§ Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, when the noble Earl who presides over the Board of Agriculture moved the Second Reading of this Bill on May 25, he told us that it was his intention to limit it to ex-soldiers and sailors, but if your Lordships look at the Bill you will see that it bears a much wider and much larger meaning. Clause 1 runs—
During the continuance of the present war, and a period of twelve months thereafter, the Board…for the purpose of providing experimental small holding colonies, may acquire land," &c.275 No reference is made to colonies for ex-soldiers and sailors. The Bill applies to the whole country, and to all persons without exception. The noble Earl told us very plainly that his intention was that the Bill should apply to ex-soldiers and sailors only. I therefore presume that he will have no objection to putting words into the Bill which will show clearly what its object is, because as it is at present worded the Bill conveys quite a different meaning.Every Bill, of course, ought to contain a clear and full statement of its object, but it seems to me especially necessary that this should be so in the present case because of the Report of the Departmental Committee on which this Bill is said to be founded. The Departmental Committee departed from the terms of their Reference and went entirely beyond the consideration of the subject which was committed to them. Their Reference was—
To consider and report what steps can be taken to promote the settlement or employment on the land in England and Wales of sailors and soldiers, whether disabled or otherwise, on discharge from the Navy or Army.The way in which the Departmental Committee construed that was this. They say in the Report—We were appointed to consider what steps can be taken to promote the settlement or employment of sailors and soldiers on the land after the war. From these terms we have assumed the Government to be agreed on the policy underlying our reference—namely, that it is to the advantage of the nation that the agricultural population of the country and the supply of home-grown food should both be increased, and that the attainment of these objects can and ought to be promoted by attracting to the land suitable ex-Service men at the end of the War.… Accordingly we have understood it to be our duty to advise how best to carry out this policy.If your Lordships look at the remainder of the Report you will see that the main object of it is addressed to the question of small holdings generally, and not to finding small holdings for ex-soldiers and sailors.As I have said, the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture told us, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that it was his intention to limit these applications for land to ex-soldiers and sailors, but there is not, a single word in the Bill to confirm that. To so limit the Bill is, of course, the intention of the noble Earl. But some one else may succeed him, and I venture to think your Lordships should not pass the Bill in this slipshod sort of way. Were the Bill passed in its 276 present form and then, as an Act, taken before any Judge, he would hold that it was an Act which applied to the whole of the country. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will see no objection to inserting words which will make clear what the object of the Bill is. The noble Earl told us that the Bill is an experiment. An experiment, no doubt, it is; and I do not propose in any way to interfere with that experiment, provided that it is limited as I said just now.
The greater part of the noble Earl's speech in moving the Second Reading was not addressed to the Bill, but to a number of details, such as, for instance, the quality of the land to be taken, the way in which the tenants were to be selected, and matters of that kind. Those details, of course, cannot be inserted in a Bill, and I do not apprehend that it would be for this House to consider them. They are the A B C of small holdings, and we assume that the Board of Agriculture has common sense, and would not think of taking land which was unsuitable or putting upon land tenants who were unsuitable. Then the noble Earl spoke of the probable success of this experiment. There will be different opinions, of course, as to the way in which it is likely to succeed. Some persons will think it is likely to fail, while others will be of a different opinion. The noble Earl said himself that it would be a failure if it were not an economic success. I do not think that is a question which we can argue at the present moment in this House. One can only express an opinion, and no doubt we all have our opinions, some in favour of the experiment and some not. The success or failure of the experiment can only be proved by practice.
Then one notices that there is nothing in the nature of an estimate in the Bill—no estimate with regard to the expenditure or the receipts. I dare say it may be desirable not to introduce figures, but I should have thought it would have been better to adopt a practice which has been usual in this House, which is to insert figures here and then strike them out when the Bill is leaving this House. I regret to see that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is to be entrusted with the administration of the Bill so far as that country is concerned. I am sure that any Scotsman or any person who knows Scotland and has had experience of the Scottish Board of Agriculture is quite convinced that this Board is not to be 277 trusted with anything. It is the very worst Board, I do not hesitate to say, that has ever been created by Parliament. It has done nothing but injustice. It was entrusted with great powers which it has consistently and persistently abused from the very time it was formed, and it certainly is not fit to be trusted with any additional duties. I do not think that there is anything more which calls for remark at the moment, and I will not further detain your Lordships at this stage.
LORD SHEFFIELDMy Lords, I agree to a great extent with what the noble Earl has just said, but I feel obliged to go more into detail in regard to the Bill than he has clone. I will at once state that I regard this as a thoroughly bad and dangerous Bill. It is based entirely upon the Report of the Departmental Committee, and even the fringe of the attractive bait of doing something for ex-soldiers and sailors disappears from the Bill as there is no reference to ex-Service men in it. Any one who reads the Report of the Departmental Committee will see that, having got a start by being told to do something to promote the settlement or employment on the land of sailors and soldiers on their discharge from the Army or Navy, the Committee at once declared that their business was to consider" the advantage it would be to the nation that the agricultural population of the country and the, supply of home-grown food should both be increased."
It is quite true that this is an experimental Bill. As to the expenditure to be incurred, the excuse may be put forward which the young woman made, that "it is a very little one"; but these little ones, if you tolerate, them and admit the vicious principle involved, grow to man's estate and become very expensive. This Bill contemplates three experimental colonies. Clause 1 refers to the, taking of 6,000 acres in England, and a later clause contemplates the taking of another 2,000 acres in Scotland. Each of these schemes, I understand, in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, is to cost about £100,000 and each will accommodate about 100 settlers—that is to say, you are starting schemes which at a minimum expenditure will cost £1,000 a settler. At the present rate of borrowing, £1,000 means £50 a year for ever, and if you were thinking of doing something for the welfare of retired soldiers and sailors that is rather an expensive way to set about it.
278 But the whole of the expenditure involved is not comprised in that sum, which includes only the cost of the acquisition and the equipping of the land. Those who read the Report of the Departmental Committee will see that there will be many other expenses; while there is an elegant paragraph saying that the scheme is to be on "a sound economic basis" and "self-supporting." That is all very well. People always start by saying that. You then find that the scheme is not going to be self-supporting at all, because the Departmental Committee say that every colony is to have a sort of managing director and expert, who is to be paid £500 a year and to have a house; there is also to be a sort of subordinate expert, a kind of farm bailiff, at £120 a year with a house. Those will be permanent charges on the colony.
Moreover, every colonist who does not already know his work is to be taught it, and the minimum time which this will take is put at a year if the man goes in for market gardening or fruit-growing, which it is contemplated will require a holding of ten acres; while in the case of a man who goes in for mixed farming, which will require twenty acres, the time occupied in fitting him to take up his holding will be more than a year, though the Committee do not say how long. And this is not all the cost, because the ignorant man coming on to the land, who after a period of a year or more is to be fit to take up his holding, is to be paid in the meantime what the Report calls a "living wage," which, seeing the sympathy people have with ex-Service men, cannot be put at less than £1 a week. And he must have a house besides—and that while he is learning his job and earning nothing. There is no attempt to calculate what this experiment is to cost. The scheme is to be self-supporting! The incurring of all these extra charges after having paid £1,000 for putting a man on the land is a thing which no sane person would embark upon with a view to bringing out a sound balance. While we are spending £5,000,000 a day, many seem to think that there is no harm in throwing other money away on a wildcat scheme; yet in regard to the daily details of useful work people are being pressed to suppress expenditure and to avoid extravagance.
I should like the House to consider for a moment the vista that is opened up to us by these proposals, because it is idle to suppose that you are going to deal with any 279 great social questions by providing for some 300 or 400 people on experimental colonies. The Committee say that we have not anything like enough people working on the land, and that we must not only bring back to the land all the agricultural labourers who have been withdrawn to take part in the war, but also attract others. It is calculated that quite 300,000 agricultural labourers have joined the Army. Are you going to contemplate putting anything like 300,000 men on the land? If you are, it would involve 4,500,000 acres. But this Committee are not satisfied with that. They say we should put a lot of other people on to the land, not only those who were on the land before but a lot more. It is all very well to have people on the land if they can earn as good a living upon it and be as productive to the country as in other employments, but we ought not to attempt to deal with this great question at the fag-end of a little scrap of philanthropy.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in a debate on small holdings some eight or nine years ago, gave us a word of warning about the difficulty of keeping people on the land. He referred then to a work in French by M. Meline, which, after hearing his speech, I bought and read with great profit. He shows in this book how difficult it was in France, a country of small holdings, where people have every national tradition and instinct to remain on the land, to keep the land well populated. We have the same experience in our own Colonies, where there are vast stretches of vacant land. The complaint in Australia is that the towns grow to a great extent, and that the population of the towns equals, if it does not exceed, the rural population.
Then it is suggested that with this cheerful little experiment we should embark on an expenditure which will grow, not to millions or to tens of millions, but may go to hundreds of millions if we are to carry out this experiment to its full extent. I venture to say that we ought not to be asked in the middle of a great war to start an experiment of this kind and to pledge ourselves to a principle which will involve vast expansion in future. It is no use trying to coax us into adopting a principle which is bad on the pretence that it is merely an experiment. There are plenty of people possessing more political bias than economic knowledge who are always thinking that this question of small holdings is the panacea of society, and it is not a safe thing at the 280 present day to give precedents in an Act of Parliament which people can appeal to as a basis for unsound economic experiments. I have made a good many extracts, with which I will not trouble your Lordships, from the Report of the Departmental Committee. I think I have said enough on the economic point to show that if this scheme is worked at all it must be costly, the cost not adequately stated, and must be most experimental and speculative in its result.
There is, of course, no compulsory power in the Bill to buy 1,000 acres here or 2,000 acres there. The good will of enthusiastic landowners is trusted to in the matter. But do you suppose that you are going to buy on a large scale plots of 40, 50, or 100 acres? How are you going to do that? The Departmental Committee say—and I agree—that it is no good buying land for these small holdings unless you buy good land; and the Committee contemplate land producing a rent of £2 an acre. I do not in the least deny, if the experiment is to be tried, that this is the sort of land on which you should try it. But these are not to be like county council small holdings, where the county council take up such land as they can get here and there. These are to be colonies. I agree, if you are to put people on the land as small holders, that the system of a concentrated colony is likely to be more successful than scattered holdings. It affords more opportunities for co-operation and marketing, and we all know how the concentration of the fruit-growing interest at Evesham has been helped by their working together and having telephonic communication with the great markets. The Committee say that the land must be of uniform quality throughout. I ask noble Lords whether they think that this country is full of areas of 2,000 acres all of good £2 an acre quality.
The Departmental Committee say they want to get to work at once; they would have liked to get to work by March of this year, so that they might have the land in hand to start the people upon next year. They admit that it is very hard to turn out a tenant. Therefore you must go to the landlord when a farm falls vacant and ask him to accommodate you with the land. But how many farms of 2,000 acres, worth £2 an acre, fall vacant? A man may have a farm of 200 or 300 acres of that quality, but very seldom a farm of 2,000 acres. Again, do you suppose that a landlord's moral obligations to his tenants cease with 281 the death of a tenant? That tenant usually leaves behind him sons who reasonably expect to succeed him, and most landlords would do then best to recognise the moral claim of the son of the previous tenant to occupy the land if he is a good farmer and respectable. But no. The suggestion is that the landlord should take advantage of the death of the tenant, seize upon the land, and turn it over to the Board of Agriculture. I submit that this would be a most unpopular, odious, and unjust thing to do. Moreover, it would not work. You do not have blocks of 1,000 or 2,000 acres falling vacant at the same time. People sometimes complain that the county councils want to take out the eyes of the land and get the best for their small holdings. Here you would be taking out the eyes of all the countryside in counties where land is valuable and fetches a high rent. You would have to concentrate these people in those counties which have good land. The whole thing is, to my mind, unpractical and unfair.
I read in The Times to-day that the Government of Queensland are offering free 1,000,000 acres for ex-Service men, on condition that we will not stand in their way in raising on loan the necessary money for railways and other things. It may be desirable to keep able-bodied and energetic men in England rather than that they should go to the Colonies, and from the point of view of our own interests as landowners we should do our best to keep a good, able-bodied population on the land in England. But I undertake to say that a real, able-bodied, energetic, go-ahead man would do far better for himself in one of our great Colonies than he would in England. He would go ahead more; he would have more opportunities for expansion; he would live in a more self-reliant atmosphere; and in Queensland, New Zealand, or Australia, he would probably produce twice as much produce at the end of a year as he would in England. From the economic point of view of the whole world, our Colonies as producers go far ahead of this country; and I have no doubt that if a man is anxious to go on the land and is to be encouraged, it would be better for him to embrace the opportunity of going on the land elsewhere than in this country. There is in our Colonies plenty of vacant land and no rights of owners to be dispossessed, and the man would have the sympathy of the community in starting his holding. But I do not want to urge that. If we were to have 282 a general debate on small holdings and the best way of promoting them, we might go into all these questions much more fully.
This Departmental Committee have published only their Final Report, and not the evidence. We do not know what evidence they took, how carefully they sifted it, or how far they examined both sides. I am of opinion that there must have been very inadequate sifting of the evidence on the whole. I consider that this Bill, although it pretends to be put forward as an experiment, involves a bad principle and so many vicious details that it ought not to be encouraged in this House.
VISCOUNT GALWAYMy Lords, I rise to support what was said by my noble friend Lord Camperdown as to the necessity of clearly stating in the Bill that it applies only to ex-soldiers and sailors. Before we give our decision with regard to the Second Beading, I think it right that we should have from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill some further explanation on one or two points which I will mention. It seems to me that this is practically what may be called a philanthropic Bill, because it is to benefit some 300 or 400 men only, and not really greatly to increase the agricultural population. We are most anxious in every possible way to help, on their demobilisation, the soldiers and sailors who have so gallantly defended their country, and for that reason it is incumbent upon us carefully to examine this Bill and see whether the proposal contained in it is the best means by which we can help these men. The Report of the Departmental Committee has been before the County Councils Association on two occasions, and the general feeling of that body was that they hoped that in no way would their action be fettered, and that their independence of judgment would be left free as at the present moment.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEHear, hear.
VISCOUNT GALWAYWe have to judge the Bill by its details. The noble Earl, in moving the Second Beading, said it was inconceivable that they would not be able to get 300 men to take up holdings. He puts the number who will come under the Bill as between 300 and 400 at the most. The President of the Board of Agriculture has frequently mentioned—and all of us who live in the country feel the same thing—the great dearth of labourers 283 at present on our farms, and I think it is the duty of the Board to do all they can, at the time of demobilisation, to encourage every able-bodied man who was formerly on the land to resume his employment with the farmer by whom he was previously employed, who would be only too pleased to welcome him back. I am glad to know that a great many of those who went from agricultural districts represented to their employers before they joined the Colours that they hoped when they came back to be taken on again. That is a thing which ought to be encouraged in every possible way. Therefore I think it is rather injudicious for public statements to be made by the Board of Agriculture that when demobilisation takes place there will be many hundreds of men who will not go back to their previous employment on the land but who wish to take up small holdings themselves.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI have never said that.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNENot by me.
VISCOUNT GALWAYI, of course, accept the noble Earl's denial. The object of the Bill is to encourage these men to take up small holdings. We understand that the question of partially-disabled soldiers will be taken into consideration under this scheme; but, of course, that would be only a small help to the various committees which have been started all over the country to deal with the question of disabled soldiers after this war. The noble Earl, in his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, expressed his very clear sense of the necessity of rents being charged which would cover all the cost of the operation. The noble Earl's scheme is on a large scale. There are to be churches, schools, and halls constructed. It is advisable that your Lordships should understand whether the rents are to be fixed at such a price as to cover all this very heavy expenditure. It seems to me that the possibilities are that when the noble Earl has started his various colonies he will find the colonists unable to pay such heavy rents as this large expenditure would demand. Then there is a difficulty which has been experienced by 284 county councils in regard to small holdings. There is a great disinclination on the part of men taking up small holdings to go very far away from the locality in which they have lived all their lives. In the case of my own county council, a man who was offered a holding at the other end of the county declined it because he did not wish to go so far away. Men coming back after the war, however, may look at the matter in a different light.
The noble Earl stated, in explaining the Bill, that it was advisable that these future small-holders should have a certain amount of capital. I presume from his statement that he thinks it possible to take on some who have no capital at all. In that case, they will have to be paid a wage for the first six months before they earn anything; and if that is to be done they had very much better be persuaded to help existing farmers, who are very short of labour all over the country. I can well understand, however, that a soldier with no capital, if he receives the offer of a house and an offer to finance him for a year, would gladly undertake a holding even though he knew nothing about agriculture. I hope that the noble Earl will see that this does not take place. This Bill is practically a scheme, and as a scheme we have to take it as a whole. Owing to the rules of your Lordships' House, there can be no clause put into the Bill stating the amount of money required to finance it. But we had some figures given to us by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sheffield) as to the possible cost. We also see in the Committee's Report some talk about asking the Treasury for £2,000,000. Considering that money has to be provided for the purchase of land which is not leased, for the equipment of the holdings, and for working capital, the cost will run up to a very large sum. Perhaps the noble Earl could give us figures as to the possible sum which would be involved. I do not think that would be going beyond the rules of your Lordships' House, and we should then know better whether we should be justified in going on with the scheme. I hope it will not be thought that I do not wish to do all that is possible to help ex-soldiers and sailors when they return from the war; but we have to look at this from a practical point of view, and consider whether we should be justified, in view of the present heavy taxation, in asking the taxpayers for such a large sum of money in the interests of such a limited number of men.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, something has been said during the course of this discussion as to the fact that, though this Bill is obviously intended for the assistance of discharged and disabled soldiers, there is nothing in the text of the Bill itself to show that it is so limited. I do not think that criticism is an unreasonable one, and I have no doubt that when we come to the Committee stage my noble friend behind me (Lord Selborne) will be prepared to consider whether language might not be used which would clear up that point, because we make no secret of the fact that the main object of the Bill is to afford a means of providing employment for ex-soldiers and sailors. I am quite sure that I do not misrepresent the feeling of the House when I say that there is nothing which we would not do in order to alleviate their lot as far as possible. I think we ought to make up our minds that we will leave no stone unturned, no region unexplored, in our endeavour to find a means of alleviating the lot and improving the prospects of these men who have served their country so gallantly and so well.
The case has been dealt with very fully in the Report of the Verney Committee, to which so much attention has been called. I quite admit that if you take the whole of the recommendations of that Committee they will appear to some of us rather of an ambitious and far-reaching character. We have proposals not only for farm colonies, but also for colonies in which there shall be expert instructors, central depôts, recreation rooms, social amenities, and so forth. These things may seem to some of us counsels of perfection, but I hope that we shall none of us brush these proposals lightly on one side, because to my mind they deserve the most careful examination. With regard to farm colonies, I have always been most deeply convinced that if the policy of small holdings was to be carried out successfully, by far the best prospect of doing so is to be found in what my noble friend behind me (Lord Sheffield) called the concentration of the smallholders in groups within particular areas; and I know that at one time when I had the pleasure of working on this subject with the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Milner) we came to the same conclusion. My noble friend behind me was good enough to recall a speech that I made upon this subject some years ago, in which I quoted a well-known work of M. Meline. To 286 every word that I then said I still adhere. I have always been in favour of multiplying small holdings, but I have never been in favour of an attempt to do so in an indiscriminate manner. I have always said that you need to choose first the land and next the man, and that unless both the land and the man are suitable your experiment is foredoomed to failure.
In this case it is quite true that we start on the assumption that we wish to find not only a capable agriculturist but an agriculturist who has served his country as a soldier or sailor, and that, of course, narrows the area of selection and makes the task of selection obviously much more difficult. I do not for an instant believe that out of the great number of men who are now serving their country a very large number are going to seek employment upon the land. I think the ordinary soldier is much more inclined to gravitate towards the towns than towards the country. But I nevertheless believe that you will find quite a substantial number of men who will be glad to take to agriculture, and I venture to maintain that for those men every possible facility should be provided. At any rate, I can conceive nothing that would create a worse impression than if your Lordships were to intimate that it was your view that no room could be found for these men upon the land of this country, and I was a little shocked when I heard my noble friend behind me suggest that if these ex-soldiers and sailors wanted to take to farming we might pack them off to the Colonies. I dare say they would do very well when they got there, but I think it would strike rather a jarring note if we were to proclaim that there was no room for them upon the soil of their own country.
LORD SHEFFIELDI never said that. I said I thought a man would do a great deal better on the land in the Colonies.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEBut there are a great many men who have that passionate love of home which would make them prefer even a less measure of prosperity in this country to a more brilliant opening beyond the seas. What I think we ought to bear in mind is that this Bill is, after all, merely a proposal for an experiment—I admit a great experiment—in this matter. The amount of money to be spent is limited, the amount of 287 land to be used is limited, and the whole of the proceedings are to be taken subject not only to the supervision of the Board over which my noble friend behind me presides, but to the supervision of the Treasury.
There is another important point which I think my noble friend brought out when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and that is that in the selection of those who are to be thus trained or employed his Department will have the assistance of the Statutory Committee, which is well able to sift cases and to choose those men who would promise to turn out well as agriculturists. Then I noticed that my noble friend behind me held up his hands in horror at the idea of our embarking upon a project of this kind while the war was still going on, but I should like to put it to him that if this thing is to be done at all with any prospect of satisfactory results we have not a moment to lose in making a beginning. It is urgently important that we should commence these experiments as soon as possible, and the experience we shall derive from them will tell us whether we can safely push them forward having regard to the necessities of the case and the amount of expense to which the country will be put. I will not follow the matter up further this evening, because I think the greater number of the points which occur on this Bill can best be raised at the Committee stage. But I do express my earnest hope that this House will give some kind of a benediction to a project which I believe to be perfectly justifiable, and which is due in fulfilment of the great debt we owe to the men who have been serving their country so well.
§ EARL GREYMy Lords, I heard with great satisfaction, as I am sure did every member of the House, the important statement from the noble Marquess that His Majesty's Government would leave no stone unturned and no region unexplored in their efforts to alleviate after the war the condition of the soldiers who have offered their lives for the country. But I would very respectfully point out to His Majesty's Government that if this is the object of the Bill now under the consideration of the House, the Bill is miserably inadequate. There was a circular-letter sent round to the members of the Australian Forces asking whether they would embrace any opportunity 288 that was offered to them for settling on the land; and 25 per cent. signified a desire to go on the land after the war was over. We have in the Army 5,000,000 men; 5 per cent. of that number is 250,000 men. Therefore supposing that instead of the 25 per cent. which in the Australian Forces have signified their desire to go on the land, 5 per cent. only of our men intimate a similar desire—that is 250,000. I do not think it is extravagant to suppose that if 25 per cent. of the Australian Forces wish to go on the land, 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom Forces would desire to do so also. As I say, that means 250,000 men. If the object of this Bill is to meet the requirements of our ex-Service men, it is totally inadequate for the purpose. It provides an opportunity for but a beggarly 300. What has little Tasmania, with a population of under a quarter of a million, done? She has undertaken to provide 300 farms for members of the United Kingdom Forces, in addition to the farms she is providing for her own soldiers.
My noble friend Lord Sheffield criticised this Bill from the standpoint of a Radical individualist. I welcome the Bill with both arms because it is the first evidence on the part of His Majesty's Government that they believe that the future well-being of this country lies in an easy transition from an individualistic to a co-operative commonwealth. I welcome this Bill with both arms because of its co-operative character. It is the first Bill which has put before the country those principles of land settlement which have been successful where they have been tried—namely, in the Dominions across the seas. Our miserable attempts in this country have all been founded upon a wrong individualistic principle. It has been well said that we have not one single successful example of land settlement in this country. And why? Because every attempt we have made has been founded upon individualistic principles. The principles of successful land settlement require the group system, the full application of the co-operative principle—co-operative purchasing, co-operative cultivation, co-operative, marketing, facilities for obtaining credit, and also expert guidance and scientific direction. I welcome this Bill because it is an honest attempt to apply these principles, which have been found successful where they have been tried in other 289 countries. I would point out to the noble Lord, although I think from his remarks he is in sympathy with the co-operative principle, that the great difference between British agriculture and the agriculture of those countries where the co-operative principle is in force is that in those countries the output from the land is greater than it is here; and if the desire is to promote the output of food from the soil, I am glad to think that an experiment is going to be made which will create a public opinion in favour of the co-operative principle. The noble Lord thought it would he very unfair to landowners and tenants.
§ EARL GREYTo the farmers, on the ground that they possibly might be displaced in the national interest. I do not take that view. We are now in a national crisis. We are face to face with the infancy of the submarine development, and it is quite likely that the noble Lord will be tightening his own belt very shortly unless the national production of food is increased. We have to increase the output of food from the soil. I should like to see a premium upon output, and all landowners penalised who keep bad tenants. Whatever has to be done with a view to increasing the output of food, as far as ex-soldiers and sailors are concerned my belief is that we can do more for them by increasing employment—I hope at high wages—upon the land than by going into experiments limited to this small pittance of 300 farms. That may be done by giving credit on easy terms to companies who will develop the land on the best up-to-date scientific lines. I would point out to the noble Lord, who is so well informed on all things, that when I was in New Zealand two years ago I saw to my astonishment dairy land being sold at £60 to £70 an acre, when London was the market for their produce; and I saw last week some gentlemen from Denmark who told me that they were selling land at £80 an acre, and they considered their land not so fertile as that of England, their climate very much worse, and their market was our market of London. They were of opinion that by scientific cultivation, provided it is supported by large capital, which might possibly be obtained on easy terms from the State, we might be able 290 greatly to increase the output of food from the soil, and greatly to increase the number of men on the land who would be in receipt of high wages.
LORD LOVATMy Lords, I should like to say a few words in connection with the points raised in the course of this debate. In the first place I would submit that, judging from what our experience was at the conclusion of the South African War, Ministers should realise that it is more than probable that at the end of this war the demand for change of occupation amongst those now serving their country is likely to be a large one. There is one noble Lord in the House to-day—I refer to Viscount Milner—who could give some very interesting facts with regard to that because I believe he faced the settlement question in South Africa on broad lines, such as the present Government might with success copy in facing this problem in this country. I agree with Lord Grey that in this Bill this question is being faced from a parochial and not from an Imperial standpoint. In facing this question of employment of ex-soldiers at the end of the war we ought to co-operate with our Colonies. The body to deal with the settlement of the land in this country should be composed of men of light and leading, who could fully embrace those advantages and prospects which have been put forward by our Colonies, so that we might make one complete scheme to deal with this question.
I do not think that either by 6,000 acres in England or 2,000 acres in Scotland, with the limited funds mentioned, and to be dealt with in the spare time of two already fully-occupied Boards I do not think such a scheme is in the least likely to lend itself to thorough success. Speaking with a small experience of the administration in South Africa of land settlement in the case of soldiers, I know that you will have great support from those men of means who serve with the soldiers in the field. In the small work in which one took part out there the questions of money and land and assistance were easily overcome, provided the direction was one in which the helpers had confidence. I do not think the spare time of the English Board of Agriculture, still less the spare time of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, is sufficient to put on a proper footing this national movement which we require to 291 do justice to those men who have fought for us overseas.
Turning to the Scottish side, of which I can speak with some experience, I am quite certain that the offer made by Lord Lucas would be repeated many times in Scotland, provided we were clear that the administration would be a fair, just, and economic one. Therefore I think it is important that if this question is to be faced it should be faced on adequate lines, and not in the very small way in which it is faced in this Bill. I think that on the question of time we must consider that this Bill will not have run this experiment before the war may be over, and before the clamour and rush has come about. That is exactly the difficulty which Lord Milner had to face in South Africa. He had a scheme there which dealt in millions, and in tens of thousands of acres of land, and it was carried out with, on the whole, most satisfactory results. That was achieved because the land difficulty was perhaps slighter. But he had to encounter many difficulties which do not arise in land settlement in this country.
Among the witnesses before the Committee there did not seem to be any one to speak with authority on the Scottish side of the question. I do not see that the question of land settlement in connection with forestry was raised anywhere throughout the whole Inquiry. I think that this is really extraordinary. We know that the question of employment up to the time when the first crop is gathered in and the question of dealing with the housing are two most vital points in a land settlement scheme. I submit that these can be easily dealt with in connection with employment such as forestry. From the fact of this work being done at a time when no work can be carried out on small holding lands, it is a most admirable arrangement in the case of men with small capital; and I hold that this should form an integral part of any scheme of settling ex-soldiers on the land. I am perfectly well aware that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland—which I think is very much more a political than an administrative body—has, for some reason or other, set its face solidly against forestry; but in a land where the agricultural acres are not great, especially in the Highlands from which such a large number of soldiers come 292 considering the smallness of the population, this should form a portion of any settlement of this question and an integral part of any small holding scheme.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKMy Lords, as a member of the Departmental Committee which considered this question of the settlement of ex-Service men on the land, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture for having brought in this Bill to give effect to one of our recommendations. The proposal of the Committee as to the formation of these colonies is admittedly an experiment, because previously no small holding colony has been established under the conditions which we have suggested. I believe it is an experiment that is worthy of trial, and I am myself hopeful that it will prove to be successful. But the success of the scheme must depend upon whether it is carried out in a sound, practical, and economic manner, and I am glad to have heard from the noble Earl that Captain Charles Bathurst has offered his services, and that those services have been accepted by the Board, for the purpose of supervising and making the necessary arrangements; because he is a man who has a very practical knowledge of the subject, and, as your Lordships are aware, has for many years taken a very great interest and a prominent part in agricultural matters. And I am pleased to hear that the Board will, if necessary, have the benefit of the wide knowledge and great experience of Mr. Rowland Prothero.
The difficulty which the Committee experienced was that of forming any estimate which was at all reliable as to the possible number of ex-Service men who would wish to go upon the land. For our purpose, in considering our Report, we divided these men into two classes. The first class would be men who had been previously on the land, and who might wish at the end of the war to have small holdings. We took it that the greater proportion of those men would desire to go back to the counties from which they came, and to be among their friends and neighbours; and we came to the conclusion, therefore, that those men should be dealt with by the county councils in those counties. We have also suggested in our Report that certain amendments should be made to the Small Holdings 293 Act in order to give greater facilities to county councils in acquiring land, and also to relieve county councils of some of the risks which they now run in forming small holding schemes. The second class of of men we have to deal with are men who have previously been in towns, or have been in other occupations than agricultural. They would be men, presumably, without previous experience on the land. I was glad to hear what fell from Lord Lovat just now. He thinks that a considerable number of men of that class are likely to take up an agricultural life. Personally I have never myself very much believed in the cry of "back to the land." I have always thought, in the case of men who for many years have lived in towns and been accustomed to town life and surroundings, especially when they are married and their wives have been accustomed to living in towns, that it would be extremely difficult to get those men to alter their surroundings and take up a life which we must admit is not very attractive and is sometimes dull. But I think we may assume that there will be a sufficient number of men at any rate to take up the holdings which we propose to provide on the three pioneer colonies recommended in our Report.
Personally I think there is no reason why a townsman with no previous experience, if he is a man of the right stamp, if he is healthy, strong, intelligent, and has his heart in the business, should not be made in process of time into a successful small-holder. In fact, we know many instances of that. We also know from experience that very often some of the best colonists and those who have been most successful on the land in our Colonies have been men who have come from the towns and have had no previous experience in that direction. Such men, if they really wish to go on the land, must in the first instance be prepared to work as labourers in order to get sufficient knowledge and experience; and when they show the requisite knowledge and aptitude those men can, I believe, safely and without risk be taken as small-holders. But I quite agree with what fell from a noble Lord just now, that a certain amount of capital is essential for a man who takes even the smallest possible holding. In however small a way he begins, he must have some amount of capital; and that you will see is included in one of the 294 recommendations in the Report of our Committee. We have emphasised that it would be most undesirable to accept any man as a tenant unless he has some money which will enable him to carry on.
I believe that the only way to give such men a chance of success is by establishing colonies on the lines that we have, laid down—colonies on which in the first instance they would be employed as labourers on wages; colonies on which they would be instructed in the work and sufficiently supervised. Arrangements should be made that when they prove themselves capable they should be provided with a small piece of land. Many of the men, of course, would have to begin with a very small piece of land. But the colony should be so laid out that when they have shown themselves capable of successfully cultivating a small piece of land their acreage could be gradually extended. And when they have become occupiers of the land they should have the benefit of expert advice and superintendence, and should also have the benefit of co-operation both in buying and selling; and we also hope it may be possible to arrange for a system of credit banks to be established on these colonies. I know that in touching on the question of agricultural credit we are dealing with a very large matter. The suggestions made in the Report of the Committee touch only the very fringe of this question. It is a matter that I believe has, or at any rate may have, the attention of the Board of Agriculture; but I hope that even the small experiment which we suggest in our Report with regard to agricultural credit may be of some value and assistance to these men.
As the noble Marquess opposite pointed out, there are three essentials for the success of a small-holder. In the first place, the land must be suitable land—that is to say, it must be good land. We all know from experience that there is not the slightest chance of a small-holder succeeding if you put him upon poor land. Secondly, the land, although not necessarily close to a town, must be accessible to good markets, so that the small-holder may be able to market his produce at the best advantage. The third and most important point of all is that you should get the right men to go on the holdings. The personal element is the main factor in the success of the small-holder.
295 I believe that the scheme which we have suggested will meet all those conditions. I think we may trust the Board of Agriculture to acquire only suitable land, and land in a suitable position. I was glad to hear from the noble Earl the President of the Board that he had already received offers of land, much of which may be found suitable for our purpose; and I should also like to express my appreciation of the assistance that has been offered by Lord Lucas in placing the whole of his property at the disposal of the Government for this purpose. With regard to the tenants, careful selection will, of course, have to be exercised. These men will be working for a considerable time on the land; they will have to be approved by the manager, in consultation with the Board of Agriculture, before they are accepted as tenants; and I believe that exceptional opportunities will thus be afforded of taking proper care that only men of suitable character and of proved experience are accepted as tenants.
I should like to say a few words on one or two criticisms that have been made, not so much upon the Bill as upon the Report of the Committee of which I was a member. My noble friend Lord Camperdown considered that the Committee had exceeded their Reference by expressing the opinion that in the national interest it was exceedingly desirable that we should have an increase in the output of home-grown food and also an increase in our rural population. I do not know whether the noble Earl agreed or did not agree with those opinions, but I was extremely glad to hear the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey) give hearty approval to the expressions we have made in the Introduction to our Report. What I should like to point out is this, that whatever expression of opinion on national subjects we may have made in the Introduction to our Report, our recommendations are directed simply to the question of the settlement of ex-Service men upon the land.
§ LORD SHEFFIELD indicated dissent.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKThe noble Lord opposite rather doubts what I say upon that, but I would refer him to the "Summary of recommendations" in Paragraph 131 of our Report. I think if he reads those recommendations he will 296 find that there is not a single one which deals with the general question of small holdings. Every one of these recommendations is directed to the particular proposal of how ex-Service men who so desire can be placed on the land to the best advantage. I should like to remind the noble Lord opposite that this Bill deals only with the question of acquiring 6,000 acres of land in England and 2,000 acres in Scotland. Therefore the possibility of whether 100,000 acres of land of a suitable quality can be acquired for the sake of forming small holdings throughout the country is hardly one that arises on this Bill.
The noble Lord opposite asked how it was that the evidence given before the Departmental Committee had not been published. I am exceedingly sorry that the evidence has not been published, but I am given to understand that the reason is one of war economy. It was considered undesirable at the present time that the country should be put to the expense of publishing the evidence. I must say, for my own part, that it would be much more satisfactory to me, and I am sure to all the other members of the Committee, if the evidence could have been published, so that those who read the Report might see how far the Committee were justified in their Report and how far it was based upon the evidence put before them.
This Bill enables the Board to carry out an interesting, and what I believe to be an exceedingly important, experiment upon a small scale, and without involving a very large charge upon the country. I believe it to be important for this reason. As your Lordships are aware, for many years now a large number of our agricultural labourers have been leaving this country and going over to our Dominions beyond the seas. We all wish that our Dominions should be populated by men and women of British race, but we cannot afford to lose from the land all the best and strongest of our young men. The reasons that have led to this emigration are many and various. I will refer to only one of them, and I believe it is one of the principal reasons. Many labourers in this country feel that they have little or no chance of improving their position in life. If a man is born of parents who are agricultural labourers, he becomes an agricultural labourer and continues an 297 agricultural labourer all his life, with very little chance of improving his position. There is no ladder by which the labourer can by degrees become the tenant of a small piece of land and gradually improve his position, possibly becoming eventually the owner or occupier of a considerable piece of land. Unless we can offer these men an opportunity of settling on the land in this country under suitable and favourable conditions, I feel convinced that when the war is over and the Army is demobilised we shall find a very large number of men whom we should like to keep in this country leaving our shores. I believe therefore, not only from the point of view and in the interests of the ex-soldier but also on national grounds, this scheme is one that is worthy of a trial, and for myself I sincerely hope that it will meet with success.
§ LORD STRACHIEMy Lords, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sheffield) began by saying that this Bill was a very dangerous one. I agree with him up to a certain point. My reason for thinking it a dangerous Bill is that I believe it will be very likely, from the way in which it is drawn, from the little power which is in it, and from the lack of any real economic arrangement, to have a disastrous effect, and to prove that small holdings on the colony system are an absolute failure because of the expense. I understand from the noble Earl that he bases the whole of his Bill upon the principle of no charity rents and of the scheme being economic. I cannot help thinking that the experiment, to be successful, is much too small. Here it is proposed to take only 6,000 acres in this country. Where you have success spread over a large area, you are very likely to have failure where you try only isolated experiments.
I cannot help thinking that it is a mistake that there is no compulsion in the Bill. I could have understood it if the noble Earl had said with regard to compulsion, "We as a Coalition Government, containing a Party which has always objected most strongly to the principle of compulsion, do not propose to put compulsion in the Bill." But the noble Earl said he had no objection to compulsion; it was only omitted because he expected to get as much land as he wanted by agreement. But I would venture to point out to the noble Earl that although he may be 298 fortunate, as in the case of Lord Lucas, to have landowners prepared to put large acreage at his disposal, yet it is very unlikely in the case of 2,000 acres to be taken out of an estate that you would have the whole of that in a ringed fence. There would be small-holders mixed up in this area, and it would be necessary to have power of compulsion in such cases; otherwise the chances are, as everybody knows who has tried to buy up land intermixed with a farm, that you will be asked a most extortionate price. It would be of great advantage to the President of the Board of Agriculture for the time being to have the power to say, either in the case of the small-holder or of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or of the Charity Commissioners, "If you are not reasonable we will take the land by compulsion." I cannot see any greater justification for compulsion than in connection with putting ex-soldiers and sailors upon the land.
I should be glad if the noble Earl would give the House some indication of what the size of the central farm is to be. I understand that the central farm, to begin with, will probably be of very large area, and that by degrees the men are to be settled upon various small holdings surrounding or adjoining the central farm, part of the scheme being not to put approved men on the land at once but to educate a certain number of men who will have to be trained before they are put upon the small holdings. But the noble Earl said, in his speech in moving the Second Reading, that on the 2,500 acres the proposal was to put 100 men eventually. Well, if 100 men are put on the whole 2,500 acres, that would mean only 25 acres apiece; but probably the central farm would be something like 500 acres, and therefore you would get it down to something like 20 acres apiece. If that is so, I venture to say that it is practically impossible to have an economic small holding of only 20 acres. It is generally admitted that no holding can be made to pay which is not 50 acres, or worth £50 a year; and I do not think the noble Earl will say that the land he is going to acquire is worth from £2 to £2 10s. an acre.
Throughout his speech the noble Earl impressed on the House that nothing in the Bill was going to be compulsory. He said the same with regard to establishing co-operation. If you are to make this 299 co-operation scheme successful I venture to think you will certainly require something like 80 per cent. of the small-holders to be ready to co-operate. I cannot see what objection there can be to having a rule that any man who is given this great privilege and all these facilities and assistance must at the same time become a co-operator for the sale of his produce as well as for buying what he wants on his farm. I cannot help Thinking, from the experience we have had in other directions, that it will be very difficult to get the great bulk of these men to go in for co-operation voluntarily.
Then there is the question of the cost of administration. I do not know whether that has been made clear by the noble Earl to other noble Lords, but to me it is not clear whether the cost of the administration, which must be very great if it is to follow the lines of the Report of the Departmental Committee, is to fall upon the rents or on the Treasury. In the event of the latter, if all these extra officials are to be appointed, would it not be better to give the county councils some power to deal with this question if they thought fit, and also to give the Board of Agriculture power to delegate to any particular council which was ready to do it these interesting experiments? But whether it proves very expensive or not, it is going to be a very interesting experiment. I would point out to the noble Earl that in the present condition of things—I say it with great regret—small holdings under county councils will become practically a dead letter owing to the enormous expense. Instead of paying 3 per cent., or 3½ per cent., we shall probably have to pay 5 per cent. or 5½ per cent. for money, which in most cases will make it absolutely prohibitive for county councils to buy land. Therefore county councils which have staffs of officials costing money might employ those staffs with regard to this experiment, and the experience they have already gained would assist them in the experiment and help to make a success of it. Personally I have grave doubts whether you will make a success of this particular experiment economically. At the same time, I think it is worth while making the experiment. My only regret is that the Bill does not go far enough, and that the Board of Agriculture does not ask for greater powers than there are in the Bill.
LORD HARRISMy Lords, I should like to say a few words purely from a practical agricultural point of view. I do not think it is any good our imagining that this is going to be a commercial success. It is a purely philanthropic movement, and from that point of view I welcome it. I agree with the, noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) that we should do everything we can to help these men, but from practical experience I do not see how this scheme can possibly be a success.
I will give you a few figures. The noble Earl, we will assume, is going to buy—we will not go into the question of hiring—£2 an acre land. What price will he pay? I put it very low when I say £30 an acre; therefore the 6,000 acres will cost £180,000. Then he has to build houses. My impression is that in the Report of the Departmental Committee 300 men are mentioned somewhere or other. However, I shall not be very far out if I take 300 men as the number whom the Board desire to benefit. He has to build houses for these men. I take the average price of houses in my own neighbourhood, which is £200. That is a further £60,000, making in all £240,000. Then he has to provide the working capital for these men. I am assuming that he helps them in that. Again I take the ordinary working capital per acre for farming purposes in my own district—namely, £10 an acre; that is another £60,000, bringing the total to £300,000. Then I will assume that he plants with fruit, say, one-third at £10 an acre; that is £20,000. Then there is the fencing and the farm buildings. I throw in that at £180,000. That gives a total of £500,000 to be spent upon the 6,000 acres. Now 5 per cent. upon that is £25,000 a year. Each colonist gets, say, 20 acres apiece. The man has to put £200 into that—£10 an acre. Now my noble friend is taking £2 an acre land; therefore the man has to find £2 an acre, or £40 a year. That will give my noble friend £12,000 a year, which is only 2½ per cent. The noble Earl is out there, so far as I can see, by half the interest he ought to get.
Now let us look at it from the point of view of the man; and, after all, the factor of the whole thing is whether the man can make it pay. He has 20 acres; he has to pay £40 a year rent, and he has had £200 to help him. Now what rate of 301 interest does my noble friend really think that man is going to get out of 20 acres of land? One's own experience with men who have taken up small holdings under county councils I do not lay very much stress upon, because they are new to the work. But I lay a great deal of stress upon the innumerable small holdings that I know of in my own neighbourhood where it is extremely rare indeed, even with the help of fruit in a fruit county, to find any small holding let at as much as £2 an acre. I will take 20 per cent. Supposing a man can earn 20 per cent. on his £200—£40 a year. Is that anything, to use a colloquial expression, "very fat"? It is not as much as an ordinary agricultural labourer can earn. That is the fallacy of the whole thing.
I sincerely hope that my noble friend will meet with success. I entirely agree with him that it is necessary for this country to get as many people on the land as possible. But with the enormous expense thrown upon land by local councils, by rates and by taxation, our own experience is that it is extremely rare to find an agriculturist making a large profit, and extremely rare indeed to find a farmer who has made a fortune. I have submitted these as practical figures which cannot be got behind; and it comes to this, that a man on these colonies, in order to make anything like a living, has to make something like 25 per cent. a year, and then he only earns as much as an agricultural labourer.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE)My Lords, I am much obliged to your Lordships for having given this Bill such full consideration, and with your permission I should like to reply to the criticisms that have been made by members of your Lordships' House who have a full knowledge of the subject which they have been discussing.
First of all there was the criticism of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, which was taken up by others of your Lordships, that although the genesis of this Bill is a desire to benefit a certain limited number of discharged or disabled sailors and soldiers, no mention of the limitation of the Bill to that purpose is contained within its clauses. I drew attention to that in my speech the other day, and your Lordships may take it from me that there is no doubt whatever 302 as to the intentions of the Government. We desire these pioneer colonies to be not only an experiment of the nature which I attempted to describe last week, but to be for the benefit of discharged sailors and soldiers; and I am quite ready to consider whether words can be found during the Committee stage to indicate our intentions. The matter is not quite so simple as might appear at the first sight. In the first place, there must be included in these colonies a few men who may not necessarily be ex-sailors and soldiers, who will be there for the sake of example and instruction. But altogether apart from that obvious fact, your Lordships must remember that if these colonies are the success which I hope they will be and are perpetuated, a day will come when their occupants will not necessarily be discharged sailors and soldiers. The descendants of the men who are taken from the Army or the Fleet may not themselves ever serve in the Army or the Fleet. Therefore words cannot be put into the Bill which would at some future year render a succession of son to father impossible, or necessitate the exclusion of an excellent small-holder because he had not served in the great war.
Then the criticism was made that there was no estimate in the Bill. Here I will deal with the observations of several of your Lordships, taking those just made by my noble friend Lord Harris as my text. Lord Harris calculated that this scheme can only be philanthropy, and cannot possibly be business. I do not agree with the noble Lord. If I had agreed with him I would not have introduced this Bill or made myself responsible for it to Parliament. Lord Harris made a calculation that £500,000, roughly, would have to be expended in order to start these colonies. If he will turn to the Report of the Departmental Committee, Paragraph 98, he will see that their estimate of the maximum cost is £334,000 and of the minimum cost £100,000.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEYes. I do not pin myself to either of those estimates. If I am successful in hiring the land, as I believe I shall be, the total capital cost would be nearer the smaller than the larger estimate; and that would make a difference, as my noble friend will see at once, to the 303 rent that would have to be charged to the small-holder. But the estimates made by the Committee, which I have had checked to the best of my power except so far as they relate to the cost of building, which I observed in my previous speech had undoubtedly risen since this estimate was made, are sound estimates. They are based upon the experience of county councils in working the present Small Holdings Act, and, in respect of the rents which these tenants can afford to pay, upon the actual rents being paid by tenants of a similar character on similar land held either from a county council or from some private landowner. I was myself on a farm in Yorkshire a few days ago where a small-holder was manifestly thriving and paying a full commercial rent for what my noble friend would call £2 land.
I do not for one moment deny that this question of finance is a dangerous one. I think I said in my previous speech that the economic success of the scheme would depend upon its management. With careful management and a determination not to spend money for which an interest cannot be paid by a properly chosen small-holder, I am sanguine enough to believe that the scheme can be made a commercial success. The sums I have given are a rough indication of the limits between which, for the purposes of these three colonies, the Treasury will be asked to find the money; and your Lordships may rest assured that the Treasury will not be too eager or too rash in approving any scheme that I may bring before them. I should have to make my case very good to those gentlemen at the Treasury who scan, and properly scan, the proposals of other Departments with a keen and critical eye. So far as I am aware the Treasury will be no more prepared to pass my scheme in respect of these colonies if I cannot show a reasonable chance of commercial success than they are to approve of the schemes in connection with the county councils.
Then the noble Viscount, Lord Galway, asked me whether there was any proposal to fetter the discretion of the county councils in their administration of the Small Holdings Act. No. I am sorry to say that there is a bar on their operations owing to the fact that the Treasury is not prepared at the present moment to advance money; and I do not know when the Treasury will feel itself free to remove that restriction. But so far as my Department 304 is concerned, I can assure the noble Viscount that we desire nothing more than to facilitate and assist by all means in our power the operations of the county councils, and I sincerely trust that the Treasury will feel itself able before long to remove the bar which it put on when the war broke out, because we shall require all the assistance of the county councils in dealing with the problem of demobilisation.
Let me pass for one moment to the consideration of the question raised by Lord Grey and Lord Lovat. Their complaint was that this scheme was too small—just as Lord Strachie attacked the scheme from another point of view also because it was too small; not because it was too rash, or too ambitious, but because it was too small. I venture to think that if I had been fortunate enough to have had all your Lordships as my audience last week I could have been able to show you, what obviously is not manifest to all of you, that this modest little Bill, because it is a modest little Bill notwithstanding what Lord Sheffield may say—
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEIt does not pretend to be a great contribution to the vast problem of demobilisation. I do not think any of us can think too seriously of that problem. It is a problem such as this country never has yet had to face, and indeed we should be neglecting our duties as a Government if we were not already studying it to the best of our ability. This Bill does not pretend to solve any of those great questions which will be raised on demobilisation. What it does is this. Can the principle of the colony be applied to a policy of small holdings? Some people think it can; others think it cannot. We say, Let us see whether it can be so applied successfully. If it can, then I venture to say that we have made a great step in advance in dealing with the problem of small holdings. Therefore in my previous speech I described this Bill as an experiment, not as a solution of the problem of demobilisation. We feel our responsibility in respect of demobilisation acutely, and we shall be quite prepared to consider that problem with the Governments of the Dominions, but we should be very wrong if we used any words that made those millions of men in the Fleets and in the Armies think that we could possibly take 305 upon ourselves the liability of setting up each one of them in the business of his choice when he left the Army or the Navy. That would be a task quite beyond the resources of any country, or beyond the powers of any Government. But I think there will be very few people in this country—not even Lord Sheffield himself, I believe—prepared to say to these men, "You may go to Australia; you may go to Canada; we are not going to make any attempt whatever to find a place for you in the land which you have saved." I certainly should not be prepared to take up that position; and therefore, although this is only a small contribution, I am indeed happy that this experiment is going to be associated with the men of the Army and of the Navy.
Then Lord Galway said, Surely it is better to encourage the men who have left the land to go back and work for the farmer. Nothing that I ever say will tend to the discouragement of those men. On the contrary, I want all who will go back to the farms to do so; but I hope the farmers will realise that they cannot possibly expect the wages of agriculture to fall to anything like what they were before the war. I hope one of the permanent blessings snatched from the horrible catastrophe of this war will be the raising of the wages of the agricultural labourer. But it is not improbable that some of those who were working on the land may not desire to go back as labourers, and there are others who have hitherto worked in the towns who may wish to try their fortune on the land. It is from the ranks of those men that I hope to get my recruits for these colonies.
I was asked by Lord Galway, How can you possibly charge an economic rent if it covers the cost of churches, chapels, and recreation rooms? I never intended to suggest that we were going to build churches and chapels for the benefit of these colonists. What I meant to convey was that the property would be so laid out that the whole thing would fit in together, and sites would be provided for those who wished to build churches and chapels in the right place and in the right connection with the whole scheme if the colony is not put down at a place where there are already places of worship.
VISCOUNT GALWAYThe noble Earl said that the colonies must have these various buildings. Therefore I thought he was equally bound to provide them.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am glad the noble Viscount has brought that to my notice. I may have used the words loosely. I did not intend to convey that impression. Lord Northbrook, as a member of the Committee, explained the point of view from which the Committee had approached their task, and gave what I think your Lordships will agree was a very interesting account of the scheme which the Committee had in view. Then Lord Strachie declared that the Bill would be a failure because the experiment was too small. I am afraid I must be content to accept that criticism as the noble Lord's opinion. I do not think it is on too small a scale for the purpose of ascertaining whether the colony system can be made a success. If the noble Lord regards it as a solution for the problem of demobilisation—which, as I have already said, it is not intended to be—then, of course, I should have to confess that it is on too small a scale. But I do not understand why it should be a financial failure, or why it is more likely to be a financial failure because it is limited to 6,000 acres and a number of settlers that will not probably exceed 300.
Then the noble Lord asked whether the cost of administration would be charged to the tenant. The cost of administration except that of training will undoubtedly be charged within the rent of the tenant, and therefore we must cut down our staff to the smallest possible limit. And he asked me what was to be the function of the central farm. He said that if it were of a large size the holdings would be obviously uneconomic. Last week I put before your Lordships a picture of the scheme of the Committee which we have adopted as the starting point of our experiment. But I hope you will not think that I start with any immutable principles in this matter. To make an experiment like this a success it is necessary to be guided by experience, to remember that the circumstances of every colony will differ; and, in fact, so far as the details are concerned, we may get contributions of suggestions and of ideas as we go along that will enable us to modify the proposals of the Committee and to improve upon them. I shut my mind to no teaching of experience; I shut my mind to no suggestions, because I know that if I attempted to approach this problem with cast-iron ideas the experiment must be doomed to failure. Therefore when I said that we hoped to keep a central farm 307 always in being, I was describing then the plan of the Committee, and a good plan I think it is. Whether on every colony we shall always be able to keep anything that you would describe as a farm permanently in being I am not sure. I think there must be something in the nature of experimental plots connected with the central depot. Whether it would still loom in size as a farm I am not able to say, because it would be absurd to sacrifice the economic character of the holdings to the object of maintaining a central farm. The object of the scheme of a farm is merely as an assistance and an aid. I hope that explanation will answer the noble Lord's doubts on that point. Lord Sheffield criticised the Bill and the scheme, but if he will permit me to say so his attack was much more on the whole question of the State attempting to establish small holdings in this country.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEYes; but the spirit of the noble Lord's speech was, as Lord Grey said, that of the individualistic Liberal. I think there are very few of your Lordships, on whichever side of the House you sit, who do not agree that the time has come when we must try to increase the number of men who, either as owners or as occupiers, have a stake in the land of this country. I do not put forward this Bill as any important contribution to the solution of that problem, except in so far as it may lead the way to a new type of small-holder in this country. But the criticisms of the noble Lord from the point of view from which he delivered them, although most interesting and not often heard from this side of the House, certainly not often heard in recent years, passed lightly over my head.
Then the noble Lord opposite made the pertinent criticism—and this is another example of the way in which the sketch I made last week may be departed from in administration and in practice—that everything in this Bill is to be voluntary; even co-operation is to be voluntary. There is no doubt that the scheme of the Committee was voluntary co-operation, and when I addressed you last week I spoke in such a way that your Lordships might quite reasonably have thought I was pinning myself necessarily to voluntary co-operation. I am very glad that the noble Lord has given me an opportunity of safeguarding 308 myself against that supposition. I admit that experience may prove that co-operation may have to be an essential condition of tenancy. Therefore I hope your Lordships will understand that I do not pledge myself to the voluntary principle in respect of co-operation.
The phrase I would use in respect of working out these details is that we must proceed on the principle of solvitur ambulando, because every colony will be different. For instance, if a colony were put in the fruit districts of Worcestershire the conditions would be very different from what they would be in that part of Yorkshire which I visited last Monday; and the conditions of a dairy colony must differ altogether from the conditions of a fruit colony. At any rate, the spirit in which I and my colleagues of the Board of Agriculture will approach our task is the spirit which I have endeavoured to indicate. I know that this is true of nobody more than it is of Captain Bathurst, who, as I said last week, had offered me his services. Well, perhaps that is scarcely the way I ought to have put it. I knew that Captain Bathurst had great experience and interest in all public work connected with agriculture, and that he had been ready at all times during the war to give his services for any such cause, and therefore I invited him to undertake the task, which he promptly accepted; and I think I can say on his behalf that nobody is more conscious than he is, except possibly myself, of the care that will have to be taken to prevent this degenerating into a philanthropic scheme. A great responsibility rests upon us to see that it is worked as an economic problem, and we know that we cannot triumphantly refute the pessimistic prophecies of the noble Lord behind me (Lord Sheffield) by any other method except by that of assiduous care and the readiness to learn by experience and to accept the ideas of other people.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 22nd instant.