Lords Sitting of 25 July 1912

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Order applicable to the following Bill has been complied with:
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (FINANCE) BILL.
NATIONAL ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

ASHBORNE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with amendments.
PUBLIC OFFICES (SITES) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Vivian be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Lovel and Holland (E. Egmont); read and agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CON- FIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SEA FISHERIES (CONWAY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
SEA FISHERIES (LYNN) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

LAND DRAINAGE (BRAITHWAITE MOSS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed drainage district in the parishes of Above-Derwent, Under-skeddaw, Embleton, Wythop, Setmurthy and Bassenthwaite in the County of Cumberland—Was presented by the Lord Lucas: Then it was moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 7th day of May next" be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 1a; agreed to: Bill read 1a accordingly, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 132.)
BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
UNIFORM TIME (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
IRISH CREAMERIES AND DAIRY PRODUCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Motion, That the House do resolve itself into Committee resumed (according to Order).
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before the House proceeds further with this Bill I desire to say a few words with regard to it. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill (Lord Lucas) thinks that any useful purpose can be served by proceeding to discuss the Amendments which are on the Paper we are prepared to discuss them, but I wish to intimate to him as clearly as I can that those of us who sit upon this side of the House are not prepared to take the remaining stages of the Bill before the adjournment for the holidays, and I really want His Majesty's Government to Consider very carefully whether in those circumstances there is any advantage in dealing with the Committee stage to-night. This is a Bill which has been introduced by His Majesty's Government for the purpose of giving relief to a certain class of farmer—the sitting tenant who finds himself disturbed in consequence of the sale of the estate; but it is a remarkable thing that since the measure first made its appearance not only has not one single word, so far as I am aware, of commendation proceeded from any of the bodies which represent the agricultural interest in this country, but from a great number of those bodies, including some of the most influential of them, there have proceeded resolutions and reports condemning the Bill in the strongest possible language, and so far as I am able to judge the disfavour with which the measure is regarded tends, if anything, to increase. I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, who has been aware of all these expressions of disfavour, whether he is able to produce to-night any authentic evidence that any appreciable section of the agricultural interest really supports or cares about this Bill. I doubt it extremely.
There is another matter which I ask the House to consider. There is evidence to show that the Government themselves have scarcely given to the details of this Bill the consideration which they deserve. There is a notable illustration of this in the fact that we were able to point out when the Bill was first produced that Clause 1 was altogether ineffectual for the purpose of giving protection to the sitting tenant in cases
712
where the owner of the estate might decide to postpone the sale. I am bound to say that the noble Lord saw the force of this argument, because he has now on the Paper an Amendment dealing with that point. It was a point dealt with in the first instance by my noble friend Lord St. Levan, and it was not until the 6th of this month—the Bill, if I remember right, first saw the light in April—it was not until the 6th of this month that the Government's Amendment made its appearance on the Paper. I cite that in order to show that in all probability His Majesty's Government themselves would gain a great deal by a little further time for the examination of these questions. I do not desire to obstruct this Bill. I have admitted throughout that there is a grievance which we should all like to redress, but I do doubt extremely whether the Bill as we now see it is the best means of dealing with that grievance. I want to put it quite good-humouredly to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether in these circumstances there is anything to be gained by proceeding with the discussion to-night. It is not really as if we were pressed for time. After the summer adjournment we shall come back here in October, and so far as I am aware we are not likely to be overwhelmed with work. Would it not be much better in those circumstances to let the question stand over, and in the meanwhile His Majesty's Government will have further opportunities of ascertaining for themselves how their proposals are really regarded by the farmers of this country.
LORD CLINTON: Before the noble Lord in charge of the Bill replies, I should like to say one word in support of the suggestion made by the noble Marquess. I would go a step further, and repeat what I said on the last occasion, that it really would be in the interests of agriculture that this Bill should be withdrawn altogether; for although the Government have at last found it is necessary to put down some Amendments to the measure they have not in any sense mollified the opposition to their scheme on the part of farmers, who are as bitterly opposed to it as ever they have been. But I suppose, the Government having once refused to withdraw the scheme altogether, I can hardly hope that they will do so now. At the same time I support the suggestion of the

713
noble Marquess that, at all events, they should, having in view the fact that we cannot get through all the stages of this Bill before the adjournment, postpone it and take the further advice of agriculturists generally on the matter.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, I was not aware until I arrived at the House this afternoon that this particular suggestion was going to be made, and I have rune down I am afraid inadequately supplied with the evidence for which the noble Marquess has asked. He asks what evidence we have that this Bill is receiving support from any large class of agriculturists. I have every reason to believe that it does receive a considerable amount of support, but not having brought with me chapter and verse I hesitate, as so much depends on accuracy, to state the sources, but I believe there is considerable support for this Bill in the country, though I do not think the support has been quite so outspoken as the opposition, but that is a common feature of every measure. At any rate we think we have sufficient evidence to satisfy ourselves and to back up our own strong opinion that this Bill is one which, if passed into law, will go a considerable distance in alleviating the particular evil which it is intended to meet.
As to the noble Marquess's suggestion of postponing the Bill, may I put this point to him? We have put down a considerable number of Amendments to the Bill, certain of which we hope to see passed, and I have no doubt there will be other Amendments inserted in spite of what some of us would wish. Therefore the Bill would emerge from the Committee stage a very different Bill from what it is now, and if we are to obtain a further expression of opinion upon it would it not be better that the Bill should go through its Committee stage now in order that it may in its amended form be published, so that the various persons interested may see it in its amended form and express their opinion? If that were done we should, when we meet again in the autumn, be in a better position to judge on the question than if we were to adjourn the debate now and wait until the autumn before inserting the Amendments that are down on the Paper to-day.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord deals with this matter with so much good humour that I feel some scruples about interfering in this debate on the other side. At the same time, I would point out to your Lordships that the noble Lord has himself given one very good reason for postponing the debate on this Bill. He is unable, for want of notice no doubt, to give us any information at all to-day as to the amount of support which this Bill has received from the agricultural interest in the country. He admits that it has received a good deal of opposition. No doubt if the Bill were postponed he might be able to give us some facts in support of his contention, but he has given us none to-day. But there is another reason. I am told on good authority that a very important agricultural body, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, at a recent meeting passed a resolution appointing a committee to examine and report upon this Bill. That committee cannot complete its labours until the autumn. By that time we shall have before us the matured views of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, certainly the most representative body which agriculturists possess, on the proposals of this Bill. If they are in accordance with the views of His Majesty's Government, that undoubtedly would be a strong argument in favour of the Bill. If, on the other hand, they are opposed to the Bill, surely that would be a very strong additional reason for not proceeding with it any further.
I have during my political life given a great deal of attention in both Houses of Parliament to subjects of this kind. I suppose I have taken part in the discussion of more Agricultural Holdings Bills and Bills of that kind than any member of your Lordships' House, and I have always endeavoured to do the best I could for the farmers in dealing with this matter. But I must say that the more I look at the proposals of this Bill the more I am convinced that from every point of view—from the point of view of the landlord, from the point of view of the farmer, from the point of view of agriculture generally, and from the point of view of facilitating the sale of estates and their division among smaller owners—this Bill is a mistake. I believe that the amount of good it could do as regards the sitting tenant would be infinitesimal as compared with the amount

715
of harm which it would do to all other interests. The length of occupation which it would give to a tenant whose tenancy, after all, would be doomed would be detrimental to agriculture, for a long notice of the kind when a man has to leave at the end of that notice really tempts him to work out his farm to the injury of everybody concerned.
Then there is the doubt, which in my mind is a strong one, as to the circumstances in which the Bill should take effect. Nothing could be vaguer than the words of the Bill, that it is to take effect "where the landlord of a holding in connection with a sale or offering for sale of any part thereof gives notice." Where a man had taken some public steps towards the sale of the estate the Bill would apply. But suppose, on the other hand, that the owner of a holding, wishing not to bring himself under the provisions of the Bill, takes no public step whatever before giving notice to his tenants with regard to his intention to sell. The Bill would then open a question between landlord and tenant which would lead to litigation between the parties. If it did apply it would place a great impediment in the way of dividing estates into a large number of small lots to facilitate the purchase by occupying owners of a certain amount of land, which we all desire to see brought about, but which this Bill would simply prevent; because who would buy a field or a small farm with the knowledge that he could not occupy it for eighteen months or two years Unless the Central Chamber of Agriculture pronounce in favour of this Bill I should certainly join with any noble Lords who opposed it in its future stages. The Bill, in my opinion, will do infinitely more harm to other interests concerned than it will do good to the sitting tenant. In order to bring the matter to an issue I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be further adjourned.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, on the Motion for the adjournment of this debate I should like to say a word. The attitude of noble Lords opposite is, I am bound to say, a great disappointment to those who firmly believe in this Bill. I venture to think that the speech of
716
the noble Viscount is really a reason why the Bill should be proceeded with at once. The noble Viscount said he considered that the Bill was entirely a mistake. Personally as a supporter of His Majesty's Government, I think that this is a very good Bill. If noble Lords opposite think it is wrong, why do they not have the courage of their opinions and throw it out or produce something better? I do think that the agricultural interests in this country will be disappointed to see this Bill put on one side as if it were of no importance whatever.
After all, what great objections are there to this Bill? Some weeks ago Lord Clinton quite reasonably asked the House to postpone the Bill in order to consider the objections, and His Majesty's Government at once fell in with his wishes and the matter was postponed. What, after all, are the great objections to this Bill? As far as I can make out, they are only three—really only two and a half, because the third objection is consequent on the second and is only alternative. As to the first objection I think that can be dismissed in a few words. The first objection, we are told, is the land agents' objection—that the Bill would increase the premium on had farming. To quote their words—
"If a tenant keeps his farm eighteen months after the sale it will be a great temptation to a bad tenant to farm to leave."
We all know that those will be exceptional cases; and, after all, the landlord is protected by Section 3 of the Land Tenure Act. It is the custom in some parts of England to give two years' notice to quit, and it answers very well indeed. The second objection to this Bill is met by an Amendment which Lord Lucas proposes to insert if he is permitted to do so. Lord Salisbury, speaking for the landlords of England, told us six weeks ago that, human nature being what it is, he thought it natural enough that a landlord would postpone the sale for another year. What does that mean? The grievance is admitted by the noble Marquess opposite and by everybody. The Bill is brought in by His Majesty's Government to remedy that grievance, and the noble Marquess, speaking for English landlords en bloc, declared that they would evade the law. In the language of noble Lords opposite, all that will happen will be that the agony of the unfortunate tenant will be prolonged, and

717
the last stage of that man will be worse than the first.
But that is not all. English landlordism being what it is, tenant farmers are convinced that landlords when property is put up for sale intend to show them no mercy, and that when estates are put up to auction landlords mean practically to evict—perhaps that is too strong a word—to expose the tenants to eviction at three months' notice, so that by offering vacant possession they call secure tip-top prices for their farms. I am not speaking of the landlords of England who are at the mercy of moneylenders and are really nothing but mere rent-chargers. I am speaking now of the landlords who have the power to deal with their estates. This objection is dealt with by the Amendment of my noble friend which is on the Paper to-day. Now we come to the opinions of the farmers of England. These were voiced by Lord Clinton in the last debate, when he told us that the only remedy which the farmers could see was State-aided purchase. What does State-aided purchase mean? It means my right hon. friend Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill pure and simple.
LORD CLINTON: I think the noble Marquess is assuming too much. The right hon. gentleman's Bill is not the only Bill before the country at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I thought the noble Lord was speaking for the farmers. Everybody knows that Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill has been received with great acclamation, and resolutions in favour of it have been passed by the Central Chamber of Agriculture, by the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, and by the Farmers' Club. I do not know whether a resolution in its favour has been passed by the Farmers' Union, but resolutions in favour of it have been passed by 168 Chambers of Agriculture in the country. Now nobody knows better than we do that some of these Chambers are simply Conservative Associations. [Several noble LORDS: No, no.] I know that in my own county the Chamber of Agriculture is simply a Conservative organisation to assist the return of a Conservative Member. Still, of course, it is a great feather in Mr. Jesse Collings's cap that he has been supported by 168 Chambers of Agriculture all over the country; and I notice that in the Nine-
718
teenth Century and After of this month my right hon. friend Mr. Jesse Collings writes that Lord Lansdowne and his colleagues have fully adopted his policy. I was somewhat sceptical about that statement, but I read in The Times this morning, with regard to Lord Lansdowne's declaration last night, that Mr. Jesse Collings had informed one of the reporters of that paper that—
"What we have been pressing for for a long time is now settled."
Well, what is that? It is legislation for English farmers on Irish lines. You cannot possibly get away from that. It is set forth by Mr. Jesse Collings's spokesman and friend, Mr. Green, the secretary of the Rural League, in the following cryptic but ungrammatical sentence—
"Whatever is good enough for the Government of the day to do for Ireland, this country ought to have the same privileges."
I am well aware that Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill only proposes to ask for the trifling sum of £12,000,000 as an experiment—£10,000,000, of course, to go to the big men and £2,000,000 to the smaller holders. Consider what that means. True it is only £12,000,000, but once you embark on this policy it will be impossible to refuse to the majority of sitting tenants the facilities which you afford to a favoured few. That is absolute gospel truth. Lord Lansdowne, I think, sees that. For in accepting Mr. Jesse Collings's proposals yesterday the noble Marquess said—
"If they proceeded on the lines of Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill they would succeed so completely that they would be impelled to proceed further on the same lines."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not know what report the noble Marquess is quoting from, but he is quite in error in supposing that I accepted Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill or the Bill of any one else. Mr. Jesse Collings had inserted in his Bill what seemed to me to be a very useful clause, to the effect that in any proposal which he supported he desired that the financial basis should be such as to protect the public against loss. It was that, and that alone, to which I referred.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Then how does that reconcile itself with the statement in The Times to-day that the noble Marquess and his colleagues are in

719
favour of Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill? The noble Marquess was yesterday on Mr. Jesse Collings's platform, with Mr. Jesse Collings in the chair, approving—I think anybody would get that deduction from the noble Marquess's speech—of his proposals and saying, in the words I have just quoted, that if they proceeded on the lines of Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill they would succeed so completely that they would be impelled to proceed further on the same lines. What does that mean? What is Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill if brought to its natural conclusion? If you proceed—as is proposed in Mr. Collings's Bill—on Irish lines it means £120,000,000 which will have to be paid to English landlords and something like a total loan of a billion for a land purchase scheme. That was Mr. Jesse Collings's proposal as brought before Lord Haversham's Committee, and when asked where on earth all this money was to come from Mr. Green, Mr. Jesse Collings's spokesman, said it would come from taxation. There was consternation at that proposal; and then he said, "I think we could get it from a Guaranteed Land Stock at 3 or 3¼ per cent." when everybody knows that you cannot get money under 4 per cent. I really think on this side of the House we have a right—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I ask the noble Marquess what this most interesting disquisition has to do with the Motion whether or not this debate should be further adjourned?
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: The Motion before the House is for the further adjournment of the Bill. The noble Viscount opposite, in moving that Motion, was allowed to make a long statement about the iniquities and the wrongdoings of this Bill; yet I am called to order because I try in my own feeble way—ridiculous way, no doubt—to combat the most practised, the most finished, and the ablest debater on the Opposition side of the House. I only ask for fair play. I think I might be allowed to say in this House what I say outside, for I am never afraid to state in your Lordships' presence what I say on the public platform outside. All I have to add is that the proposal in Mr. Jesse Collings's Bill, which was, as far as I could understand, approved of yesterday by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, has to-day been repudiated by the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My speech was, as far as I know, faithfully reported in The Times, and if the noble Marquess will stick to what he finds in that report I shall not quarrel with him. But he has been putting a number of glosses on the text which have unfortunately altered the meaning.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I quoted the noble Marquess's exact words. I should like to ask whether there is any noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite who will get up and say that he is in favour of Mr. Jesse Collings's proposals. All I can say is that on the side of noble Lords opposite there does not seem to be a great consensus of opinion, for a Unionist writer in the Fortnightly Review calls Mr. Jesse Collings's proposal a "vast and ridiculous scheme" for peasant proprietorship and appeals to Mr. Bonar Law to "knock it on the head." I feel certain there will be great disappointment in the agricultural world at this perpetual postponement of Lord Lucas's Bill, which is intended solely to rectify a grievance admitted by every noble Lord on the other side of the House. I do not think the public generally will endorse the proposals of Mr. Jesse Collings, whether or not they are supported by noble Lords opposite, but that they would welcome the more practical and certainly the less revolutionary terms which the Government offer in this Bill, which I venture to hope will eventually become law.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I intervene in this discussion with some diffidence, and I do so partly to apologise to the noble Marquess opposite if I unduly interrupted him. I desired to remind the House that the question before us at the moment is the narrow one of whether or not we shall adjourn this debate for a certain number of weeks; and for the life of me, even after the additional explanation given by the noble Marquess opposite, I am at a loss to see how the merits or demerits of Mr. Jesse Collings's proposals or the speech which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday have the remotest connection at all with the question of whether or not we should adjourn this particular debate. But I am not going to pursue that point. This is a tolerant Assembly on points of order, and there is no individual in the House to whom it delights in being more tolerant than the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire.

721
I venture to make what I think is a practical suggestion. I share the objections to giving too long a notice when a tenancy is going to be determined. There are great and obvious dangers in that which any practical man knows and can take account of. We are at one on one important matter—namely, that there is a certain grievance or liability to grievance which has to be remedied. The Government have made certain proposals in this Bill. Those proposals have been criticised. Whether they have been criticised from a purely Party point of view, as the noble Marquess seemed to suggest, or from an agricultural point of view does not touch the suggestion which I am going to make to the House. These proposals have been criticised, and apparently they have been criticised with such effect that the Government themselves have put down some Amendments to the Bill. Would it not be a practical suggestion that we should go into Committee to-day to this extent—to let the Government put in what Amendments they choose so as to make their scheme a concrete one? We should then see their scheme as a whole without having to look to Amendments which they had placed on the Paper. However well-intentioned agricultural societies or even land agents' societies may be, it would be better for them to have the Government's amended proposals before them during the recess, and we could then see how far the Amendments had brought us together.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: As far as I am personally concerned, I have no objection to Lord Balfour's proposal. I think it would have this advantage, that the Central Chamber of Agriculture would have before them when they consider it the Bill as the Government desire it to be.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am under a certain disadvantage in dealing with this matter, because I have not been able to follow the earlier stages of this Bill in the sense of being present in the House while the discussions took place. I am, therefore, rather in the position of a questioner in this matter. Perhaps before I put the questions which I have in my mind I might say that it is true that my noble friend behind me, Lord Lincolnshire, did not in his speech confine himself exclusively to the question whether
722
this debate should or should not be adjourned, but that is no novel experience for us in this House, and I am quite sure that noble Lords opposite were prepared to receive with full good-humour the observations of my noble friend. I confess it did not appear to me, so far as the speech as a whole was concerned, that my noble friend's observations were in any way irrelevant, for this reason. It is assumed, at any rate for the purposes of argument, that there is a grievance or a difficulty in the case of certain sitting tenants when a property is sold over their heads, and the question is how that grievance or difficulty can be met.
It is proposed in this measure to meet the difficulty in a particular way. As I understand it, the answer of those who dislike the provisions of the Bill is this. They say there is a more excellent way of meeting this difficulty, and that by their plan, if not in all cases at any rate in selected cases, the tenant may become the purchaser by an advance of public money. I have certainly no desire to discuss the merits of any proposal for the creation of tenant purchasers, still less the question whether it is possible, as I gather noble Lords opposite hope, or the noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne hopes, to limit such advances to certain selected cases. I think my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire's observations were perfectly relevant, because he was treating a certain proposition as a substitute for the clauses in this Bill and was assuming, as it seems to me he was entitled to assume, that one reason for the apparently indefinite postponement of the consideration of the particular proposals in this Bill was to be found in the fact that a definite scheme for the substitution of some form of tenant purchase might be forthcoming in their place. If that is so, I venture to say my noble friend's observations were perfectly relevant.
But the questions I desire to ask noble Lords opposite are, What is the precise reason for desiring a further postponement of the consideration of these clauses? What is it expected will be gained in the public interest by a postponement of the discussion? I have no desire to go into the merits of the various proposals. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, has explained his objection to certain proposals which he considers may encourage bad

723
farming rather than good and are consequently for nobody's advantage. But what I do not understand is why, if the noble Viscount finds a majority of your Lordships to agree with him, that agreement should not be demonstrated in the ordinary manner by the consideration of these proposals, and, if you will, their rejection by those who do not like them. I should have thought that the consideration of the clauses in the Bill, of my noble friend's Amendments, of some other Amendments which I understand he is prepared to accept and some other Amendments which he will not be prepared to accept but which will presumably be carried against him—that a general discussion of that kind would assist those in the country who, as I understand, are still endeavouring to reach some definite conclusion on the subject. It would surely be a more helpful way of proceeding for Chambers of Agriculture or bodies of farmers, for whose opinions I understand noble Lords are waiting, to have the benefit of the discussion in this House and the matured opinions of this House after consideration in Committee rather than for us to wait upon their opinions before arriving at a conclusion. The difficulty, therefore, of adopting the course proposed by Lord Balfour and assented to by the noble Viscount is that there are, as I have said, some Amendments of noble Lords opposite which His Majesty's Government are able to accept, and I confess I do not see what would be lost by continuing the discussion as a whole and placing the Bill in a shape in which it commends itself to the majority of your Lordships' House. The question, therefore, which I have to ask the noble Marquess opposite is, What is the precise gain in the public interest of a further postponement rather than of an immediate consideration of the various clauses in the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is only by the courtesy of the House that I can speak again, and I do so in reply to the two very precise questions which the noble Marquess has addressed to me. I do not think he would have addressed them if he had been in the House when I made a few remarks earlier in the evening. The noble Marquess asks what is our reason for desiring the postponement of the Committee stage. My answer is that we desire a postponement because there is
724
in our possession an immense amount of evidence to show that the Government proposals are regarded with great and growing disfavour by the agricultural community. The noble Marquess also asked what we expect to gain by a postponement. We expect by a postponement to gain an opportunity of ascertaining for ourselves whether that disfavour is only superficial or whether it is a growing disfavour, and whether it represents a deep-seated conviction in the minds of the farmers of this country. This Bill is intended for the relief of a certain class of farmers, and it seems to me that the first thing that it is necessary for us to know is whether the farmers themselves regard the Bill with favour.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I confess that I feel very strongly about this measure. I disapprove of it entirely, and should be glad to see it rejected. I agree with the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, that we should before proceeding with the Bill have before us the views of the various Chambers of Agriculture. I cannot see any object in going on with the Bill at this moment, and I hope that my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, who so clearly put the case before us and showed that the long notice in the Bill would be injurious to every class of agriculture, will persist in his Motion for the further adjournment of this debate. The noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, said there was a good deal of support for this Bill. I venture to say I have never come across it, although I have mixed in agricultural circles all my life and am connected at this moment with an agricultural association which is certainly non-political. I submit that we ought to know when we meet again in October who the supporters of this measure are. As far as I can see, the Bill has received no support whatever from the agricultural community. In the county of Northampton an ardent supporter of the Government who represents the Northampton Chamber of Agriculture is as strongly opposed to this Bill as I am; and so far as our Chamber of Agriculture in the North of England is concerned we would welcome any measure which would be of advantage to agriculture, but we cannot support this Bill.
I have one great objection to the Bill, and that is to the lengthening of the period

725
of notice to quit. I believe that the present term of notice is of essential benefit to the outgoing tenant as well as to the incoming tenant. In many important agricultural districts a system of six months' notice to quit has worked most admirably, and the best relations have existed between the incoming and the outgoing tenant. I am told by a friend of mine, a leading agriculturist, that under a six months' notice to quit, with a Lady Day entry, it is the outgoing tenant who prepares the crops which the incoming tenant will reap, but so complete are the arrangements, under the custom referred to, for the payment of compensation to the outgoing tenant that he has every inducement to farm well up to the moment of quitting. In this way a high state of cultivation is secured on a change of tenancy to the advantage of all parties concerned. This is the custom which prevails under the six months' notice system in many parts of England, and to sweep that away in one fell swoop and substitute the provision in this Bill would, I think, be fatal to agriculture. I hope, therefore, that the debate will be adjourned until October, and that in the meantime we shall ascertain the views of the great agricultural bodies. We shall then be in a better position to deal with the Bill.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I should like to state that I was present at the discussion of this Bill at the Farmers' Club and also at the discussion by the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and I know that the Farmers' Union are in agreement with those two bodies that this Bill is not worth having and not worth amending. None of these bodies will meet again until after the harvest. Therefore they would not be likely to consider any amended Bill which may be reprinted now, supposing we went into a discussion in the manner proposed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. No doubt it would be a great advantage to have the Bill of the Government as they propose to amend it before us, but if we were to discuss these Amendments, as Lord Crewe suggested, now, I think the whole matter would be forgotten long before the meetings of these practical bodies in November. It would be far better that the discussion should take place here in October just before the meetings of these bodies than that the discussion should take place now and be entirely forgotten before they can meet. I have been connected with the Central
726
Association and the Farmers' Club for forty years, and I entirely disagree with Lord Lincolnshire that these bodies look upon questions from a political point of view. All these questions ale discussed fairly and practically, and I am sure it would be of great advantage that these bodies should have this matter sufficiently in their minds when they meet in November.
LORD LUCAS: I believe I am in order in speaking to the noble Viscount's Motion for the adjournment of the debate. I do not think we have received an answer to the question which my noble friend the Leader of the House put to the noble Marquess opposite, which was this. As noble Lords opposite attach such importance to obtaining the views of the various Chambers of Agriculture and other bodies, what is the objection to letting them discuss the matter and obtaining their opinion upon the Bill in the form in which it would emerge from Committee? We want their opinion, not on the Bill in the shape in which it stands at this moment, but in the shape in which we hope to put it. I must say I think it is a little humiliating to the dignity of this House to be told that we are to defer our deliberations in order that we may obtain the opinions of a number of bodies, who, as Lord Heneage has told us, will probably not meet to discuss this matter until November. We are quite prepared to consider the opinions of agriculturists. But if we are going to attach so much importance to the opinion of these bodies, surely what we ought to have is the considered opinion which they will be able to give on the Bill in the shape in which it would emerge from the Committee stage. Lord Balfour suggested that we should go into Committee and that the Government Amendments should be inserted, but that the other Amendments should be left over. May I say that that is not a counsel of the greatest valour. It rather looks as if noble Lords opposite felt that they were burning their fingers by touching the Bill at all. There is a practical difficulty in adopting the course which Lord Balfour suggests. There are eight Amendments on the Paper standing in the names of noble Lords opposite, including one of the first importance which Lord St. Levan has put down and which we are prepared to accept. If the Committee stage were taken now and those Amendments became part of the Bill the Bill would be a very different one, and if it were reprinted in the shape in which

727
it would stand on emerging from the Committee stage we should then be able to obtain a much fairer opinion from agricultural bodies. Therefore I very much hope that we shall take the Committee stage to-day, and we would fix the Report stage and the Third Reading for dates after the
Resolved in the affirmative, and debate adjourned accordingly sine die.

NATIONAL INSURANCE.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government what weekly contribution is required from employer and employed in respect of domestic servants being members of English approved societies who are employed for a part of the year in Ireland; and whether, if the contributions are to be throughout at the English rates, such persons will be entitled to the full English benefits when employed in Ireland; or if the contributions are to be at the Irish rates during that part of the year when they are employed in Ireland, they will nevertheless be entitled to the same benefits as if they had paid the full contributions on the English scale throughout the year. I admit that this is a difficult conundrum, but I hope the Government will be able to answer it in at all events a fairly satisfactory manner.
vacation to suit the convenience of noble Lords opposite.
On Question, That the debate be now adjourned
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Powis, E.

Digby, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Harris, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Heneage, L.

Verulam, E.

Hindlip, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Hylton, L.

Eldon, E.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Halsbury, E.

Falkland, V.

Lamington, L.

Lichfield, E.

Hill, V.

Lawrence, L.

Londesborough, E.

St. Aldwyn, V. [Teller.]

Ludlow, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Newlands, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Balfour, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Mayo, E.

Barrymore, L.

St. Levan, L.

Minto, E.

Clinton, L.

Sherborne, L.

Morton, E.

De Mauley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, V.

Haversham, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Lucas, L.

Blyth, L.

Southwark, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Channing, L.

Strachie, L.

Charnwood, L.

Swaythling, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Welby, L.

Craven, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Willingdon, L.

LORD WILLINGDON: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord Liverpool, who has hitherto replied to Questions on the National Insurance Act, is unable to be present to-day. In his absence I have been asked to give the following answer to the noble Earl. Contributions are payable at the English rate while the servants are actually in England (i.e., in normal cases 7d. a week for men and 6d. a week for women, of which 4d. and 3d. a week respectively may be deducted from wages), and at the Irish rate while the servants are actually in Ireland (i.e., in normal cases 5½d. a week for men and 4½d. a week for women, of which 3d. and 2d. a week respectively may be deducted from wages). While the servants are in England they will, under the ordinary conditions, be entitled to all the ordinary benefits of the Act, including medical benefit or a money equivalent. While the servants are in Ireland they will be entitled to the ordinary benefits as in England, with the exception of medical benefit.
LORD HENEAGE: I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether those workers who have been induced by the National Insurance Committee's leaflets to join friendly societies which had been approved previous to July 15 and may now or in future desire to transfer their cards of membership to other more suitable societies will be able to do so, and under what conditions. The reason I ask this Question is that we have formed a large rural workers' association in Lincolnshire and have already got some 22,000 members. There are a large number of small societies who would like to join it and become affiliated, but a difficulty has arisen. Many of their members, frightened by the leaflet which was circulated a mouth ago, have already become members of the Prudential and other societies, and they do not know whether they would be allowed to transfer their cards to a society which would be of much greater benefit to them.
LORD WILLINGDON: The advice given on the leaflets published by the National Health Insurance Commission is entirely justified. Until a person has been accepted as a member of an approved society he risks prejudicing his admission, either through breakdown of his health in the meantime or through the possibility of the conditions of admission being made more stringent. At present the bulk of approved societies are accepting members practically without any medical test. It is possible that conditions will be made more stringent after the class of deposit contributors has once been formed. Neglect to look for a society now may easily continue until the opportunity is lost unless specific warning is given of the need for early action. In addition, full advice as to his position and rights under the Act will most readily be obtained when the individual has behind him the assistance of an approved society of which he has become a member. If a person who has joined one society desires to transfer to another he must give due notice, to the first society of his intention to withdraw. Transfers are regulated by Section 31 of the National Insurance Act, under which consent to withdrawal cannot be unreasonably withheld by a society; and the Commissioners would be disposed to consider that a society would be acting unreasonably in refusing consent to withdraw in the case of persons who had joined a society hurriedly without much con-
730
sideration and who desired to withdraw for the purpose of joining a society appearing to them to be better suited to their circumstances and requirements. Persons who have become members of an approved society cannot transfer their membership to another society merely by handing their contribution cards upon expiry to the second society. Transfers must in all cases be effected in accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the Regulations, and the original card must be surrendered to the society which issued it. The necessary adjustments in respect to contributions already paid will, of course, be made when the transfer is carried out.
LORD HENEAGE: Each person will have to apply individually for transfer?
LORD WILLINGDON: I gather that is so.
LORD HENEAGE: Then a small club or society will not be able to become affiliated if a great number of their members have become members of another approved society?
[No answer was given.]

THE FISHERIES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
LORD HENEAGE: I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries whether he can now state whether the Chief Inspector of Fisheries, Mr. Fryer, will remain under the new Assistant Secretary of the Fisheries Department in his present capacity; or, if not, whether the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries will give the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association an opportunity of conferring with him before the appointment is filled up, with a view of obtaining the services of some person with a thoroughly practical knowledge of the sea fisheries industry.
LORD LUCAS: Mr. Fryer, who is sixty-two years of age, continues for the present to occupy the post of Superintending Inspector of Fisheries. No date has been fixed for the termination of his services. In the circumstances, the alternative Question of the noble Lord does not arise.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.