ready and eager to join his fellows at the front, and to take his part in fighting the battles of his country. But this is not a personal matter, and it should not be looked at from a personal standpoint. We have to consider whether we can with perfect security for the future, and in the national interest, allow these absolutely indispensable skilled men to be taken away from the farms regardless of whether or not in the opinion of the agricultural executive committee, or of their employers, they can be spared, and the food production maintained. The right hon. Gentleman, after telling us that only some 4 per cent. of the total male population would, in fact, be taken for the Army under this latest comb-out, had to admit that the choice is so small that it involves taking the key-men in thy industry. Horse-keepers have been regarded as key-men in the agricultural industry. They are absolutely irreplaceable on most farms. The same applies to enginemen. They are in my county beginning to be combed out in order to supply this somewhat illogical quota which each county is asked to contribute. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman making his patriotic appeals to the farmers in my own county, and I have to admit, after reading the speeches he made to similar audiences in various parts of the country, that there is no more valuable coadjutor of the Minister of National Service than the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture. That speaks in volumes for the right hon. Gentleman's self-restraint and patriotism. But I venture to wonder whether, bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman is the champion of the agricultural interest, and is the person mainly responsible to see that the food production is maintained, he has allowed his self-sacrificing 1516 patriotism to carry him further than reason would justify. As regards this illogical system of fixing the quota for counties according to the arable acreage in each county and to the number of men, actually recruited for the Army in past times, I would point out that there is a very large number of men who have been recruited not only for the Army, but for the Navy and also for munition works and other works of public employment. In my own Constituency there are a very considerable number of men employed upon the roads who have been taken by the Road Board for road construction.

§ Mr. PROTHERO
Those are all included.

§ Sir C. BATHURST
If they are all included, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being able to get those figures with any precision. I would like to know whether all the voluntary recruits before Conscription commenced have been taken into account?

§ Mr. PROTHERO
Yes

§ Sir C. BATHURST
There is no industry which has contributed a larger proportion towards man-power voluntarily than the industry of agriculture. My right hon. Friend replies in the affirmative, that they have been taken into account. Yet he admits that there are key-men being taken under the quota system. If that is so, he is travelling along the path which, I suggest, is going to lead in the direction of serious food scarcity, if not famine, before this War is over. My right hon. Friend and the Minister for National Service have to admit—reluctantly, no doubt—that we have a very strong case which at the time this comb-out was fixed was not fully appreciated. Only last week they cancelled a large portion of the withdrawals which had previously been decided upon. Surely that is an evidence that in the scheme originally agreed upon between the two right hon. Gentlemen there was an excess of zeal which determined upon withdrawing these men from agriculture, and he now admits that it ought not to be done until the harvest is over.

§ Mr. PROTHERO
I think that is not really what I said. On the 26th June an arrangement was made that the calling-up notices should cease, and the notices that were issued after that date are being cancelled for the future until after the harvest.

1517

Mr. H. SAMUEL
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many had been called up before that date?

§ Mr. PROTHERO
I cannot tell you offhand, but it is a very small proportion that is left.

§ Sir C. BATHURST
Whether or not the proportion that is left is small, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague were induced for some reason or other to vary the original intention of the Government in this regard. The right hon. Gentleman has proceeded in this matter, and for the last twelve months, on the principle that we are, so to speak, in the last ditch. If we were in the last ditch I would have nothing more to say. If the necessity for men is so great that we can afford to take the key-men from agriculture, at the time when we have increased our arable area by 30 or 40 per cent., and we are budgeting for our food supply to the extent of forty weeks from our own production—if, in spite of that, the right hon. Gentleman says the needs of the Army are so great that these men must be taken, then I have nothing more to say. But I find it very difficult, in the face of all that has been said by various Ministers of the Crown, including the Prime Minister, that we are in so extreme a position as the announcement made this evening by the right hon. Gentleman, and which he has made before agricultural audiences, would make one believe. What I find fault with in this scheme of the agricultural comb-out is that there is no proper provision for the replacement of the men taken away. Unfortunately, the agricultural industry, above all others, is so constituted temperamentally that they do not see their way to embark upon an enormously increased arable acreage and at the same time to part with men who were never more valuable to them than they are at this crisis, without any prospect of the men being replaced either by volunteers, or German prisoners, or women. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are some districts in England in which German prisoners, who are expert horsemen, or otherwise expert in agricultural operations, who will be warmly welcomed, if only he can provide them at once? Gloucester is one of them. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman, and I would like to tell the Leader of the House, that there is, on the borders of Gloucestershire, a standard shipbuilding 1518 enterprise which is being run by the Government, and there are a large number of German prisoners employed there, as well as British troops and other workmen. Of these German prisoners, I am informed on the authority of the Adjutant in Command that not less than 100 of the men were expert agriculturists in their own country, and he is prepared to spare them to render them available for agricultural employment in the neighbourhood if the War Office will replace them with men of less value. Here is an offer which agriculturists—we, at any rate, in Gloucester—would be only too glad to grasp, but the War Office has decided for some reason that it is unreasonable, and they refuse to assent. There is a sheer waste of good, skilled agricultural manpower which the officer in command is prepared to render available for agricultural purposes, but which the War Office, for some reason best known to itself, is not prepared to spare and to replace those men with other labour less valuable to agriculture.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, assuming, as we mast assume from what he has told us, that we are at the end, or very nearly at the end, of our tether so far as military necessity is concerned, that he has any confidence that when next autumn comes and these men who are now left temporarily to gather the harvest will be called up to the Colours that those farmers who to-day admittedly are doing their best to produce increased quantities of corn are to be able to carry on their agricultural operations with the same zeal during the coming autumn? From what I hear, the farmers, although they are more amenable to Government appeals and pressure than ever before, are more anxious and more genuinely apprehensive as to the future developments on their farm than they have been at any time during the War. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that when next October and November come that he is going to be able to budget in the light of what he has said for forty weeks' home supply from home-grown food to meet cur national requirements, I very much fear that he will be grievously disappointed.

§ Mr. HAYDN JONES
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he says that the concession that the notices after the 26th instant are the only notices which are to be cancelled means that those local authorities who have done their duty 1519 are to be penalised in favour of those who have not done their duty. I think the situation calls for more drastic action than that. I am not one of those people who think that farmers should be specially favoured, and I have said that in my own Constituency. Last Thursday I met hundreds of farmers in my own Constituency, which is mainly agricultural, and one of the things I said to the meeting—I do not think it was a very popular thing to say—was that farmers have been doing remarkably well for years, and that they must be prepared, with every other part of the community, to make sacrifices to the common end that we are all fighting for. The farmers never demurred to what I said. It is not a question of declining to make sacrifices, but it is the desire to meet a situation which, if not met fairly and squarely, will land the country in exhaustion. It is a question of getting the harvest in, and I am perfectly certain, knowing the country as I do, that you have already denuded the farms of so much labour that it will be a matter of impossibility to get the harvest in. It is true that you offer substituted labour—German prisoners. In my county I have seen none of them, and I am perfectly certain that they have never been offered and never refused. You talk about women labour. I do not think there is a single woman who has been offered in my county who has not been accepted. You talk about schoolboy labour. How is that type of labour going to handle a scythe? It is not a question of the mower and reaper. It is a question of the scythe. What about horses? Do you want schoolboy or woman labour to handle horses? You have denuded my county of the essential labour to get in the harvest.
The war agricultural committee attempted to do its duty. It went through the list of available men three times endeavouring to meet the quota. The names went up to the National Service regional office at Wrexham, and they were forty short, on Wednesday last. I attended a meeting of farmers, and we had a telegram from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture saying that all calling-up notices issued after that date were cancelled. My county, though we were only forty short, was deluged with calling-up notices arriving on the 28th inst., everyone of them dated on the 26th. That is not playing 1520 the game. I have not any doubt whatever that instructions were given to date these notices and to put them in the post late on the evening of the 26th after the decision of the War Cabinet. I can produce any number of envelopes, everyone of them with the postmark of the 27th, some of them of the 28th, served on men. I will give one case as an example. A widow lost her husband last February. She had two young sons. The war agriculture committee take one of those sons, and the National Service people in their wisdom take the last son—from a farm with a thousand sheep to shear within the next few days, forty-eight head of cattle and seven horses, and an enormous amount of arable land, and they leave that immense farm to the tender mercy of a widow who has never had any experience, and of one soldier who has never done a day's work on the land and has been sent on there!
That is the method of the National Service Department, in their desire to get men. It is one thing to get men, but to take men from the land and to denude large farms of that kind is not the best thing in the national interest. What is the object of sending notices of this kind? This is sent out with the calling-up notice to men, not only to men up to twenty-three, but to men older than twenty-three. I could have understood this notice if it were sent to men up to twenty-three, though I think that it is a rather drastic notice to send, but in the case of men over twenty-three I do not see the justice of it. It says: Please note the fact that your red voucher issued by the war agricultural executive committee is not sufficient reason for the return of this notice, and that it is too late to make a claim to the tribunal. This notice must therefore be complied with even though you have not been notified by the local agricultural committee that you have been released by them to join the Colours. In other words, men who have never been selected by the local war agricultural committee, and have never had a chance of bringing in a plea before the tribunal, get a calling-up notice saying that every right of appeal is taken away. I want to know on what authority and by whom this notice was issued?
Another thing. What about the boys of eighteen on the land? If they have been served with notices after the 26th, are these notices also cancelled? Because in my county every boy of eighteen has been served, and although we were only forty 1521 short, scores of these notices have been served subsquent to the 26th instant. That is not playing the game. We want to get our harvest in. I do not think that there is a single farmer in my Constituency who wants to shield a single man. If there were, I would be the first man to condemn him. I think that the farmer ought to make sacrifices like any other member of the community. But I do say that the farmer is entitled to consideration, which he is not getting at the present moment, with labour, and you are failing to keep you have promised to keep him supplied with labour, and you are failing to keep that promise. At the very moment when he needs the labour most, when we have 500,000 sheep to shear within the next few weeks, you take away the experienced men who know how to shear and leave the inexperienced men. And on top of that you have the hay harvest and the corn harvest. This is a most short-sighted piece of policy on the part of the Government. There are only 30,000 men in the aggregate. They are not going to affect the War one way or the other, but they will mean a great deal in regard to the food supply of the country. The agricultural committee in my county met to-day to consider the very serious situation in which the county is placed, and they consider that all calling-up notices issued to farm workers subsequent to the decision of the War Cabinet on last Wednesday morning should be cancelled.

§ The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir A. Geddes)
As has already been stated, instructions have been issued that all calling-up notices issued—that is to say, bearing a postmark after the date of the 26th; anything bearing the postmark of the 27th—are cancelled. It is quite impossible, in issuing calling-up notices from the Registry Department, which are passed on to the Recruiting Department, to stop action then and there. The instructions are that the postmark settles the date, and that has already been announced to the House to-night.

§ Mr. JONES
Does that apply to boys of eighteen?

§ Sir A. GEDDES
To all calling-up notices to males employed on agriculture, including the boys of eighteen.

§ Mr. G. LAMBERT
How many does that affect?

1522

§ Sir A. GEDDES
I cannot give an accurate statement; the returns are coming through still from the country.

§ Captain WRIGHT
When a man responds to the notice will he be returned home?

§ Sir A. GEDDES
The notices are cancelled, and the individual who received the calling-up notice will have the official cover bearing the postmark, and he will have the evidence of the date of the notice and the posting in his hands.

§ Mr. H. JONES
In many cases the individual may not have seen the notice of cancellation, and manifestly it would be unfair that the man should join up, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that nobody should join up on notices posted on the 27th, and that the men who received such notices should be sent home. It would be manifestly unfair to except some and allow others to remain at home.

§ Sir A. GEDDES
So far as possible that has been done. The suggestion that we are trying to catch men is, I think, really unfair. I do not think that it is the reputation of the Department that they try to catch people, or trap them on technical points. We have been most careful throughout not to trap and catch people in that way.

§ Mr. JONES
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how these boys in Merioneth were called up at the very time that the war agricultural committee were doing this work? This was done behind the back of the agricultural committee, the notices being dated the 26th and posted on the 27th.

§ 10.0 P.M.

§ Sir A. GEDDES
I cannot tell with regard to any particular area what occurred, though I have no reason to think that what the hon. Member says is incorrect. The instruction was to deal with the men who were on the list of the war agricultural committee. I do not know exactly what happened in Merioneth, but I can assure the House there has been no attempt to trap people on a technical point. The calling-up notices were prepared in the ordinary course by the Registration Department and handed to the Recruiting Department, and in 99 per cent., even 100 per cent., of the cases there has always been a delay consisting of one, or even of two days, between preparation and issue, and therefore it is to be ex- 1523 pected that a calling-up notice dated the 26th would be delivered on the 27th, or it may be even the 28th. It is inevitable that it should be so, having regard to the machinery.

§ Mr. JONES
I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but there are several things connected with my own country in regard to which this explanation does not satisfy me. The telegram, which I have already read, urges that not only should the notices be cancelled, but that all the men already posted should be temporarily released for the harvest; otherwise the crops cannot be got in. I join in that appeal. I submit that the course which I suggest would affect an enormous saving to the country in the matter of food. It is necessary that we should have the men to get the harvest in, and if we fail to obtain them, the blame will not be that of the farmers, who have done their duty. I think this is a very important matter, and I would point out that if we are going to treat the farmers badly this year, how can you expect them to treat us well next yea? I make an earnest appeal to my right hon. Friend to release these men for a short period, and by so doing the Government will gain the good will of those who, I know, are doing their very best for the country.

§ Mr. HARCOURT
I have no special knowledge of the agricultural case, and therefore I must claim the indulgence of the House in intervening on one particular point which has arisen out of the Debate, that is the amount of training the men are to receive. I think that is a point so important that the House will agree that it overshadows, in itself, all that we have listened to in this Debate hitherto. Certain observations fell from the President of the Board of Agrculture as to training, which I believe were no more than obiter dicta, and were perhaps made without any great premeditation, but the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) promptly referred to what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and there arose one of the most remarkable incidents in the Debate. I do not rise to make observations with the intention of causing mischief; the subject is far too grave for that. None of us want to do anything to thwart the Government in getting the men. I myself have served three years in one way or another, and I have only been 1524 demobilised at the present moment. The speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether intended or not, can only tend to produce correspondence, and must necessarily give rise to a sheaf of questions. In justice to the military authorities themselves, I think it would be very desirable if the Leader of the House could make some clear pronouncement on this matter.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I think it would be right if I pointed out what I should say is obvious to the whole House, that the real difficulty in dealing with the problem before the House to-night is that it is quite impossible for anyone representing the Government to state fully the considerations which have induced us to take proceedings of this kind. That is the real difficulty in this case, and no better illustration of it could be given than the point to which my hon. Friend has just referred. In the course of his speech the President of the Board of Agriculture dealt with the question of getting the men now for the new campaign. Calculations were made. He was speaking on the 1st July, and he said that these men would be available in France.

§ Mr. KENNEDY JONES
He said in the firing line.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
What my right hon. Friend meant was that they would he available in France between the middle of September and the middle of October. That is a fact. What always happens is that three months' training is given to the men here at home, although, in some cases, under the present necessities, I believe they have been sent to France after ten weeks' training; but three months is the amount which is usually given at home. They are then sent to France for at least another month's training. That is a principle, and so far as the boys are concerned, to which special reference was made, it has been said over and over again by the War Office that, under no circumstances, will any boy be put into the firing line until he has had at least four months' training. I think it is a great pity that it is necessary for me to say even this in the House of Commons, and it is one of the difficulties of a Debate of this kind. I think it is unavoidable, but do not let the House be under any delusion, or rather under any misapprehension. There is nobody in any degree responsible for the carrying out of this War who 1525 does not realise that our men are greatly handicapped by having to go into the fighting with training for so short a time. We all recognise it, and when it is said, as I think my right hon. Friend said, that that is one of the serious things that has come into this Debate it is perfectly true, but it does not really, depend on any authority here. We have throughout the whole of this War been faced from the very beginning with this terrible handicap that we are creating a new Army from its foundations. We have to put it in the line when the necessity arises, and it is not possible for us to give the training which would have made that Army much more formidable even than it is.
Having risen for this purpose—and I hope I have entered as fully as possible into the point put by my hon. Friend—I should like to say a word or two about the general position. I have, of course, no direct dealings with either of the Departments responsible in this matter, but there is no question about which I ought to know better if hearing it constantly discussed and hearing all the arguments put forward would enable me to understand it. It is a great mistake to suppose that he one in the House regards this as a question of hardship on the part of the farmers, and nobody, I think, could have made his meaning plainer in that respect than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture. What he said was this—and I am sure that every hon. Member will agree—that, looking at it from the point of view of hard cases which have been brought to our notice over and over again, in the Cabinet and to the President of the Board of Agriculture, from the point of view of the hardships on the farmers, they arise from the fact that we have urged, from patriotic motives, that the farmers should plough up new land, and they have responded, and if they do not get the labour, not only will that be wasted to a considerable extent, but they will lose enormously through what has happened. In dealing with cases of that kind, surely my right hon. Friend is expressing the feeling of every Member of the House in saying that we regret these hardships, and we would do our best to prevent them, but, after all, these particular hardships are as nothing in comparison with the dangers and sacrifices which are being made by the men who are facing the enemy.
The real question is whether or not what we are doing is in the national 1526 interest. That is the whole thing. Here, again, I really am in a position that it is quite impossible for me to give all the facts and all the knowledge which have influenced us in coming to a decision in the matter. We know just as well as every Member of this House that we will be beaten just as much as if our Armies failed if we are not able to feed the people of this country. We know that perfectly well. That therefore is the danger which we have got to keep constantly before our minds. On the other hand, it is no exaggeration to say—and I think every Member of the House really will understand it—that the pressure of danger varies as the War goes on, that we have got to a certain extent to adjust the available resources of the country, which cannot go all round, so as to meet the need which for the moment seems the most vital to the Government of the country. That is the whole position looked at from that point of view. I am not going to say anything which reflects any more on the feeling of the House of Commons than it does on the members of the Government themselves, but remember that we are all influenced, and it is impossible to avoid it, by the danger which faces one at the moment. Suppose that this discussion had been raised during the fortnight after the 21st March, does anyone doubt that the feeling in this House would have been much more strongly emphasised as to the necessity of getting the men than it is now, when we have had a lull of so many months in that danger? But nobody can foresee the future. At any moment a new attack like that of the 21st March may be made. Therefore as a Government we have to weigh the dangers on one side and the dangers on the other, and with a full sense of responsibility—for I agree with my hon. and right hon. Friends in that matter that it is a great responsibility—we have to decide as best we can what is the danger which is most menacing and in what way we can best use the forces available for the nation. That is our position.
The hon. Member who spoke last said 30,000 men will not have a great influence on the War. We cannot look at it in that way. Remember that these are 30,000 not only A 1 men, but young men. They are the very kind of men who can be placed in the front lines. These 30,000 men represent the vital force which is needed to supply between three and four divisions, in the fighting in which we are engaged, 1527 and you cannot say that that is not important. But it does not stop there. The most difficult question, I think I may say, which the Cabinet have had to decide in the last six months, and perhaps longer, is precisely the use which we are to make of the available man-power of this country. We have had the representatives of agriculture over and over again before us on this point, but they are not the only representatives who come to the Cabinet. I could quite imagine, if all the facts were known and if hon. Members of thus House were informed exactly what the position is—I can quite imagine a Debate arising in the House as to the taking away of coal miners, and one which would make a case, perhaps, not quite so strong, but almost as strong as has been made to-day for agriculture. And more than that, we have to decide—we have had to take a decision this week—on the relative importance of purely military demands for man-power. The sending away of any fit man does at least endanger the rapid supply of munitions of war of a particular kind, which is a military necessity, and which are urgently demanded at the front to-day. We have got to decide between them. If the House of Commons were to hear case after case of this kind and to judge it on its merits as it is presented, I have not the smallest doubt that the result would be that a tremendous number of the men who are now going to the front would be withdrawn and our forces would be left much weaker than they are.
It is a case of relative danger. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) said, "If the Government say we are in the last ditch, then there is not a word more to say." At all events it has been said, "If you are in the last ditch there is not a word more to be said." I do not say we are in the last ditch. I do not think we are in the last ditch; but no one who knows what happened on the 21st March, who knows that a similar attack is probably imminent now, and who realises, as we all must, that it is not going to be settled by one attack or two attacks, but that the whole aim of the German military strategy of this year is to wear out all our reserves, and defeat us through reserves not being there—anyone realising that must realise also that the first duty of this Government to-day is to make it as certain as we can make it that we shall not suffer a defeat this campaign which 1528 will render anything that we may do next year useless, whatever that may be. I really am very unwilling to make a speech at all on this subject, but I must put this to the House of Commons, and I am sure they sympathise with me when I do it.
The longer the War goes on the more difficult it becomes in every department of national life connected with the War. The difficulties become every month greater. It must be so. These questions, such as the right use of man-power, as I have said, cannot be decided by a discussion in the House of Commons, where one side of the case is put—and a very good case put, for I do not want the House to think that I minimise the seriousness with regard to what is happening to agriculture. I do not want them to imagine that I do not realise as well as every Member who has spoken that for the Government one year to urge the whole agricultural community to plough up new land and then in a subsequent year to run the risk—I do not put it higher than that—of not getting the whole of the harvest, with the greater risk that the programme will not be carried out—I do not wish any Member to imagine that we do not realise how serious that is; but I put this to the House. If there is one thing on which those responsible for the War, with all the facts before them, must be left to decide, it is precisely questions of this kind. I do not say to the House of Commons, "You have to give us a blank cheque." I admit freely that in these matters mistakes are very likely to be made. It is quite possible, for instance—I think it would be difficult, though it is quite possible—that the number of men who could have been got, if we had all been superhumanly wise, with less disturbance to national life. I think that is possible, but everyone is human, and to err is human. Mistakes may be made, and I do not for a moment suggest that when the House of Commons finds anything that looks like a bad method it should not call our attention to it. More than that, I think that this Government, like any other Government, and as much as any other Government, has been ready to take advantage of any hints which come from the House of Commons or anyone else. That is true, but in the main, realising, as the House must, the problem the Government have to face is one which is becoming increasingly difficult, it must be left to 1529 them to decide in what way the resources of the country shall be used in the conduct of the War.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The right hon. Gentleman has put a very good case from his point of view, and I want to say one word from the farmer's point of view, especially with regard to the speech of the Minister for Agriculture. It is not a fact that the farmer is thinking of whether he is going to lose money. What the farmer is thinking of this: he has been asked to make great sacrifices to cultivate more land, with the promise that the labour will be left to him so as to cultivate that land, and, with the assurance that it was necessary for him to make the sacrifice, he has ploughed up grass land in order that the country might be provided with food. Now he is told that, not only is the food question so unimportant that the men are going to be taken away, but it is practically thrown in his face that he objects because he is afraid he is going to lose money. I feel quite certain if the farmers of this country are told that it is necessary for the salvation and welfare of the country that they shall sacrifice these men, they are prepared to do so. But in that case do not let them have any interference from Government Departments or agricultural committees. The farmers are perfectly willing to make the sacrifice if left to manage their own affairs in their own way. They will be perfectly willing to lose money and to make the best of a bad job, but not to be harassed by officials of various Departments telling them to do things it is utterly impossible for them to do. I do not want at the moment to go into the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman as regards the plouging up of grass land, which has been an abject failure in many cases. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to laugh, but his own officials have seen instances where the result has been an absolute failure, and in many cases, where something has been grown, it will not pay for the cost of the seed. What the farmers do feel is that they have been harassed by officials who know nothing about the matter, and have been told to do—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Those matters are not within the scope of the leave obtained, which is confined to a definite subject.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I thought, on the Motion for the adjournment of the House, 1530 one had a little scope, and the right hon. Gentleman himself raised the matter. But I will not pursue it. It is quite sufficient for me to say that it will be absolutely impossible for the whole of this harvest to be got in. If it is more important to have men than food, then the men must be got and the food left. The getting in of the harvest is not the only thing. There will be the preparation of the land for next year's harvest, and if there is not labour to do that, not only will this year's harvest be lost, but a considerable portion of next year's harvest will be lost. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do as to whether the question of food is, comparatively speaking, so unimportant that he can afford to run the risk. If he can, I feel quite certain the farmers as a whole will assist him in every way they can, but they do ask that if they make this further sacrifice they shall be left in the future to manage their own business in their own way without interference from anybody else. If it is necessary to do this, it must be done; but it must be done in a proper way, and it must be done with some consideration for those people who have done what they have been asked to do by the Government, and have now been thrown over.

§ Colonel GRETTON
This Debate has been initiated by hon. Members from Wales, who seem to think that this matter has pressed particularly strongly upon their counties. I will not discuss the matter from that point of view. I was rather surprised to find that the two English Members who intervened in the Debate joined in the general geremiad that has been hurled at the head of the Agricultural Minister. I do not take their view. I believe that the farming community have resources, determination, and ingenuity to meet even this heavy drain upon their means. Here and there we find, as in every community, men who grumble, and who will not exert themselves to meet the necessities of the case. My experience of the farming community is very different from that which appears to have been the lot of some, judging from the remarks we have heard here to-night. Farmers are deserving of praise. They do not easily adapt themselves to new methods, and undoubtedly a crisis has come over the agriculture of the country. Still, I do not see there is any reason why we should be spared from meeting the position in having to give up these men. 1531 There is no question that the men are required. I wonder, though, whether other sections of the community are being pressed as hardly as are the agricultural section. We see in, for instance, the particular district that I represent ironstone workers and numbers of young fellows of military age working at aerodromes and so on. They are getting very high wages, and having very easy times. I refer now to the Army at home. It is an exceedingly wasteful employer of labour. In an agricultural office which I frequent I have seen a notice that the Army is prepared to release men who are not proceeding abroad, or actually in the Armies abroad, for the service of their former employers, so that they may return to the land. That is a most valuable concession, and one which will, to some extent, meet the urgency of the situation. After all, the men who can be released in this way, and who are not really required for fighting purposes, but are wastefully employed in the Army, can be sent back to their agricultural counties for the agricultural committees to deal with. There is need for ploughmen and horsemen. These men will do much to meet the situation. Then, again, there will be draining and ploughing for this coming winter. I am certain, however, that with the good will of all, and with the increasing efficiency of women, we shall get through. Many women have turned out to be extraordinarily efficient. The other day I saw five women haymaking. Two of them developed a strong determination to work all day in loading hay on wagons and would not stop. They really would go on the day after. Women have risen to the emergency, and have found that they have got a strength and an adaptability that men did not at all believe they possessed when they first began to employ them. In these and other ways, especially in the matter of the substitutes provided by the National Service Department, we shall arrange by one means or another to stop the gaps in the most urgent cases, and as time goes on to find the men to supplement the labour we have got. I hope in this matter the Board of Agriculture or practical farmers will not be misled this season by the appearance of the harvest last year. They did very well last year. Labour was found for the harvest, but it was a very short harvest. The crop was a light one. The promise this year is that the crop will not be so light. The area of 1532 land is very much greater. A greater effort will have to be made to supply the required labour. The agricultural committee is prepared to make the effort required with very few exceptions. With good will on the part of the Government Departments and some effort to carry out the promise to release men from the Army not required for fighting purposes we shall manage to scrape along. I did not think it right that there should be one general chorus of despondency when I believe, as a matter of fact, the difficulty can be got over by good will on all sides.

§ Sir NORVAL HELME
I have a suggestion to put before the Government that when the President of the Board of Agriculture or Board of Trade or Local Government Board has a question placed before him which primâ facie carries with it a case for inquiry, the head of that Government Department should have the right of communicating with the military authority and saying, "Please hold up the calling up of this individual until we have had an opportunity of advising you upon the case." I say this because of the great difficulty in which the war agricultural committes in the counties are placed. In the county of Lancashire, with all the desire possible to stand by the Government, I am under a firm belief that mistakes have been made. Certain individuals have asked that their sons or men in their employ should not be released for service, and the war agricultural committee of the county could not see its way to grant that request. Consequently, calling-up notices were issued, and in two cases I was asked if I could use my influence with the Board of Agriculture to deal with the cases. I want to recognise how courteous a response was made. In one case a farmer in my Constituency asked that his son might be continued in his exemption. He is a farmer with 1,000 acres of land, with sheep and lambs running into four figures. He had a younger son in Class 3 totally unable to do the work, and the farmer asked that his other son might be exempted, and the President said he would kindly look into the matter. Here may I acknowledge the generous consideration which the National Service Department gave. They immediately said that the case might be deferred for five days to give time. Unfortunately five days were not sufficient, because the Board of Agriculture discovered that they had not the power to deal with it.
1533 I asked the chairman of the war agricultural committee in Lancashire, and he authorised me to say here that the Government were giving Lancashire an impossible task, and they could not have it both ways. They were asked to find a definite quota of men, and they could not do it without interfering with the food supplies of the county. Here is this farm of 1,000 acres of land. The farmer has this one son, who is the shepherd, and he went at the end of the five days, joined the Army, and this farmer found himself in this unfortunate position. He went to shepherd his sheep, and the dogs would not respond to his call; and other difficulties arose. That farmer has already put so many more acres of land under crop, and he asked me to put this question to the Board: Is one man sufficient to do this shepherding and all the rest of the farm work, seeing that the other younger man is not physically strong? He is in that position. I am not pleading for individual cases. I am pleading for a principle, and I think that the heads of a Department ought to be in a position to judge, and ought to have the right to ask the War Office to hold back until they themselves have given their decision. I have another case in which a farmer asks for help. His eldest son is at the War. A second son has gone into the Army, and there is a young child left. He has 340 acres. I want to press the Government, where it can be shown that the men cannot do the work, not to leave the war agricultural committee in the difficult position in which they are placed. The hon. Member for the Tavistock Division (Sir J. Spear), who has gone to meet a son back from France, asked me to say that he would have been able to give cases of which he has an abundance, and that he desired to raise his voice in support of the plea that careful consideration should be given to agriculture.

§ Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.